HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008/02/07 Item 1
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA STATEMENT
ITEM TITLE:
SUBMITTED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
2/07/08 , Item
STATUS REPORT ON THE MISSING INFRASTRUCTURE
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM EFFORT TO DATE
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING THE ADA CURB CUTS PRIORITY
LIST
DISCUSSION REGARDING POTENTIAL REVENUE SOURCES
FOR INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS
DIRECTOR OF ENGINEERING AND>>. NERAL SERVICE~~
DIRECTOROFP~LICW RKSY--- '-.J
CITY MANAGER
~
ASSISTANT CIT MANAGER '7 }
4/5THS VOTE: YES 0 NO ~
BACKGROUND
In February of 2006, staff began development of an Infrastructure Management Program for a
limited number of the City's public assets including pavement; drainage; missing sidewalks, curbs
and gutters, and pedestrian ramps ("missing infrastructure"); deficient cross gutters (included with
missing infrastructure for the purposes of this report); and utility wire undergrounding. Since that
time, a comprehensive review of best-in-class work in the area of public infrastructure asset
management shows that in order to be most effective, this effort should be broadened to include the
full range of the City's public infrastructure.
A Council workshop was held on April 5, 2007 to initiate the discussion of infrastructure
deficiencies. The focus of that meeting was on pavement and drainage. Based on that
discussion, a resolution was subsequently adopted by Council on May I, 2007, transferring funds
from various projects and accounts into the City's Pavement Rehabilitation Program. The City
of Chula Vista has a pressing need to develop and implement a broad infrastructure asset
management program in order to create a comprehensive asset management approach that
ensures the best use of limited funding. This is the next step toward creating what should
become an Infrastructure Asset Management Program. Continued work on this effort will take
time and a significant investment of resources.
1-1
2/07/08, Item \
Page 2 of 26
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed project for compliance with
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that the project qualifies
for a Class 6 categorical exemption pursuant to Section 15306 (Information Collection) of the
State CEQA Guidelines. Thus, at this time, no further environmental review is necessary. As
funding is secured and each individual infrastructure proj ect moves forward toward
implementation, further environmental review will be required and a CEQAlNEP A
determination completed prior to commencing construction of any of the infrastructure or
facili ti es.
RECOMMENDATION
That Council:
I) Accept the status report on the Infrastructure Management Program effort to date.
2) Approve the resolution approving the ADA Curb Cuts Priority List
3) Utilize this opportunity for policy discussion and direction regarding potential revenue
sources for infrastructure needs.
BOARDS/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
Not applicable.
DISCUSSION
In February of 2006, staff began the development of an Infrastructure Management Program for the
following City public assets: curbs and gutters; deficient cross gutters (included with missing
infrastructure for the purpose of this report); drainage; missing sidewalks; pavement; pedestrian
ramps ("missing infrastructure"); and utility wire undergrounding.
Work in the four focus areas has identified an estimated total funding need of approximately
$392,400,000 to $396,000,000 (in 2006 dollars) to address gaps and deficiencies identified with this
first phase of infrastructure analysis. This amount is now $404,500,000 to $408,200,000 in 2007
dollars and was calculated as shown below.
Pavement
$ 192,000,000 over 10 years
$ 19,200,000 er ear
$197,900,000
$19,790,000
Drainage
Priority 1 Tier $ 28,800,000 $29,700,000
(Funded Projects) ($ 4,400,000)
Subtotal Priority 1 Tier $ 24,400,000 $25,200,000
Priority 2 -4 Tiers $ 6,300,000 to $8,900,000 $6,500,000 to $9,200,000
Priority 5 Tier $ 1,310,000 to 2,300,000' $1,400,000 to $2,400,000
"siam! Di~i~" Cor';:':,: '~t;'d Mei~f Pi,e,, , $"' '29:oi)ri,ooi)""",.",.".... . $;i9:900~OOO' n", --, --,., n,
Missin Infrastructure $ 139,400,000 $143,700,000
Subtotal Partial Infrastructure
Fundin Need
Utility Wire Undergrounding
$392,400,000
$396,000,000
$275,000,000
to $404,500,000
$408,200,000
$283,500,000
, Unable to estimate two of eight projects at this time.
1-2
2/07/08, Item \
Page 3 of 26
The focus of the initial Council Workshop on April 5, 2007 was on pavement and drainage
(Attachment I). While tonight's focus is on missing infrastructure and utility wire undergrounding,
the City of Chula Vista has a pressing need to develop and implement a broad infrastructure asset
management program in order to create a comprehensive asset management approach that ensures
the best use oflimited funding.
SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS COUNCIL WORKSHOP AND ACTIONS
In addition to a summary of the City's infrastructure needs, the following subj ects were discussed at
length at the April 5, 2007 infrastructure workshop:
. Infrastructure Asset Management Programs
. Drainage Issues
. Pavement Management
Infrastructure Asset Manal!ement Prol!rams
No specific actions were taken with respect to this subject, but it was addressed in the agenda
statement and presentation at the workshop. The function of an Asset Management System was
defined as achieving and maintaining a sustainable level of municipal infrastructure operation which
would provide cost effective service at levels that would contribute to attracting and retaining
residential and commercial customers. Components of this system would include a financial plan
linking the infrastructure capital and operations budgets; cost tracking; an asset inventory system
focused on preventive maintenance; an asset condition and capacity evaluation system based on
expected service levels; and a comprehensive computerized management information system for the
identification, prioritization, and monitoring of infrastructure capital improvement projects. Such a
system would also consider the life cycle of an asset, including initial capital cost, ongoing
operation and maintenance cost, and replacement costs and salvage at the end of its economically
useful life.
The common components in an Asset Management System are:
. A Customer Service and Work Management module to support the implementation of
maintenance programs and performance measurement
. An infrastructure information repository integrated with the GIS system
. A right-of-way management system
. Performance management
The City currently has inventory information for much of its infrastructure. Additionally, the City
has a Pavement Management System operated by the Engineering and General Services
Department and a Work Management System operated by the Public Works Department. However,
the City does not have one overall Asset Management System to manage all of the City's
infrastructure. These systems are expensive, with an estimated cost of $4 to $5 million to
implement and ongoing costs of approximately $600,000 per year. Staff will continue to develop
our systems as best as possible given current resources. Should the City move forward at some time
1-3
2/07/08, Item (
Page 4 of26
with a comprehensive financing plan for infrastructure management, this would certainly be a
recommended element.
Drainal!e Issues
For this presentation, "drainage" referred to the management of urban runoff and flood control
(pipes, culverts, channels, detention basins, etc.), and Corrugated Metal Pipe (CMP), which is part
of the City's storm water conveyance system.
Staff presented the following drainage priority system, grouped into five tiers based on the severity
and frequency of flooding.
Bonita Basin: Bonita Road and Allen School Road
Bonita Basin: Canyon from Terra Nova Drive to
Bonita Road
Central Basin: East of Second A venue and North
ofH Street
Central Basin: Hilltop Drive, Hilltop Drive, s/o H
Street to Shasta Street
Long Canyon Basin: Canyon from Corral Canyon
and East H to channel
Telegraph Canyon Basin: Country Club Drive
culvert, channel and First A venue culvert; Hilltop
Park upstream of First Avenue and Millan Court;
east of Hilltop Drive south of Telegraph Canyon
Road
Telegraph Canyon Basin: Fourth Avenue to Third
Avenue channel and L Street Culvert
Telegraph Canyon Basin: Moss Street and Fifth
Avenue
Telegraph Canyon Basin: Third A venue and
Emerson Street to 900' west; Emerson Street
draina e s stem
Total Priority I Tier Unfunded Projects
$ 500,000 $ 515,000
$ 3,900,000 $ 4,020,000
$ 1,500,000 (Completed) $ 1,546,000
$ 1,800,000 $ 1,855,000
$ 4,600,000 $ 4,742,000
$ 5,600,000 $ 5,772,000
$ 7,100,000
$ 7,319,000
$ 900,000
$ 928,000
$ 2,900,000 (Completed)
$ 2,989,000
excluding funded $25,151,000
Of the Priority 1 Tier, the Hilltop Drive project ($1.8 million) was recommended for construction
should funding be identified. This project was requested by the impacted residents in the early
1960's and received City Council support at that time. The project was partially funded as DR-134
and some preliminary work was done. In FY 2005, the project was deleted due to an ongoing
2 Unable to estimate two of eight projects at this time.
1-4
2/07/08, Item I
Page 5 of 26
inability to identify the remainder of the needed fimding. During fiscal year 2007-08, we have
completed two Tier I projects, one on Second Avenue north ofH Street and the other on Emerson
Street in the Castle Park neighborhood.
Based on the Corrugated Metal Pipe (CMP) needs identified as part of the 2004 Master Plan, the
City retained a consultant to televise and prioritize replacement/rehabilitation of the CMP within the
city. To date, approximately 14 miles of the City's total known 16 miles of CMP have been
televised. We hope to televise these remaining sections in the future, however, many of them are
problematic from an access standpoint. The remaining approximately two rniles of CMP was not
inspected due to access issues. The total CMP need is estimated to be $29 million (2006). Should
new or increased revenue be realized, a CMP program of $5.8 million annually for five years is
recommended.
Funding for drainage projects is problematic, since sources used in the past, such as the Residential
Construction Tax and Community Development Block Grants, are now reduced and/or otherwise
committed. For example, an increase to the current 70~ per month per residence Storm Drain Fee to
$2.1 0 per month would result in an estimated $1.5 million in revenue; however, this would require
voter approval, due to the requirements of Proposition 218. (Note that the annual need for the
NPDES program is now estimated at $2.6 to $2.8 million.)
At the April 5, 2007 workshop, Council adopted a resolution approving the Drainage Project
Priority List and authorizing staff to seek special fimding for any project that meets the fimding
criteria. Since that date, the Bonita Canyon and Long Canyon Stabilization projects have been rated
in Tier I of the Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (IRWMP). However, this is only a
first step in obtaining possible fimding for these projects. Future fimding under IRWMP is subject
to currently undetermined Proposition 84 guidelines.
Pavement Manal!ement
The major focus of the previous workshop was pavement management. The City initiated and
has maintained a pavement management system since 1986 in accordance with the California
Streets and Highways Code, which requires California cities to implement a pavement
management system as a condition to obtain funding from the State transportation improvement
programs. Pavement assessment is recommended every three to five years. . The new Pavement
Management System instituted in 2006 is based on visual inspection and rating of every street
segment for severity of seven distresses. Approximately 431 centerline miles of streets and 10
centerline miles of alley were inspected and rated according to this methodology in 2006. Based
on the street segment's overall condition, it falls into one of the following five categories:
. Excellent to Very Good: 100 down to 85
. Good: 85 down to 70
. Fair: 70 down to 50
. Poor: 50 down to 25
. Very Poor: 25 down to 0
The estimated citywide pavement rating (PCl) was 79 (Good) with the range of scores falling
between 13 and 100.
The City's Pavement Management System is based on the philosophy of pavement preventative
maintenance - applying the right treatment on the right street at the right time. Previously, the most
1-5
2/07/08, Item \
Page 6 of 26
common approach to project selection within a network was the "worst-first" strategy. In this case,
the pavements that are selected for treatment are those that are closest to failure. Accordingly, the
treatments that are applied are more expensive and more time-consuming to construct. The worst-
first strategy quickly depletes available fimding focusing on streets that cannot get worse. In the
meantime, streets in acceptable condition continue to deteriorate due to lack of attention,
opportunities to expand the useful service life cost effectively are lost and the backlog continues to
grow as these once acceptable streets quickly drop into the "major rehabilitation needed" category.
The result is a quickly growing backlog that outpaces any progress made by sinking all available
fimding into the worst streets.
The type of pavement rehabilitation method is based on the condition and category (residential,
collector or arterial) of a street. Treatment methods range from crack sealing and Rubber
Emulsified Aggregate Slurry (REAS) Seals and Chip Seals for the streets in the "good" to
"excellent" rating category to the total reconstruction of the base and pavement of a street when it is
in a "poor" condition. As shown on the Pavement Deterioration graph below, it is desirable to
rehabilitate pavement before severe deterioration occurs and the cost increases exponentially.
Pavement Deterioration Curve
c 100
0
E 80
'tl ~
c-
ou 60
Ue:.
.... ><
c CIl 40
CIl 'tl
E c
CIl 20
>
l'lI
ll. 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Pavement Age (Years)
- - - Arterial
-Collector
- -Residential
Several pavement fimding scenarios were presented to Council. Although the ideal fimding
scenario of $19.2 million per year would theoretically increase the City's overall PCI from 79 to
81, it was recognized that this level offimding would not be immediately attainable. However, a
level offimding based on the City's existing (2006) five-year plan for use of Trans net fimds, plus
Proposition 42 fimds, would only provide $40 million over 10 years and would result in an
estimated decrease in Citywide PCI from 79 to 64 and an increase in the City's backlog to $160
million, almost four times the current estimate.
At the April 5, 2007 workshop, Council adopted a resolution endorsing the continued
implementation of a Pavement Management System. Since insufficient Councilmembers were in
attendance to obtain a 4/5ths vote for appropriating funds for Pavement Management, this item
was carried over to May I, 2007. On that date, Council adopted Resolution No. 2007-108
1-6
2/07/08, Item
Page 7 of 26
(Attachment 2), transferring in funds from the current Transnet fund balance, as well as from the
fund balance from the North Broadway Reconstruction project (STM354) and the Fourth Avenue
Reconstruction project (STL309) for a total of$II,504,665. Council also preliminarily approved
Transnet funding of approximately $6 million and anticipated Proposition IB funding of $3.5
million for a total of$9.5 million for Fiscal Year 2007-08.
Since that date, the City awarded a REAS seal contract for $1,795,603.66 on August 14, 2007 for
rehabilitation of residential streets Citywide, and a chip seal contract for $3,202,378.60 on
September 25, 2007 for rehabilitation of collector and arterial streets Citywide. Both of these
contracts were based on the recommended programs of the Pavement Management System. In
January of 2008, the City awarded a dig-out contract of approximately $450,000 which will be a
precursor to a larger REAS sealing contract to be let this spring. The value of that REAS proj ect
is expected to be approximately $3.5 million.
MISSING PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE INFRASTRUCTURE
Introduction
Older portions of Chula Vista, particularly in the southwest portion of the City, lack the complete
public facilities enjoyed, and often taken for granted, in other areas of the City. Some older
public improvements are now deemed substandard or beyond their useful lives and in need of
upgrading or replacement. These public improvements include curbs, gutters, sidewalks,
driveways, transit stops, street lighting, bikeways, improved alleyways, and adequate street
drainage systems.
These public facilities are essential in providing mobility, assuring public health and safety,
stimulating development and redevelopment, and promoting community pride. Therefore,
developing and implementing programs to construct missing public improvements and to
upgrade existing substandard facilities, while balancing the need to preserve existing public
facilities, is essential to ultimately assuring full public access and quality of life for all of our
citizens.
Backl!:round and Historv
For the most part, full roadway improvements (curb, gutter, sidewalk, and asphalt concrete
pavement) were constructed as development occurred within the City of Chula Vista or, in older
areas west ofInterstate-805, constructed under various public capital improvement programs first
initiated in the 1950s. These improvements, in large part, were paid for by the abutting property
owners through the price of a new home or property or through assessment district financing.
In older, formerly unincorporated areas of the county that developed well before their
annexations to the City, roadway improvements often consisted of only asphalt concrete
pavement, sanitary sewers, and minimal storm drainage improvements. This is particularly
characteristic of large neighborhoods within the Montgomery Annexation area, such as Castle
Park "A" and "BOO, Woodlawn Park, and the Otay Town area, to name a few. Prior to the
annexation vote for Montgomery in 1985, the City committed to not imposing assessment
districts to fund the cost of public improvements for ten years.
In all areas of the City, staff has kept inventories of missing and substandard public
improvements. The City's Capital Improvement Program (CIP) has included a number of on-
going programs to:
1-7
2/07/08, Item
Page 8 of 26
· Fund the improvement of dirt alleyways through assessment district proceedings per City
Council Policy No. 505-01. (Attachment 3). Alleys are required to be paved with Portland
Cement Concrete, with a minimum thickness of five inches in residential areas and six inches
in commercial and industrial areas. No reconstruction by City forces is allowed on existing
alleys which have not been improved to these standards.
· Construct missing "in-fill" sidewalk improvements through assessment district proceedings
under City Council Policy No. 505-01 or other funding sources, such as Safe Routes to
Schools.
· Remove or modify deep cross-gutters in major streets through the construction of
underground storm drain systems and/or the adjustment of street grades.
In the 1990's, the City added a program to construct pedestrian access ramps at street corners in
response to requirements established under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990,
which became effective on July 26, 1992. Recently, mandatory compliance with ADA standards
has become increasingly complex and costly, thereby reducing the number of locations that can
be retrofitted armually with pedestrian access ramps. This has also had the effect of reducing the
funds available for other types of work, such as the construction of new sidewalks and storm
drainage facilities.
Section 5610 of the Streets and Highways Code, as well as Section 12.12.070 of the Chula Vista
Municipal Code, requires that abutting property owners repair and maintain curbs, gutters,
sidewalks, and driveways in a non-hazardous condition for pedestrian traffic. This requirement
is clarified by City Council Policy No. 576-13 (Attachment 4), which states that the City is
responsible for repairing curbs and gutters in which a hazardous condition exists and for
repairing sidewalks in which a hazardous condition is the result of City street trees adjacent to
the sidewalk.
The Department of Public Works' armual operating budget includes funding for the removal and
replacement of curbs, gutters, sidewalks, and driveways damaged by City street trees. This work
is bid out annually and is performed under public works contract. Additional funding has been
programmed over the past several years in the CIP to repair concrete improvements under public
works contracts in eligible areas using Community Development Block Grant funds.
Until the mid-1990s, the City had a dedicated concrete crew that performed repair of curbs,
gutters, sidewalks, and driveways under the provisions of City Council Policy No. 576-13 on a
half-time basis. The crew was discontinued due to the need to reduce the City's operating
budget at that time. When City crews performed this work, there was a general sense among
City staff that hazardous conditions were being corrected in a timely manner and that there was
not significant backlog of areas in need of repair. The current backlog is significant.
Existin!! Conditions
New Development
All new developments in the City are required to construct full roadway, alley, and other
improvements, even if the development is private. Current design and construction standards are
the most stringent in the City's history and have been developed based upon staffs experience in
maintaining, repairing, and reconstructing these facilities. For example, tree root barriers are
now placed along the edges of sidewalks to prevent the uplift of sidewalks due to shallow tree
roots; in addition, specific types of trees with shallow and intrusive root systems are no longer
1-8
2/07/08, Item \
Page 9 of 26
allowed within the public right-of-way or within City tree planting easements. As materials and
construction standards and methods improve in all areas, staff has recommended, and the City
Council has adopted, these standards and methods to further improve upon the long-term
durability and functionality of public facilities.
These necessary changes in design and construction standards and methods will reduce future
costs of maintenance, repair, and reconstruction of facilities built over the past ten to fifteen
years. However, significant areas of the City were constructed under different, and as we now
know, less effective and less durable standards. In these older areas, demands and costs for
maintenance, repair, and reconstruction are significant and will continue to be significant into the
foreseeable future.
The good news, though, is that the infrastructure built under newer and more current standards
has a considerably longer life expectancy than infrastructure built under older, outdated
standards and will require less maintenance in the long-term. Therefore, it is possible that future
citywide maintenance-related costs will stabilize, provided regular and minimal maintenance of
newer facilities is not neglected in favor of repairing and reconstructing older facilities or
building new facilities where none had existed.
Existing Development
Some areas of the City, primarily within Western Chula Vista (including the Montgomery
Annexation area), still have only minimal street improvements and no sidewalks. In areas
developed prior to the early-1970s, some alleys are unimproved. Some cross-gutters have been
constructed with relatively steep slopes that result in traffic safety problems. Additionally, prior
to 1992 most developments did not include curb ramps and therefore do not meet the Americans
with Disabilities Act standards.
Missing improvements are shown on Exhibit 1 for the entire City. Since provision of sidewalks
along school routes is a priority, we have shown elementary school attendance boundaries.
Additionally, a V. mile radius is shown around each elementary school. The elementary school
areas with the greatest amount of deficiencies are as follows:
1. Harborside Elementary
2. Rosebank Elementary
3. Castle Park Elementary
4. Otay Elementary
5. Rohr Elementary
6. Valle Lindo Elementary
7. Lauderbach Elementary
The attached table (Attachment 5) itemizes the missing ramps, missing curb, gutter and sidewalk,
and missing sidewalk per school district and the estimated cost. There were two locations which
had existing sidewalk but no curb and gutter, and these were included under missing curb gutter
and sidewalk, since it was assumed that a new sidewalk would probably need to be constructed
in order to accommodate the other improvements. A total of 914 pedestrian ramps are missing
Citywide. An approximate total of 310,000 linear feet of street has missing improvements.
1-9
2/07/08, Item I
Page 10 of26
General cost estimates were provided for these missing improvements. Based on recent
contracts, the average cost of an ADA-compliant curb ramp was estimated at $6500 each.
Sidewalk cost was estimated at $150 per linear foot for a five-fd&t wide sidewalk, and the cost
for constructing monolithic curb, gutter and sidewalk was estimated at $725 per linear foot. The
latter unit cost also included overlay of half the existing paved width for a residential street, and
additional paved surface along the side. Cost for acquiring right-of-way or constructing retaining
walls are not included, since this estimate only covers the cost for an average street. Total curb,
gutter and sidewalk cost Citywide is estimated to be approximately $130 million, while ramp
cost is estimated at $8 million.
Cross-gutters cannot really be considered missing improvements. Instead, cross gutters were
evaluated if they crossed a collector or arterial street. Since the cross-gutters are "dips" within
the roadway, they were evaluated based on the degree of driving hazard that they present,
Criteria used in the evaluation include the street classification, traffic volume, the grade
differential on either side of the cross-gutter, and whether there is an adjacent stop sign. The
results of our survey are shown on Attachment 6. A total of 87 cross-gutters were evaluated. All
locations where citizens' requests have been received, plus all cross-gutters that cross collector
or arterial streets, have been included. No cost estimates were provided for cross-gutters because
they need to be evaluated on an individual basis. Depending on the work required, costs can
range from under $10,000 to over $100,000 if a new storm drain system needs to be constructed.
The City is only required by law to install pedestrian ramps on newly constructed or altered
streets or whenever pedestrian walkways on sidewalks and across streets are newly constructed
or altered. Alterations include, but are not limited to: renovation, rehabilitation, reconstruction,
resurfacing of paths or vehicular roadways, or changes or rearrangement of structural parts or
elements of a facility. Pavement patching and liquid-applied sealing, lane restriping, and short-
term maintenance activities are not alterations. As previously described, our program for
constructing pedestrian ramps has been reduced because the new regulations have required
additional surveying to verify the accuracy of the grades. The DOJ Title II of the ADA requires
State and local government entities to prioritize the installation of curb ramps on walkways
serving the following:
I. State and local government offices and facilities;
2. Transportation;
3. Places of public accommodation; and
4. Places of employment.
Staff has prioritized the installation of pedestrian ramps in two tiers (Attachment 7). The first
priority tier includes 19 locations where there is an existing ramp that does not connect to
another ramp on the other side of the street. The second tier includes all other locations. Each
tier is then prioritized according to the following criteria:
Pedestrian ramps in blocks containing the following facilities (2 points each):
I. Government services buildings, offices and facilities
2. Public and private schools
3. Mass transit access points (Hubs)
Pedestrian ramps in the following areas (1 point each):
1-10
2/07/08, Item I
Page 11 of 26
1. At or near bus stops
2. Near places of public accommodation
3. Near places of employment
4. Residents' requests received
In the past, the pedestrian ramp program consisted of ramps requested by citizens/school
officials. The highest priority projects have been those near schools and/or senior citizen
facilities.
Bicvcle Infrastructure Planning
There are two current plans that address bicycle infrastructure needs within Chula Vista. One of
these is the Bayshore Bikeway Master Plan, prepared by the San Diego Association of
Governments (SANDAG) in March 2006. The Bayshore Bikeway is 24 miles long and forms a
loop starting at the Broadway Pier in San Diego, traversing the Bayfront along National City and
Chula Vista, as well as the Silver Strand, with the south end at 13th Street in Imperial Beach.
The current bikeway includes Class I bike paths, as well as Class II bike lanes and Class III bike
routes.
In Chula Vista, the separate bike path ends at E Street. The plan recommends that a bike path be
constructed in the San Diego Gas and Electric (SDG&E) right of way from the existing path at E
Street south to Main Street. The cost for constructing this facility was estimated at $1,938,000.
The plan also recognizes that this work cannot be completed until the transmission towers along
the bayfront are undergrounded. In the short term, the plan also recommends installation of
Class II bicycle lanes on Bay Blvd. between F Street and J Street. These improvements were
completed in the last quarter of2007 when the Bay Boulevard pavement was rehabilitated. This
past year, the County has contributed $50,000 to partially finance the commencement of
preliminary engineering on the bike path. SANDAG is working with the City on the remaining
Bayshore Bikeway facilities.
On January 25, 2005, Council adopted the 2005 Chula Vista Bicycle Master Plan. This updated
the City's previous 1996 Bicycle Master Plan in conjunction with the City's General Plan
update. The objectives of the new plan included:
. To provide bicyclists the opportunity to ride to any chosen destination, thereby
making the bicycle a viable transportation alternative
. To provide a system of bicycle routes with the maximum amount of safety
. To provide the facilities and services necessary for the bikeway system
. To foster the development of an interconnecting bikeway system throughout the
reglOn
The 2005 Bicycle Master Plan recommended a total of 18 Capital Improvement Projects, with a
total estimated cost of $4,253,678. Where applicable, the City has submitted for State and
Federal grants in order to obtain additional funds. Two of the recommended projects are part of
the Bayshore Bikeway: the bike path between E Street and F Street and the recently completed
Bay Boulevard bike lane between F Street and J Street.
1-11
2/07/08, Item I
Page 12 of 26
Financine:
The most common source of funding for the construction of missing and/or deficient street
improvements has been Transnet, the Y2 percent sales tax increase approved by San Diego
County voters. Chula Vista annual revenue from this source is approximately $5.5 million. The
Transnet Extension, which takes effect in Fiscal Year 2008-09, is more restrictive - at least 70
percent of the funding must be used for congestion relief projects. An exception is made for
"Smart Growth" or pedestrian/transit-oriented areas, where pedestrian-oriented repair or
construction projects may be included as part of the 70 percent. These include several areas in
the Otay Ranch currently under development, as well as the following areas:
. Urban Core, including Third Avenue, F Street, the Broadway and H Street corridors
. Palomar Gateway at Palomar Street and Industrial Blvd.
. Third Avenue at Palomar Street
. Otay Ranch Village Five at East Palomar Street east of La Media Road
. Chula Vista Bayfront
. Heritage Village (Otay Ranch Village One) at East Palomar Street near Monarche
Drive
. Southwestern College
The City has received a $2.0 million grant from the San Diego Association of Govemments
(SANDAG) Pilot Smart Growth Incentive Program to construct street improvements in the
Palomar Gateway District in order to enhance planned residential and commercial development
in the area. This project is currently in final design.
The following infrastructure project is being funded by Transnet and is in the Fiscal Year 2006-
07 and 2007-08 Capital Improvement Program (CIP):
. STL291: $1,676,000 for sidewalk improvements along Fourth Avenue between "L"
Street and Orange Avenue. This is being constructed in conjunction with the Fourth Ave.
Utility Undergrounding District.
TDA (Transportation Development Act) has been a popular source for funding the
construction of missing sidewalks. However, this can only be used as a supplementary funding
source. This is partially because it does not fund other improvements which must be installed
with sidewalks, such as curb and gutter and additional pavement. This is also due to the fact that
funding is competitive on a regional basis, and projects with other sources of funding are
awarded higher scores.
Local agencies can also obtain automatic funding for certain types of planning efforts from TDA
through SANDAG. This includes the City's 2005 Bicycle Master Plan Update, as well as a
Pedestrian Master Plan. City staff has distributed a Request for Proposals for this latter plan, and
it is anticipated that the contract will be awarded by June 2008, so that the work can be
performed in Fiscal Year 2008-09.
1-12
2/07/08, Item
Page 13 of 26
The following projects were included in the Fiscal Year 2006-07 and 2007-08 Capital
Improvement Program and were partially funded by IDA. Note that matching funds have
frequently been provided from the Transnet allocation.
. STL286: $224,285 for sidewalk improvements along Otay Lakes Road from Allen
School Lane/Camino Elevado to Surrey Drive
. STL287: $623,572 for Castle Park Elementary School Sidewalk Improvements (Gas
Tax funds were also appropriated.)
. $138,575 for the Bay Blvd. Bike Lane between F Street and J Street (included in STL-
316, Pavement Rehabilitation)
The Safe Routes to Schools Program (SRTS) is a Federal-Aid program of the U.S.
Department of Transportation's Federal Highway Administration (FHW A). The Program was
created by Section 1404 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act:
A Legacy for Users Act (SAFETEA-LU). The SRTS Program is funded over five Federal fiscal
years (FY 2005-2009) and is administered by the California Department of Transportation
(Caltrans).
The Program provides funds to the States to substantially improve the ability of primary and
middle school students to walk and bicycle to school safely. Projects must fall under the
category of infrastructure (capital) or non-infrastructure (education and encouragement). The
purposes of the program are:
. To enable and encourage children, including those with disabilities, to walk and
bicycle to school
. To make bicycling and walking to school a safer and more appealing transportation
alternative, thereby encouraging a healthy and active lifestyle from an early age; and
. To facilitate the planning, development, and implementation ofprojects and activities
that will improve safety and reduce traffic, fuel consumption, and air pollution in the
vicinity (approximately 2 miles) of primary and middle schools (Grades K-8).
The SRTS program is a "reimbursement" program. The SRTS funds are 100 percent
reimbursable. No local match is required. The funding cap for an infrastructure project is set at
$1,000,000. The City has recently been approved by the FHW A for a grant under this program
for $621,115. This will fund the construction of some missing pedestrian improvements in the
Otay Elementary and Rice Elementary school areas. Staff is currently working with Caltrans to
obtain an "Authorization to Proceed with Preliminary Engineering."
The State also funds and administers a Safe Routes to Schools Program (SR2S). Established in
1999, California's Safe Routes to School (SR2S) program came into effect from the passage of
Assembly Bill 1475 (AB 1475). In 2001, Senate Bill 10 (SB 10) was enacted, which extended
the program for three additional years. In 2004, SB 1087 was enacted to extend the program
three more years. A new bill, AB 57, was adopted in October 2007 to extend the program until
January 1, 2013.
Section 2333.5 of the Streets and Highways Code calls for the Department of Transportation, in
consultation with the California Highway Patrol (CHP), to make grants available to local
governmental agencies under the program based upon the results of a statewide competition.
1-13
2/07/08, Item
Page 14 of 26
The goals of the program are to reduce injuries and fatalities to school children and to encourage
increased walking and bicycling among students. The program achieves these goals by
constructing facilities that enhance the safety of pedestrians and bicyclists. By enhancing the
safety of the pathways, trails, sidewalks, and crossings, the likelihood of attracting and
encouraging other students to walk and bike increases.
This California SR2S program should not be confused with the Federal Highway
Administration's Safe Routes to School (SRTS) program authorized under SAFETEA-LU.
Although both programs have similar goals and objectives, their funding source, local funding
match requirements and other program requirements are different. The California program
requires a 10 percent minimum local funding match. The maximum amount of SR2S funds that
will be allocated to any single project is $900,000.
Community-Based Transportation Planning Grants are available from the California Dept. of
Transportation on a reimbursement basis. The maximum grant amount is $300,000 and a 20
percent local match (of which up to half may be in-kind services) is required. This program
promotes the integration of transportation and land use planning with community values to
promote a livable community. Goals include the following:
. Smart land use with opportunities for affordable housing and jobs
. Congestion relief and efficient movement of people, goods and services
. A safe and healthy community
. Reduced air pollution and conservation of energy and resources
. Pedestrian, bicycle and transit mobility and access
. Protection of sensitive habitat
. Public and stakeholder participation
The City recently received notification that it has obtained a grant for $241,600 from this
program for the Kids Walk and Bike to School program. The grant involves collaboration with
the South Bay Partnership and includes community meetings and walking audits of each of the
City's 36 public elementary schools. The walking audits will focus on the V.-mile radius around
each school, involving the public, the South Bay Partnership and City staff in identifying
infrastructure priorities. Council has authorized acceptance of this grant by resolution on
January 8, 2008. The City's match of $60,400 will come from Transnet funds appropriated for
the School Zone Traffic Calming Program.
Assessment Districts: Since 1983 the City has had an Assessment District program for
construction of street improvements that has been used primarily in residential neighborhoods.
At least 60 percent of property owners by front footage need to sign a petition requesting the
formation of an assessment district. An election is then held among the affected property owners
in accordance with Proposition 218, and if 50 percent or more of the property owners by
financial responsibility vote in favor of the district it passes. Most assessment districts have
required property owners to pay for the construction of the new improvements, while the City or
the utilities would cover design and staff costs, the cost of utility relocation and the cost of
rehabilitating existing pavement. Costs have generally been apportioned to property owners
based on street front footage. Under the Western Chula Vista Financing Plan (see below), a
more favorable cost sharing methodology has been offered. Each property owner has only been
required to pay for the construction cost of driveway apron(s) associated with the property.
1-14
2/07/08, Item r
Page 15 of 26
This fmancing method generally works best in single-family residential neighborhoods where the
houses are owner-occupied.
Western Chula Vista Financing Plan: As part of the Capital Improvement Budget for Fiscal
Years 2003-04 and 2004-05, the City Council approved a two-pronged financing plan for
infrastructure improvements in western Chula Vista. This plan included:
. A $9 million bond issue to be repaid from the City's Residential Construction Tax
(RCT) revenues to fund drainage and park improvements; and,
. A $9.5 million loan from the US Department of Housing and Urban Development's
(HUD) Section 108 loan program to be repaid through the City's annual Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) entitlement from HUD to fund street
improvements in the Castle Park area. In this area, residents have been asked to pay
for the cost of driveway improvements through assessment district proceedings.
Street improvements already constructed with these funds include:
. Sidewalk and street improvements on Tobias Drive between Naples Street and
Oxford Street
. Sidewalk and street improvements on Dixon Drive between Naples Street and Oxford
Street
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds are received from the U.s. Department
of Housing and Urban Development and can be used for capital improvement projects within
areas that meet the HUD low income criteria. This has been a past source of income for
infrastructure projects, and it is anticipated that it will continue to be used in the future.
However, the amount of available funding from this source will be reduced due to the
commencement of debt service on the Western Chula Vista Financing Program.
A current project using CDBG funds is STL318: ADA Curb Ramps FY06-07. This project
provides for the construction of ADA-compliant ramps throughout the City, and has a total
appropriated amount of $209,130. Ramps have been selected in accordance with the proposed
ranking shown in Attachment 7.
Western Chula Vista Transportation Development Impact Fee (WTDIF): A Transportation
Development Impact Fee (TDIF) has been in effect in Eastern Chula Vista since January 1988.
These developer exactions have paid for the construction! expansion of most of the backbone
arterial streets in eastern Chula Vista, including East H Street, Main Street, Olympic Parkway
and Telegraph Canyon Road. The fee was most recently amended in December 2005, and is
now $10,777 per low density Single Family Dwelling (1 EDU).
Since the City's existing TDlF complies with the requirement for the eastern territories, the City
needs to enact a DIF for transportation facilities covering development impact in the western
area of the City. It is anticipated that staff will present its recommendations to Council within
the next few weeks. This fee is anticipated to be $3,243 per EDU. Facilities will generally
include expansion and! or upgrading of existing infrastructure, such as Interstate 5 and 805, mid-
bayfront roadways, Regional Arterial System projects and bicycle and pedestrian facilities.
Since the construction of missing infrastructure benefits both existing users and new
development, it has been determined that only 21 percent of the cost of such improvements can
1-15
2/07/08, Item-l-
Page 16 of26
be financed by the WTDIF. This is based on the City's projected population increase between
2007 and 2030.
The Transnet Extension legislation requires each local agency in the San Diego region to
contribute $2,000 in exactions from the private sector for each new residential housing unit.
Each local agency is responsible for implementing an impact fee or other Funding Program
effective July I, 2008. This revenue must be used to construct improvements to the Regional
Arterial System and regional express bus and rail transit. The City Council is scheduled to hold
a public hearing on the WTDIF on Tuesday, February 19, 2008.
Recommendations and Conclusions
As discussed above, staff is currently involved in several actions to identify infrastructure
deficiencies and priorities and obtain project funding. This includes the following:
. Pedestrian Master Plan
. Kids Walk and Bike to Schools Program
. Safe Routes to Schools Improvements at Otay and Rice Elementary Schools
. ADA Curb Cuts (Ramps) Prioritization
. Western Chula Vista Financing Program
. Western Chula Vista Transportation Development Impact Fee (WTDIF)
Staff has identified most of the missing infrastructure within the City. However, the areas with
missing curb, gutter and sidewalk have not yet been prioritized, although a major focus has been
the areas surrounding the City's elementary schools. It is anticipated that a concerted effort
towards prioritizing infrastructure deficiencies will be undertaken during Fiscal Years 2007-08
and 2008-09 as part of the Pedestrian Master Plan and the Kids Walk and Bike to Schools
Program. It is therefore recommended that Council action on prioritizing missing curb, gutter
and sidewalk be postponed until the completion of these efforts. This will allow such
recommendations to be made with Citywide citizen and input.
As previously discussed, staff has inventoried and prioritized all the missing pedestrian ramps
(curb cuts) in locations where there are existing sidewalks. The ranking system has followed
Federal American with Disabilities Act (ADA) guidelines. It is recommended that staff continue
to pursue an annual program of installing missing ramps and that Council adopt the current
priority list.
Staff has had some recent successes in obtaining infrastructure funding, particularly for the Safe
Routes to Schools improvements and the Kids Walk and Bike to School Program. Additionally,
staff has pursued new funding sources, such as the WTDIF. It is recommended that staff
continue to pursue alternative funding sources as a top priority and that staff be provided with
sufficient resources for this function.
The City's current Bicycle Master Plan was adopted in January 2005. SANDAG currently
requires that the Bicycle Master Plan be updated every five years in order for a city to be eligible
for TDA funding. It is therefore recommended that staff apply for TDA funding in Fiscal Year
2008-09 to hire a consultant to update the City's Bicycle Master Plan. This would allow
sufficient time before 2010 for the preparation, review and approval process.
1-16
2/07/08, Item I
Page 17 of 26
Potential Infrastructure Fundinl! Sources
Dollars available for tonight's focus areas present a cornmon municipal challenge. As spending
from general funds rises faster than revenues and as public safety services expenses consume
more general funds, dollars available for infrastructure needs have become scarce to non-
existent.
While a recent movement at the State level to implement new funding for infrastructure will help
in the area of transportation, these measures by themselves will not be sufficient to overcome
past years' under investment. Simply stated, more resources must be identified, collected and
committed. We will be challenged to consider how best to leverage finite resources most
effectively. Additional revenue streams implemented by other California cities are summarized
below.
Increase Sales Tax Locally: Another source of revenue would be passage of a municipal sales tax
increase. Vista, National City and EI Cajon have recently enacted a municipal sales tax that was
approved by the voters.
. Vista voters enacted a 30-year Yz percent sales tax in 2006 for general governmental
purposes. The City cited the need for funding of capital needs including new fire
stations, new city hall, space for anti-gang and narcotics deputies, new sports fields, as
well as operational priorities including additional staff for one of the new fire stations and
an increase in deputies to deal with gang and graffiti.
. National City voters enacted a one percent sales tax in 2006 that is deposited into the
City's General Fund and anticipated to generate $70 to $90 million over its ten-year
imposition. It was justified as necessary to avoid layoffs in the Police and Fire
Departments and at the new library. It should be noted that a signature-gathering drive
has led to a 2008 ballot measure to consider repealing the increase.
. In November 2004, EI Cajon voters enacted a Yz percent sales tax projected to generate
$62 million over ten years specifically earmarked for replacement of aging police and fire
structures with earthquake-reinforced facilities, a new Emergency Operations Center and
new animal control facilities.
These examples may demonstrate that local residents will vote for a sales tax increase if the
revenue will finance improvements that they feel are important.
Devote More Local Sales Tax to Road Maintenance and/or Municipal Infrastructure: Most
transportation sales taxes allocate 20 to 25 percent of revenues to the maintenance of local
streets. If the local sales tax ordinance allows adjustments to the distribution of the sales tax
revenue, counties could increase this share to address projected maintenance shortfalls. Voter
approval is needed to accomplish this. Sonoma's recently enacted sales tax devoted 40% to be
allocated back to the cities and the county for local street and road purposes.
Citywide Assessment Districts: Cities can propose a property assessment for transportation
system maintenance and operations in general, pavement maintenance or street lighting. Such an
action would require a two-thirds approval of a given jurisdiction's voters. This would be
similar to assessments that cities have implemented for storm drainage and sanitary sewers.
Examples of current benefit assessment districts are noted in the table below.
1-17
2/07/08, Item ,
Page 18 of 26
Water District
Water District
Sani
Libra
Vector Control
Flood Control
Clean and Safe Creeks
Vector Control
Street Li htin
residential household
Local Bond Measure: Recently, cities have successfully gained voter approval of bond measures
to improve park, library, police, and fire facilities. This option can be used to improve a local
jurisdiction's infrastructure. Such a measure could be structured to address any of the
infrastructure areas discussed in this report, such as drainage and/or major rehabilitation of the
City's pavement infrastructure along with system enhancements like pedestrian safety
improvements, pedestrian curb ramp installation, traffic signal upgrades for congestion relief,
and street trees/median island landscaping for aesthetic enhancements. The evaluation of such a
measure for infrastructure would need to be weighed against other community priorities, and
packaged accordingly.
UTILITY WIRE UNDERGROUNDING
Introduction
Utility Undergrounding is a major component of the City's Infrastructure Program. Few
municipal projects can improve the appearance of a City block or a neighborhood as significantly
as the removal of overhead utility wires and utility poles. In addition to being unsightly, these
overhead utilities can pose an obstacle to emergency vehicles and safety equipment.
Unfortunately, the task of undergrounding is very difficult, time consuming and extremely
expensive. Further complicating the matter is that undergrounding requires coordination with,
and cooperation from, the affected utility companies and the individual property owners.
Finally, City resources to fund these projects are extremely limited and the sources traditionally
used are insufficient to make meaningful progress.
A successful utility undergrounding program will require the City to explore all available
options, not just the traditional ones. It will require an examination of how we have dealt with
undergrounding in the past, how we identify, prioritize and fund projects in the future and how
we engage our neighborhoods in the process. In addition to the standard 20A districts previously
formed by the City (and discussed below), other types of Undergrounding Districts and
alternative funding sources need to be considered. Additionally, our current ranking criteria
should be reviewed to determine whether any changes should be made depending on the type of
district.
Overall Status of Utility Underl!:roundinl!: in Chula Vista
Historically, the City of Chula Vista has undergrounded utilities through one of three ways.
Utilities have been undergrounded as a part of capital improvement projects, as part of separate
1-18
2/07/08, Item I
Page 19 of 26
undergrounding districts, and in new developments through the subdivision process (Municipal
Code Chapter 15.32).
Currently the City has approximately 164.36 miles of aboveground electric distribution wires.
San Diego Gas and Electric (SDG&E) estimates that it will cost approximately 275 million
dollars (2007 basis of $1.673 million per mile) to complete the undergrounding of these lines.
The City's Franchise Agreement with SDG&E provides for the allocation of $2.0 million per
year (20A funds collected on customers' utility bills, as specified in the California Public
Utilities Commission (PUe) Rule 20). Based on these figures, it would take at least 137.5 years
to finish this work. This does not take inflation into account. Historically, the other overhead
utility companies have done the work needed to underground their associated facilities without
charging the City, but that could change in the future.
As of March 31, 2007, approximately $42.46 million of 20A funds have been allocated to
undergrounding overhead utilities within the City since 1968. (This includes an estimated
allocation of$2.0 million in 2007 for projects currently under construction.) The total amount of
funds expended was $30,359,630. A majority of these funds were expended from the early
1990's to the present. During this period, 16 Undergrounding Districts were completed at a cost
of approximately $24.23 million dollars. This does not include any funds expended for the
City's street improvements or relocation of City facilities, such as streetlights. Six additional
20A funded districts have been formed and are expected to cost approximately $20.0 million in
20A funds for the Bayfront Undergrounding District and approximately $10.22 million for the
other five districts, which are located on Fourth Avenue, J Street and L Street. Considering the
City's current allocation balance of approximately $10.10 million, this means that it will be at
least another ten years before the City can consider adding additional projects to the program.
This is assuming that current cost estimates for the City's portion of the Bayfront
undergrounding and the other undergrounding districts don't escalate further.
The requirements for the undergrounding of utilities in new subdivisions are contained in Article
I of Chapter 15.32 of the Municipal Code. These regulations were originally adopted in 1968
and were amended various times through 1992. This section requires developers to
underground future electrical distribution and transmission lines and existing distribution and
transmission lines within or adjacent to the subdivision. An exception is made for existing
transmission lines of 60,000 volts or more located on common poles with distribution lines.
These regulations also apply to condominium conversions, subdivisions created by parcel map
and construction of new structures and additions/alterations with a permit valuation of $20,000
or more, excluding construction/alteration of single-family dwellings on existing individual lots.
Due primarily to these regulations, it is estimated that over 90 percent of Chula Vista east of 1-
805 has underground utilities. Infill development in western Chula Vista should result in
additional undergrounding of existing overhead utilities.
The City's recent and proposed utility undergrounding districts are shown on Exhibit 2.
20 A Districts
The PUC Rule 20 defines three types of undergrounding situations. Rule 20A is the most
commonly used, and it is based on allocating a certain portion of the utility revenue obtained
from consumers/property owners in a jurisdiction to the undergrounding of overhead electrical
facilities within that jurisdiction. An ordinance needs to be passed creating an underground
1-19
2/07/08, Item I
Page 20 of 26
district where both existing and new facilities will be located, and the district must extend for a
minimum distance of one block or 600 feet, whichever is lesser. The governing body must
determine, after consultation with the utility companies and holding public hearings, that the
undergrounding is in the general public interest for one or more of the following reasons:
1. The undergrounding will avoid or eliminate an unusually heavy concentration of
overhead electric facilities;
2. The street or right-of-way carries a heavy volume of pedestrian or vehicular traffic;
3. The street or right-of-way adjoins or passes through a civic area, public recreational or
scemc area;
4. The street is considered an arterial or major collector
Although the courts have held that the interpretation of these categories is up to the jurisdiction,
residential streets generally do not qualify for undergrounding using these funds, unless they are
in a scenic, recreational or historically significant area.
Subsequent to 1982 , the PUC allowed local agencies to use 20A funds for the conversion of
private laterals within an undergrounding district. Council Policy 585-01, adopted by Resolution
No. 16934 on December 15, 1992, addresses this issue (Attachment 8). Property owners have
been required to trench and install their own conduit, and then apply for reimbursement from the
City. The City would then use its share of 20A funds to reimburse the property owners.
However, this method has often been cumbersome, since City staff has needed to wait for all
property owners to complete their individual laterals before the undergrounding project can be
completed.
A recent PUC ruling allows the City to directly include laterals providing electrical service as
part of the undergrounding district designed and constructed by the local utility. This eliminates
the need for individual property owners to hire a contractor to install the underground conduit
connecting to their meters. This method has been used for the Quintard Street undergrounding
district and is recommended for future projects because of the reduction in staff time and effort
and less project delay.
On December II, 2007 Council adopted Ordinance 3096 to amend Chapter 15.32 of the Chula
Vista Municipal Code to reflect changes to PUC Rule 20A. This chapter now includes the
options of either having the utility company construct private utility laterals or leaving the
responsibility of lateral construction with the property owners. It discusses posting requirements,
utility company responsibilities and property owner responsibilities under both options.
20 HI A Districts. 20 H Districts and 20 C Districts
Since almost all 20A funds are committed for at least the next 10 years various options will be
explored to see if they are viable and acceptable. Rule 20B districts can be formed if either all
property owners served from the overhead facilities agree in writing to have the changes made
on their property at their cost or if legislation has been enacted requiring such wiring changes to
be made and authorizing the utility to discontinue its overhead service. The most common way
to form this type of district is through formation of an assessment district, since it is very difficult
to have 100 percent of the property owners agree to finance undergrounding. An assessment
district will allow the high cost of undergrounding to be spread over ten or more years. Either
1911 Act or 1913/1915 Assessment District proceedings can be used, and the district passes if 50
1-20
2/07/08, Item
Page 21 of 26
percent or more of the weighted vote (based on property owners' financial obligation) is in favor
of establishing the district.
One advantage to the 20B District at this time is that SDG&E currently has a separate schedule
for these districts, so the design and construction work is frequently completed more quickly.
SDG&E's charges are lower since the salvage cost of the overhead facilities is subtracted from
the billed amount. If the District is formed through an assessment district by a municipality,
SDG&E does not charge tax on its labor or materials. The main additional cost relates to the
time and effort to establish the assessment district and to bill the property owners. The local
municipality frequently pays for all or a portion of the cost of establishing the assessment district
by paying for the staff costs associated with managing and administering the district, by writing
the Engineer's Report and other documentation or paying for a private firm to write the
Engineer's Report.
Another option is the use of 20 BIA Districts. A Rule 20 BIA District is an Undergrounding
District where the majority of the cost is borne by the benefiting property owners, generally
through the formation of an assessment district, but some of the cost is paid by the City with
available 20A funds. This approach allows the City to stretch its available undergrounding
resources while giving some relief to property owners.
Rule 20C does not require the formation of a district per se. It is an undergrounding project
which does not fall under either Category 20A or 20B. It is based on mutual agreement between
a utility and an applicant. The applicant is required to pay in advance a nonrefundable sum equal
to the estimated cost of the underground facilities less the estimated net salvage value and
depreciation of the replaced overhead facilities. This type of District would avoid the cost of
setting up an assessment district but a tax on SDG&E's labor and materials would be included in
the cost. This would probably only be feasible and preferable when only a few property owners,
such as developers, are involved.
All these forms of undergrounding offer options that need to be explored. Assessment Districts
are never an easy or preferred option and they are more expensive and cumbersome than 20 A
projects. Successful implementation of these types of projects will require developing strong
neighborhood consensus, clear guidelines that make them less intimidating and a fair approach to
hardship cases.
Other Fundinl! Sources
Due to the limited 20A funds available and the unpopularity of Assessment Districts, agencies
have started looking for alternative funding sources for their undergrounding programs. The
City has conducted a survey of various cities in California to determine what type of funding
sources have commonly been used. The results have been summarized in the attached table
(Attachment 9). As expected, 20A funding is the most common source of funding. Fourteen of
the agencies used this funding source exclusively.
Several agencies have used the 20B process. As previously discussed, these districts are often
paid by property owner contributions through the formation of Assessment Districts. These
districts tend to be most successful in areas with above-average property values and owner-
occupied homes, such as Del Mar, Irvine, Laguna Beach, Orange County, Rancho Palos Verdes
and Sausalito. However, sometimes other municipal funding sources are used to subsidize these
1-21
2/07/08, Item ~
Page 22 of 26
districts. Such sources include Transnet or other transportation funding if the undergrounding is
being done on streets where there are CIP projects for pavement rehabilitation/street
improvements. Other sources include Redevelopment Agency funds, Community Development
Block Grants (CDBG) or Business Improvement District funds (BID).
The use of CDBG and Redevelopment Agency funds is not recommended, since these funds
have already been committed to fund or finance various other infrastructure improvement
projects. Transnet funds are often used to fund improvements in the streets where
undergrounding projects are proposed, such as constructing missing sidewalks and
installing/relocating streetlights. Therefore, the use of Transnet to fund the cost of
undergrounding is not recommended, since these funds are needed for pavement rehabilitation
and construction of street improvements.
The City currently has only one Business Improvement District, which assesses property owners
in the Third Avenue Urban Core area to finance the installation and maintenance of
improvements along Third Avenue between E Street and G Street. Third Avenue has already
been undergrounded, along with other commercial corridors, such as Broadway and H Street.
However, if the City were to form additional BIDs in areas that have not yet been
undergrounded, this could be considered as a method to finance the undergrounding.
One of the more common methods of alternative fmancing has been to negotiate an additional
Franchise Fee earmarked for utility undergrounding that is included in the municipality's
Franchise Agreement with the local electric utility. The revenues to pay for this fee are
frequently generated through imposition of a Utility Surcharge. This generally involves adding a
fee that is a fixed percentage of the monthly charge as a separate line item on the residents'
utility bills.
The City's current Franchise Agreements with SDG&E were adopted through passage of
Ordinance 2987 on November 16, 2004 and took effect on January 1, 2005. Section 4 of the
Ordinance states that SDG&E shall pay the City 1.25% of the gross receipts for provision of
electrical service within the City boundaries. This fee is not directly reflected in a separate
utility surcharge on customers' bills. Additionally, the revenue from the franchise fee is
deposited in the City's general fund and is not used for utility undergrounding.
The City of San Diego is the only agency in San Diego County that has imposed a Utility
Surcharge. In December 2002 the PUC gave final approval to the an amendment of their
Franchise Agreement with SDG&E to increase the Franchise Fee, previously 3% of gross
receipts. The electric surcharge on residents' bills would increase from 1.9% to 5.78%, under
the condition that, out of the 3.72% increase, 3.35% would be used for utility undergrounding
projects within the City of San Diego. Thus, in San Diego the surcharge is estimated to raise
about $36 million of additional undergrounding funds per year, in addition to the $10 million per
year in 20A funds previously collected. These additional funds are not bound by the regulations
for project selection stipulated in Rule 20A and are allocated among all the Council Members'
Districts to be earmarked for local projects. The main requirement is that new project blocks be
adjacent to previously undergrounded areas wherever possible.
Utility Surcharges are not without critics and are seen by many as an unwarranted tax. The
charge was imposed in San Diego without a vote and there were objections by residents and
citizens' groups as a result. It is not clear whether the imposition of this charge could be
1-22
2/07/08, Item I
Page 23 of26
considered to trigger the voting procedures mandated by Proposition 218 and/or Proposition 13.
However, it is unlikely that the PUC would have approved of these changes if their attorneys had
considered them to be in violation of State statutes.
Some cities have had significant support for utility undergrounding, even if an additional fee is
involved. According to the City of San Francisco's Utility Undergrounding Task Force Report
dated January 26, 2007, they recommended to the Board of Supervisors that they request the
California Public Utilities Commission to approve an electric bill surcharge within City to
implement a five percent surcharge on the utility bills to pay for undergrounding the remaining
utility lines. San Francisco has used up its share of 20A funds for the next twelve years.
According to their survey, 66 percent of the renters and 89 percent of the property owners who
responded were "very interested" in seeing the remaining utilities undergrounded. Ninety-two
percent of owners and 78 percent of renters said they would "definitely" or "probably" support
paying $2 to $4 more per month. Their proposed program would be modeled on the City of San
Diego's surcharge and undergrounding program.
Undere:roundine: Priorities and Rankine: Criteria
On November 22, 2005, Council accepted the Staff Report on Utility Undergrounding Program
Funding and Priorities (Attachment 10). As presented in the report, the City's Utility
Underground Conversion Program was instituted in 1968. The enclosed Rating System for
Undergrounding of Utilities Transmission and Distribution Facilities Projects was originally
approved by Council in November 1972 and revised in July 1979. In accordance with the
priorities included in Rule 20A, the City's system gave points for the following categories:
1. Exposure (Traffic and entrance to the City)
2. Aesthetic Benefit (Current utilities and public facilities)
3. Relationship to Approved Undergrounding DistrictslPreviously Undergrounded Facilities
4. Associated Construction (Street scheduled for widening)
5. Property Owner Funding
Based on these priorities, the Council approved subsequent Utility Underground Programs in
1979, 1984 and 1991. Five projects are remaining from these priority lists. Additionally, the
City's current Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and Franchise Agreement with SDG&E
gives priority to the Bayfront undergrounding. These projects are currently scheduled to be
completed in accordance with the following priority list:
1. Bayfront Electrical Transmission Facilities
2. Fourth Avenue from L Street to Orange Avenue
3. L Street from Monserate Avenue to Nacion Avenue
4. L Street from Broadway to Third Avenue
5. J Street from Broadway to Hilltop Drive
6. J Street from Hilltop Drive to Lori Lane
Utility Undergrounding Districts have already been formed for all six of these locations. The top
three projects are all currently in progress. The Bayfront and Fourth Avenue projects are
currently under construction. On December 4, 2007, Council adopted Resolution 2007-275
setting August 1, 2008 as the date by which property owners property owners within
Undergrounding District 134 (L Street from Monserate Ave. to Nacion Ave.) need to be ready to
1-23
2/07/08, Item I
Page 24 of 26
receive underground utility service. It is anticipated that construction will commence on this
project within the next few weeks.
Based on the City's cost of the Bayfront Project (estimated at approximately $20 million), the
City's 20A funds will be depleted for several years into the future. As discussed in the
November 2005 staff report, it appears that the City will not have sufficient funds to construct
the remaining three projects until calendar years 2013 to 2015 at the earliest. This schedule will
need to be reevaluated after construction of all the top three projects have been completed
(estimated at 2008) and there is a final accounting of the City's share of20A funds.
The City's consultant has reviewed the City's existing rating system, as well as the guidelines
provided in Rule 20A and has prepared additional recommendations for prioritizing projects that
will use 20A funding. These recommendations addressed the following issues:
. Does the project comply with PUC criteria?
· Is the street fully improved? Is there sufficient right-of-way to construct additional
improvements and to underground utilities?
. Are there any planned City-financed improvements in a potential project area that should
be coordinated with the undergrounding of utilities?
The revised list of priorities does include several important criteria that pertain to the ability to
construct a project, such as the availability of necessary right-of-way and coordination with other
construction projects. However, the City's existing criteria also includes additional factors, such
as proximity to existing or approved undergrounding districts, that should be retained.
The recommended rating system is included as Attachment II. It combines elements of both
systems and attempts to simplify the rating process. This rating system is not intended to replace
the PUC regulations. Only streets that comply with PUC regulations would be rated. This
would exclude most residential streets.
This rating system would not pertain to 20B or 20C districts that are funded through property
owner contributions. Since it is assumed that only a minority of property owners would be
willing to bear the entire cost of an undergrounding district, which could be $15,000 or more for
an average property owner with a 50-foot street frontage, these districts could be handled on a
first-come first-served basis. If the City were to adopt an alternative financing method, such as
an increase in the franchise fee or a utility surcharge, a different rating system should be
considered, because these funds would not be tied to the Rule 20A criteria.
Recommendations and Conclusions
In summary, there are basically two types of Utility Undergrounding Districts. The first type is
called a Rule 20A District and is financed through a line item on residents' utility bills. Through
the electric franchise agreement, SDG&E has agreed to a steady revenue stream of $2.0 million
per year. These districts are subject to the Public Utility Commission Rule 20A, which requires
that streets considered for undergrounding be a major thoroughfare, carry heavy traffic, have a
large concentration of overhead facilities, and/or be located in a scenic, recreational, civic or
historic area.
1-24
2/07/081Jem -J-
Page 25 of 26
The second type of district includes Rule 20B and 20C Districts and uses alternative financing
sources, which could include municipal funding sources, property owner funding (including
Assessment Districts) or funding through utility surcharges. The location of these districts is not
as restricted, so residential neighborhoods can be undergrounded. The City has not yet formed
or constructed any of these districts.
It is currently recommended that the City postpone expanding the current list of 20A projects.
As previously discussed, it is estimated that the existing list of City projects will use the City's
allotment for the next ten years. Since the exact cost of the top three priority projects may not be
known until the end of2009, it would be advisable to wait until the audits are completed on these
projects and the future availability of these funds is known with more certainty. The rating
system can then be reviewed again and revisions can be adopted.
The only way to expand utility undergrounding into residential neighborhoods would be for the
City to consider the establishment of 20B and 20C districts and alternative funding sources. As
previously stated, there are already extensive competition and existing commitments for the use
of City funding sources such as the Residential Construction Tax and Community Development
Block Grants, and Transnet is needed for pavement rehabilitation and construction of street
improvements. Most property owners would probably not be willing to pay the total costs
associated with undergrounding their neighborhoods, even with the formation of Assessment
Districts and spreading the costs over ten or more years.
However, there may be more support for a Utility Surcharge, particularly at the level of $2.00 to
$4.00 per month. It is therefore recommended that staff explore the option of amending the
Franchise Agreement with SDG&E to increase the Franchise Fee and/or impose a Utility
Surcharge. It is important to obtain the cooperation of SDG&E personnel, since the City would
not want to endanger the concessions obtained with negotiation of the recent Franchise
Agreement. A legal opinion on the need to conduct an election should also be obtained.
Whether or not the City needs to go through an election process, it is important to obtain support
from community members before moving forward. A community survey is recommended as one
of the initial steps toward exploring this issue.
DECISION MAKER CONFLICT
Staff has reviewed the property holdings and determined there is no disqualifying conflict of
interest for any Councilmember. This action relates to curb cut construction throughout the City
and will affect the owners of more than 18,000 parcels of property, a significant segment of
property owners, in substantially the same manner. Pursuant to California Code of Regulations
sections 18707 and 18707.1, the public generally exception applies, resulting in no disqualifying
conflict.
FISCAL IMPACT
It is important to note that much of the advanced planning activities that the Engineering and
General Services and Public Works Departments engage in to develop this report and continue
our efforts toward a comprehensive infrastructure management system either have no dedicated
funding source or are funded from funding sources that could be utilized for actual capital
purposes. Accepting the report and adopting the resolution proposed does not change that issue
and does not generate any new funding sources at this time to continue this effort.
1-25
Attachment 1:
Attachment 2:
Attachment 3:
Attachment 4:
Attachment 5:
Attachment 6:
Attachment 7:
Attachment 8:
Attachment 9:
Attachment 10:
Attachment 11:
Exhibit 1:
Exhibit 2:
2/07/08, Item I
Page 26 of26
ATTACHMENTS
April 5, 2007 Report on the Missing Infrastructure Management Program
Effort to Date
Resolution No. 2007-108 adopted May 1, 2007
Council Policy No. 505-01
Council Policy No. 576-13
Missing Pedestrian Infrastructure by School
Cross-Gutter Priority List
ADA Curb Cuts Priority List
Council Policy No. 585-01
Utility Undergrounding Funding Survey
November 22,2005 Staff Report on Utility Undergrounding Funding and
Priorities
Recommended Utility Undergrounding Rating System
Missing Pedestrian Infrastructure Map
Utility Undergrounding Projects Map
Prepared by: Elizabeth Chopp, Senior Civil Engineer, Engineering and General Services Dept.
M:IENGINEERIAGENDAICAS2008102-07-08 WKSPIINFRASTRUCTURE STATUS REPORT PART 2-2REVDOC
1-26
ATTACHMENT 1
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA STATEMENT
~\Yf:. mY OF
~"' .~ (HULA VISTA
ITEM TITLE:
04105/07 Workshop
STATUS REPORT ON THE MISSING INFRASTRUCTURE
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM EFFORT TO DATE
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA APPROVING THE DRAINAGE PROJECT PRIORITY LIST
AND AUTHORIZING STAFF TO SEEK SPECIAL FUNDING FOR
ANY PROJECT THAT MEETS THE FUNDING CRITERIA
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA REAFFIRMING ITS COIvIMITMENT TO THE
IMPLEMENTATION OF A TRUE PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT
SYSTEM
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA
VISTA APPROVING A PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
BASED ON $11,504,665 IN FISCAL YEAR 2007 AND $9.5 MILLION
IN FISCAL YEAR 2008, AND THEREFORE TRANSFERRING $2
MILLION FROM NORTH BROADWAY BASIN RECONSTRUCTION
(STM354) AND $5 MILLION FROM 4TH AVENUE
RECONSTRUCTION BETWEEN DAVIDSON AND SR54 (STL309) .
INTO PAVEMENT REHABILITATION PROGRAM - FUTURE
ALLOCATIONS (STL238) (4/5THS VOTE REQUIRED)
POLICY DISCUSSION AND DIRECTION REGARDING POTENTIAL
REVENUE SOURCES FOR INFRASTRUCTURE AND/OR
PAVEMENT NEEDS
REVIEWED BY:
CITY ENGINEER <sr" >r'fo'
DIRECTOR OF GENERAL SERVICES \) _ L? __
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WO~OPERATION~ Y
INTERIM CITY MANAGER Ii
4/5THS VOTE: YES X NO
SUBMITTED BY:
1-27
04/05/07 WoIkshop
Page 2 of35
BACKGROUND
In February of 2006, staff began development of an Infrastructure Management Program for
a limited number of the City's public assets including pavement; drainage; missing
sidewalks, curbs and gutters, and pedestrian ramps (''missing infrastructure"); deficient cross
gutters (included with missing infrastructure for the purposes of this report); and utility wire
undergrounding. Since that time, a comprehensive review of best-in-class work in the area
of public infrastructure asset management shows that in order to be most effective, this
effort should be broadened to include the full range of the City's public infrastructure.
While tonight's focus is on pavement and drainage, the City of Chula Vista has a pressing
need to develop and implement a broad infrastructure asset management program in order
to create a comprehensive asset management approach that ensures the best use of limited
funding. 1bis is just the first step toward creating what should become an Infrastructure
Asset Management Program; continued work on this effort will take time and a
significant investment of resources.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed project for
compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined
that the adoption of the Drainage Project Priority List is not a project as defined under
Section 15378 of the State CEQA Guidelines; therefore, pursuant to Section 15060 (c)(3)
of the State CEQA Guidelines the activity is not subject to CEQA. Although
environmental review is not necessary at this time, as funding is secured and each
individual drainage project moves forward toward implementation, environmental review
will be required and a CEQA determination completed prior to commencing construction
of any of the facilities. Implementation of the Pavement Management Program qualifies
for a Class 1 categorical exemption pursuant to Section 15301(c) (Existing Facilities) of
the State CEQA Guidelines because the project is the rehabilitation of existing streets,
sidewalks, gutters, etc. for the purpose of public safety. Thus, no further environmental
review is necessary for the Pavement Management Program.
RECOMMENDATION
That Council:
1) Accept the status report on the Infrastructure Management Program effort to date.
2) Approve the Resolution approving the drainage project priority list and authorizing
staff to seek special funding opportunities for any project that meets the funding criteria.
3) Approve the Resolution endorsing the continued implementation of a Pavement
Management System.
4) Approve the Resolution approving a pavement management program based on
$11,504,665 million in FY 2007 and $9.5 million in FY 2008 and transferring $2.0
million from North Broadway Basin Reconstruction Project (STM354) and $5.0 million
from 4th Avenue Reconstruction between Davidson & SR54 Project (STL309) into
Pavement Rehabilitation Program - Future Allocations (STL238).
1-28
04/05/07 W orksbop
Page 3 of 35
5) Utilize this opportUnity for policy discussion and direction regarding potential revenue
sources for infrastructure and/or pavement needs.
BOARDS/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
Not applicable.
DISCUSSION
In February of 2006, staff began the development of an Infrastructure Management Program
for a limited number of the City's public assets including pavement; drainage; missing
sidewalks, curbs and gutters, and pedestrian ramps ("missing infrastructure''); deficient cross
gutters (included with missing infrastructure for the purposes of this report); and utility wire
undergrounding.
Work in the four focus areas has identified an estimated total funding need of approximately
$392,400,000 to $396,000,000 (in 2006 dollars) to address gaps and deficiencies identified
with this first phase of infrastructure analysis. The specific component parts of this estimate
are as follows:
Pavement
$ 192,000,000 over 10 years
$ 19.200,000 er ear
Drainage
Priority 1 Tier $ 28,800,000
(Funded Projects) ($ 4,400,000)
Subtotal Priority 1 Tier $ 24,400,000
Priority 2 -4 Tiers $ 6,300,000 to 88,900,000
Priority 5 Tier S 1,310,000 to 2,300,000'
nSto;.m'DiafIi' 'COW mted 'MeiaiiiT 'e' ..m. .... n....... -- T '29:00'O.o01jn n.. n__.. __m..m
Mis.in Infrastructure 8 139.400,000
Sublolal Partial Infrastructure Funding Need
Utility Wire Undergrounding
$392,400,00010 $396,000,000
8275,000,000
As part of this effort, a comprehensive review of the best-in-class work in the area of public
infrastructure asset management shows that in order to be most effective, this undertaking
should be broadened to include the full range of municipal public infrastructure.
While tonight's focus is on pavement and drainage, the City of Cbula Vista has a pressing
need to develop and implement a broad infrastructure asse1 management program in order to
1 Unable to estimate two of eight projects at this time.
2 Utility wire undergrounding is presented separately as it is not typically included within municipal
infrastructure asset management programs and because it bas a separate, restricted funding source (Rule 20A
funds).
1-29
04/05/07 Workshop
Page 4 of 35
create a comprehensive asset management approach that ensures the best use of limited
funding. This is just the first step toward creating what should become an Infrastructure
Asset Management Program; continued work on this effort will take time and a significant
investment of resources.
The Need for an Infrastructure Asset Management Program
In FY 2007, within the public works function, the City will spend over $56 million in
capital and operating funds to provide municipal infrastructure services to the public and
to plan, design, operate, maintain, and replace public works infrastructure. To highlight
just some of the City's backbone infrastructure responsibilities, these monies will go
toward maintaining 1,113 lane miles of roads including traffic striping, pavement
ma:rkings, roadside signs, street trees and planted parkways; 18.9 million square feet of
sidewalk; 3.9 million squa:re feet of curb and gutter; 229 miles of storm drain system; 471
miles of sewer lines; 8,501 street lights; and 250 signalized intersections.
Like much of North America, the City's public infrastructure is
nearing a critical point in maintenance and funding lifecycles.
Asset management is not new, but is considered a relatively new
concept when applied to municipal infrastructure.
The City's best-in-class research shows that few cities have been
able to fully undertake this effort. Cities in Canada appear to have
made the most progress; Portland, Oregon appears to be the west
coast standout.
The emphasis on infrastructure asset management is being driven by the widely accepted
fact that cities historically have managed their infrastructure poorly. This has resulted in
a national concern for municipal infrastructure, which is in poor condition and is
continuing to deteriorate to the point of negatively impacting the economic strength of
cities, as. well as health concerns of citizens.
While the City begins to aggressively manage its infrastructure, Chula Vista continues to
grow and develop and so do the demands and expectations placed on its infrastructure
and services. We face the same challenges as other cities to apply limited resources to
satisfy increasing public expectations, minimize the risk of critical infrastructure failure,
and plan for the long-term financial sustainability of our public infrastructure and
services.
The City took the first step to creating a comprehensive Infrastructure Asset Management
Program in February of 2006 thereby furthering efforts to create an integrated approach
to growth planning. For the City, as owner, planner and operator of all Chula Vista's
infrastructure, except water, there should be a seamless process between growth planning
and rehabilitation planning. Planning, engineering and operational initiatives should all
be considered as well in developing solutions to the City's infrastructure challenges,
whether they be new challenges resulting from growth or on-going challenges resulting
from the ownership and operation of major infrastructure.
1-30
04/05/07 Workshop
Page 5 of35
Over time, the Infrastructure Asset Management Program will evolve to become the
City's primary infrastructure policy document. An early step in this evolution will be to
consider and incorporate the City's policies related to management of existing
infrastructure, followed by the development of a seamless integration of growth policy
and rehabilitation policy. A further step in this evolution will be to fully integrate the
tools available for financing infrastructure with the prioritization and decision making
related to infrastructure planning and management.
The City of Chula Vista has a pressing need to develop and implement a broad
infrastructure asset management program in order to create a comprehensive asset
management approach. Continued work on the effort to create an Infrastructure Asset
Management Program will take time and a significant investment of resources.
Undertaking this effort and taking it to completion will demonstrate to the property
owners, residents and businesses in our city that the most effective infrastructure
planning mechanisms will be developed and implemented.
What is an Infrastructure Asset Management Pro=?
In its simplest form, an Infrastructure Asset Management Program begins with a
systematic program to inventory and evaluate the condition and capacity of infrastructure
assets and then combines that data with a management and improvement program, which
integrates operations and maintenance with capital renewal/improvements over multiple
budget cycles.
When implemented and managed properly, an Infrastructure Asset Management Program
can provide a municipality with a roadmap to achieve an infrastructure that meets
expected performance levels at the lowest possible cost.
Minimization of expenditures on municipal infrastructure may seem like the least cost
alternative to infrastructure management, but only defers needed expenditures until
infrastructure assets fail and require replacement-almost always at a much greater cost
due to parts, labor, method of replacement and collateral damages. These increased costs
are often hidden but are real costs that unnecessarily increase costs to residents and
negatively affect the quality of services provided to cnstomers.
This briefing document is intended to:
. Summarize the management principles underlying the infrastructure asset
management approach that has been undertaken;
. Provide a general summary of work to date in the areas of missing infrastructure
and utility wire undergrounding;
. Report in more detail the current status of the condition of the infrastructure in the
areas of pavement and drainage;
. Recommend prioritization of identified drainage projects and an overview of
storm drain pipe needs;
. Provide general information regarding current funding and potential new revenue
streams; and,
. Make recommendations regarding the most immediate cost effective actions in
the area of pavement.
1-31
04/05/07 Workshop
Page 6 005
The primary management objective of an Infrastructure Asset Management Program is to
reach and maintain a sustainable level of municipal infrastructure operation, maintenance,
and renewal which:
. Provides planned service levels of the infrastructure at the most cost-effective
user costs.
. Provides service levels that contribute to attracting and retaining residential,
business, and commercial customers.
Cities that are creating and implementing a comprehensive Infrastructure Asset
Management System indicate that the following management tools are necessary to
achieve these objectives:
. Improved budget preparation, analysis, and management, which allow tracking of
costs for operations and assets.
. Development of a financial plan that links infrastructure operating budget with the
capital budget.
. Implementation of an asset inventory system that enables the management of the
infrastructure as a whole with the implementation of preventative maintenance
focused on preservation and to help avoid a reactive failure repair approach to
asset replacement.
. Development and implementation of an asset condition and capacity evaluation
system that relates asset condition and capacity to expected service levels. lbis
condition and capacity assessment system must look at the infrastructure systems
as whole units rather than as a conglomeration of unrelated individual assets.
lbis allows more effective decisions on trade-offs between asset maintenance and
asset replacement.
. Development and implementation of a comprehensive computerized management
information system for the identification, prioritization, and monitoring of
infrastructure capital improvements projects. lbis system must provide a
systematic, quantitative approach for evaluating the costs of
operation/maintenance compared with asset renewal/replacement. This is an
aspect of asset management that utilizes data upon which to base management
decisions concerning costs of operation/maintenance versus renewal/replacement
of assets.
Most cities will say they perform all of the above at least in the form of subjective
consideration by management personnel without a formalized asset management
approach. Cities are now moving toward creating integrated prioritization plans based on
objective data and agreed upon criteria for priority setting.
Best-in-class asset management programs are highly automated and have four key
components in common:
1. Customer Service and Work Management to support the day-to-day activities of
the operations branches and supply swnmary data to an infrastructure information
repository. The Customer Service module unifies the service delivery to the
resident and provides the framework for service levels, performance measures,
and standard reporting. The Work Management system supports the
implementation of planned maintenance, capital project management and costing,
1-32
04/05/07 Workshop
Page 7 of35
and provides the information necessary to support performance measurement. It
also facilitates mobile computing for field activities.
2. An Infrastructure Information Repository functions as a knowledge bank,
facilitating collaboration vertically within public works departments/divisions and
horizontally across infrastructure types. It provides all the information needed to
manage public works infrastructure throughout the life cycle and enables a wide
range of queries and reports for analysis and modeling. It also contains summary
and aggregate data from other business systems as well as integrates infrastructure
inventory data about each asset into the GIS database and other external files.
3. A Right-of-Way Management System standardizes the procedures and software
used to coordinate and control activities on the public right-of-way. This system
is integral to the Work Management system.
4. Performance Measurement lays the groundwork for long term infrastructure
planning and service improvement.
An Infrastructure Asset Management Program systematically and quantitatively utilizes
all of the above tools to continually assess and improve the infrastructure as a whole
system (to maintain service levels) rather than considering the infrastructure as
independent discrete assets that are repaired as they fail.
While the City of Chula Vista has partially completed inventory and condition
assessment information for some of its infrastructure, the public works infrastructure and
the related public services are managed across three departments-Engineering, General
Services and Public Works, using software applications and extensive paper and manual
systems. Existing work management tools and processes are not integrated across the
Departments and rely on ad-hoc processes to plan, schedule, approve, coordinate, and
report field work. We do not have the tools to coordinate all activities on City streets and
rights-of-way to minimize impacts to traffic, neighborhoods, businesses, and the
infrastructure itself. City staff produce good results, but it requires significant effort and
diligence to manage and coordinate the many constroction, maintenance, and third party
activities that occur on City streets.
Agencies reporting costs associated with the implementation of an automated, integrated,
comprehensive system estimated $4 million to $5 million for implementation with
ongoing costs of approximately $600,000 annually.
Infrastructure Asset Life-Cvcle Manae:ement
Ideally an Infrastrocture Asset Management Program is based upon life-cycle
management. Asset life-cycle management involves optimizing the following three inter-
related costs of a capital asset over its useful economic life:
. Initial capital cost of an asset (planning, design and construction).
. The cost of operating and maintaining (O&M) that asset over its useful
(economic) life, including increased costs as the asset naturally deteriorates over
time.
. The replacement cost of that asset at the end of its economically useful life.
1-33
04/05/07 Workshop
Page 8 005
A critical aspect of infrastructure assets management is that maintenance and capital
renewal of individual assets are considered interrelated. Maintenance of the assets should
be performed until the point where it is more cost effective to replace or rehabilitate the
asset to retain the asset's expected operability.
Infrastructure asset management, when performed properly, looks at systems and
subsystems as a whole and focuses investment in maintenance and capital replacement to
make the best use of available funding by avoiding catastrophic failure.
Approaching asset management utilizing life-cycle management would constitute a
significant change in budget planning for the City; however, it is recommended as a most
responsible and realistic alternative toward sustainabiIity of public assets.
Chula Vista's Infrastructure Svstem
Attachment 1 is a template that has been developed as a result of a review of best-in-class
practices. It both provides the comprehensive list of infrastructure assets that might be
tracked by the City and shows what the summary results of the first two levels of an
Infrastructure Asset Management Program could include. If the City were able to invest
the time and effort required to create a true Infrastructure Asset Management Program, a
full inventory and valuation component followed by a condition assessment and gap
analysis (dollars required to bring the asset from current condition to acceptable
condition) would be completed.
Master Planning Efforts To Date and Tonight's Focus
Prior to the effort that began in February 2006, master planning components included the
following: Comprehensive Master Plans, with specific reconunended priorities, were
completed and adopted by Council for wastewater and bicycle facilities; the City
currently maintains an accurate inventory of traffic control devices and streetlights; the
State of California maintains a listing and ranking system for the City's 18 identified
bridges.
Considering the list of assets recommended for inclusion with an Asset Management
Program, these provide a good start; however, much more time and attention is required
to move this effort to the next level.
Tonight's workshop provides an overview and currently planned or recommended next
steps for the February 2006 focus areas:
. Utility Wire Undergrounding
. Missing sidewalks, curbs, gutters, pedestrian ramps, and deficient cross gutters
. Drainage
. Pavement
Work in each of these areas has resulted in the start of an inventory process utilizing our
Geographic Information System (GIS). The first generation of GIS maps resulting from
the data gathered during the inventory and condition assessment processes will be
provided during the workshop.
1-34
04/05/07 Workshop
Page 9 of35
UTILITY WIRE UNDERGROUNDING
Utility wire undergrounding is not typically considered an item of municipal infrastructure
because it is an asset that is primarily the responsibility of the local utility and it has a
discreet and separate funding source and therefore does not usually compete for General
Fund dollars. However, it was included in the City's first phase of analysis due to a Council
referral and a previous tendency to wrap this activity into infrastructure discussions.
Starting in 1968, developers have been required to install underground electric and
communications utilities in new subdivisions. However, approximately 164.63 miles of
existing overhead electrical distribution lines remain, predominantly in western Chula Vista.
San Diego Gas and Electric (SDG&E) estimates that it would cost approximately $275
million (2006 dollars) and take about 138 years to place these lines underground. The
communications utilities (e.g., Cox, SBC, etc.) have generally cooperated by installing their
facilities in SDG&E's joint trench at no extra charge to the City.
In order to underground these utilities, the City is required to form Utility Undergrounding
Districts in accordance with rules established by the California Public Utilities Commission.
The City receives an annual allocation of funds (known as Rule 20A funds) from SDG&E
that must be spent on undergrounding projects.
. The City's current franchise agreement with SDG&E sets this amollllt at a constant $2.0
million per year, which is greater than the standard formula would have realized (about
$840,000 per year). Current 20A rules require that these funds be spent primarily on
undergrounding projects on major transportation corridors and city gateways. However,
other California cities have created additional funding opportunities to accelerate already
allowed 20A projects as well as allow for undergrounding wires in neighborhoods. These
alternative funding mechanisms include special surcharges on electric bills, assessment
districts (Rule 20B funds), and realization of what is known as "Rule 20C" funding through
developer partnerships. The City of San Diego has an aggressive undergrounding program
due to the implementation of a surcharge that generates from $10 million to $36 million
annually.
As of March 31, 2006, the City has allocated a total of approximately $30.36 million in Rule
20A funds to underground utilities within the City. This includes sixteen undergrounding.
districts that have been completed since 1995 for approximately $24.23 million. These
projects require a tremendous amount of coordination between the City, SDG&E and other
utility companies. A significant public outreach effort is required to secure right-of-way and
to complete the PUC required district formation process. City resources must be allocated
for ancillary street and appurtenance design. These related activities are considered
"unfunded" as they do not qualify for use of 20A funds; these labor-intensive activities
appear as administrative costs to the project.
The City has six utility undergrounding districts that have been formed and are part of the
current program. Five of these districts are located on Fourth Avenue, L Street and J Street
and were estimated in November 2005 to cost a total of $10.22 million in 20A funds. The
Bayfront Undergrounding District, which is currently under construction, is estimated by
SDG&E to cost approximately $20.0 million and is scheduled to be completed by June
1-35
ATTACHMENT 2
RESOLUTION NO. 2007-108
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNClL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA TRANSFERRING $4,504,665 FROM THE
CURRENT PAVEMENT APPROPRlATION, $2 MILLION
FROM THE AVAILABLE BALANCE IN THE NORTH
BROADWAY BASIN RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT
(STM354), AND $5 MILLION FROM THE AVAILABLE
BALANCE IN THE FOURTH A VENUE RECONSTRUCTION
BETWEEN DAVIDSON AND SR54 PROJECT (STL309), FOR
A TOTAL OF $11,504.665, INTO THE PAVEMENT
REHABILlTATlON PROGRAM - FUTURE ALLOCATIONS
(STL238) FOR PAVEMENT MAINTENANCE IN FISCAL
YEAR 200712008, AND PRELIMINAIL Y APPROVING
TRANSNET FUNDING OF APPROXIMATELY $6 MILLION
AND ANTICIPATED PROPOSITION B FUNDING OF
APPROXIMATELY $3.5 MILLION FOR PAVEMENT
REHABILlTATIONN PROGRAM - FUTURE ALLOCATIONS
(STL238) FOR PAVEMENT MAINTENANCE IN FISCAL
YEAR 2008
WHEREAS, the California Streets and Highways Code requires California cities (0
implement a pavement management system as a condition to obtain funding from the State
transportation improvement programs; and
WHEREAS. the City of Chula Vista initiated and has maintained a pavement
management system since 1986 in accordance with the California Streets and Highways Code;
and
WHEREAS, the most recent contract for pavement testing and management services was
awarded by the City Council to Nichols Engineering (Consultant) on January 10, 2006; and
WHEREAS, the Consultant conducted an expert evaluation of the pavement surface of
all City streets, ranked each street based on a Pavement Condition Index (PCI) and
recommended an appropriate maintenance strategy based on street PCl's; and
WHEREAS, the current estimated citywide PCI is 79 (on a scale of 0 to 100) with the
range of scores falling between 13 and 100; and
WHEREAS. the Consultant estimates that approximately $19.2 million per year will be
required for the next Icn years to maintain the current PCI and address the City's estimated $43
million pavement backlog; and
WHEREAS, approximately $4,504,665 remains in the current year capital program
pavement appropriation; and
1-36
Resolution No. 2007-108
Page 2
WHEREAS, the North Broadway Basin Reconstruction (STM354) and Fourth Avenue
Reconstruction between Davidson and SR54 (STL309) projects were identified outside of a
pavement management system; and
WHEREAS, $2,000,000 was included in the Fiscal Year 2006 appropriation, $400,000 in
Transnet funding was identified for Fiscal Year 2007, and $4,300,000 in Transnet funding was
projected for Fiscal Year 2008 for the North Broadway Basin Reconstruction (STM354); and
WHEREAS, $2,000,000 was appropriated in Fiscal Year 2006 and $3,000,000 in
Transnet funding was appropriated in Fiscal Year 2007 for the Fourth Avenue Reconstruction
between Davidson and SR54 (STU09); and
WHEREAS, staff recommends that all streets be included in the data analyzed by the
pavement management software and treated within the five-year program in which they appear;
and
WHEREAS, staff recommends that the maximum available funding be applied toward
pavement maintenance in Fiscal Year 2007 and Fiscal Year 2008; and
WHEREAS, the preliminary Fiscal Year 2008 budget projection includes Transnet
funding of approximately $6.0 million and anticipated Proposition B funding of approximately
$3.5 million available for paving projects.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City ofChula Vista
as follows:
1. That it approves the transfer of $21,651 of the available balance from Pavement
Rehabilitation (STL293) into Pavement Rehabilitation Program - Future Allocations (STL238)
for pavement maintenance.
2. That it approves the transfer of $22,214 of the available balance from Local Street
Pavement Rehabilitation (STUOO) into Pavement Rehabilitation Program - Future Allocations
(STL238) for pavement maintenance.
3. That it approves the transfer of $1,387,400 of the available balance from Pavement
Rehabilitation (STL31O) into Pavement Rehabilitation Program - Future Allocations (STL238)
for pavement maintenance.
4. That it approves the transfer of $973,400 of the available balance from Pavement
Rehabilitation 200512006 (STU15) into Pavement Rehabilitation Program - Futurc Allocations
(STL238) for pavement maintenance.
5. That it approves the transfer of $2,100,000 of the available balance from Pavement
Rehabilitation 2006/2007 (STL316) into Pavement Rehabilitation Program - Future Allocations
(STL238) for pavement maintenance.
1-37
Resolution No. 2007-108
Page 3
6. That it approves the transfer of $2.0 million of the available balance from the North
Broadway Basin Reconstruction Projecl (STM3S4), and $S million of the available balance from
the Fourth Avenue Reconstruction between Davidson and SR54 Project (STL309), for a
combined total of $] 1,504,665, into Pavement Rehabilitation Program - Future Allocations
(STL238), for pavement maintenance.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista that it
preliminarily approves including Transnet funding of approximately $6 million and anticipated
Proposition B funding of approximately $3.5 million in Pavement Rehabilitation Program -
Future Allocations (STL238) for pavement maintenance in Fiscal Year 2008.
Presented by
~
Scott Tulloch
Acting Assistant City Manager/City Engineer
Approved as to fonn by
~I.\'(('{\'\\ \5\-"'1~\,","\
Ann Moore
City Attorney
PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City ofChula Vista,
California, this 1st day of May 2007 by the following vote:
AYES: Couneilmembers:
Castaneda, McCann, Ramirez, and Cox
NAYS: Couneilmembers:
None
ABSENT: Councilmembers:
None
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers:
Rindone
~'bi!Jr
Cheryl Cox, yo
ATTEST:
~&~~~
Susan Bigelow, MMC, City r
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO )
CITY OF CHULA VISTA )
I, Susan Bigelow, City Clerk of Chula Vista, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing
Resolution No. 2007-108 was duly passed., approved, and adopted by the City Council at a
regular meeting ofthe Chula Vista City Council held on the 1st day of May 2007.
Executed this 151 day of May 2007.
-~Il&. "J~5t ~
Susan Bigelow. MMC, City CI .
1-38
ATTACHMENT 3
SUBJECT: FORMATION OF ASSESSMENT
DISTRICTS WITH CITY PARTICIPATION FOR
CONSTRUCTION OF INFILL STREET
IMPROVEMENTS
COUNCIL POLICY
CITYOFCHULA VISTA
POLICY
NUl\<ffiER
EFFECTIVE
DATE
PAGE
505-0 I
1/27/04
lof5
ADOPTED BY: Resolution No. 11373
AMENDED BY: Resolution No. 2004-031 (1/27/04)
I DATED, 8/30/83
RM":KnRnT TND
There are many properties within the western area of the City of Chula Vista (particularly in the
Montgomery area) that do not have full street improvements. Council adopted council Policy No.
505-01 by Resolution No.. 11373 on August 30, 1983, to provide guidelines for the City's financial
participation in Assessment District formation under the 1911 Block Act Program. These guidelines
addressed certain financial issues, however, over time questions arose regarding district administration
that were not addressed by the policy. These issues include the acquisition of right-of-way and the
application of deferral payments and agreements made for the construction of street improvements.
Additionally, changes in assessment law since 1983 have affected the establishment of these districts.
The process of forming Assessment Districts under the 1911 Block Act has become more
cumbersome since the passage of Proposition 218. The necessity of treating all properties in a district
equitably has lead to reconsideration of the original policy regarding undeveloped lots and
industria1!commerciallots.
Finally, the City has recently established a new program for the financing of infill street improvements
in the Montgomery area called the CDBG Street Rehabilitation Program. Under this program, the
City will finance all construction and design costs for infill street improvements except for the
construction of driveway aprons. Since it is expected that several Assessment Districts will be formed
under this program, it was considered advisable to reconsider the City's policy at this time.
PITRPn.~F
To establish a new City policy and rescind the current City policy on establishment of Assessment
Districts for the construction of infill street improvements.
PnTri:V
The City Council establishes the following policy for City participation in the establishment of
Assessment Districts for the construction of inlill street improvements:
1-39
SUBJECT: FORMATION OF ASSESSMENT
DISTRICTS WITH CITY PARTICIPATION FOR
CONSTRUCTION OF INFILL STREET
IMPROVEMENTS
COUNCIL POLlCY
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
POLlCY
NUlI'mER
EFFECTIVE
DATE
PAGE
505-01
1/27/04
20f5
ADOPTED BY: Resolution No. 11373
AMENDED BY: Resolution No. 2004-031 (1/27/04)
L n~nF>r~ 1 "Prn~l"!nllrp.:
T DATED: 8/30/83
a. Assessment Districts for the construction of infill street improvements will be
formed with the participation of the City using either the Improvement Act of
1911 as enacted and amended in the California Streets and Highways Code
(particularly Chapter 27 thereof, commonly referred to as "The Block Act") or
the Municipal Improvement Act of 1931 (Division 12 of the California Streets
and Highways Code) as amended by City ordinances. The assessment balloting
process shall be conducted in accordance with Chapter XIIID of the California
Constitution (Proposition 218) or applicable State law.
b. Where a minimal number of property owners in a block bave infill street
improvements and it would be impractical to form an Assessment District,
cOWlcil may authorize the City to enter into a reimbursement agreement with an
individual property owner for the financing of the property owner's share of
construction costs. Said agreement shall be for a maximum of ten years at an
interest rate to be determined by Council.
2. ni<::tnr.t rnmpn.;;:;rinn
a. A District is comprised of both sides of a public street between two
intersections, where both sides of the pub lic street do not have full
improvements (including curbs, gutters and sidewalks). A public street shall be
defined as right-of-way dedicated to and accepted by the city as a public
roadway, or dedicated to another public agency as a public roadway and
acquired by the City, which provides primary access to adjoining properties.
b. Where full improvements have already been constructed on one side of a public
street a District will be comprised of that side of such public street between
intersections on which full improvements have not been constructed.
c. At the option of Council and if property owners indicate such an interest, the
District may include additional contiguous blocks in the District to
conformance with 2a. and 2b. above.
d. City participation in District formation in areas with a primary land use
designation as commercial and/or industrial shall be limited to the overlay oruTp.r.nn:dnJC'.t1on of f':yi~tjnO' Tmuiw~v trnvf":1 MP.~,c: with thp. p.vr.P.nt;nn of
1-40
SUBJECT: FORMATION OF ASSESSMENT
DISTRlCTS WITH CITY PARTICIPATION FOR
CONSTRUCTION OF lNFILL STREET
ThIPROVEME1'<'TS
COUNCIL POLICY
CITYOFCHULA VISTA
POLICY
NUMBER
EFFECTIVE
DATE
PAGE
505-01
1/27/04
30f5
ADOPTED BY: Resolution No. 11373
-IDATED: 8/30/83
AMENDED BY: Resolution No. 2004-031 (1/27/04)
occasional commercial properties (such as comer lots) located in areas
primarily classified as residential. In the latter instance, such commercial
properties shall be treated in the same way as adj oining residential properties.
e. The City shall not participate in the formation of a District for a block, which is
primarily undeveloped. Where isolated undeveloped properties are located in a
block, which is otherwise developed, the City will provide the same benefits
provided to developed lots if agreement can be reached with the owner of such
undeveloped property which will include the location and width of driveways.
If agreement is not reached, the City shall construct pavement to the width
where the curb and gutter would have been conslrncted, but install an asphalt
berm in place of curb, gutter and sidewalk.
f. The City shall not participate in District formation for improvements to private
streets.
g. The City's financial participation in District formation for improvements to
public alleys shall be limited to utility relocation, replacement of existing
improvements and all engineering, inspection and administrative services.
Public alleys are defined as right-of-way dedicated to or accepted by the City as
a public roadway, or dedicated to another public agency and acquired by the
City, which generally provides secondary access to the adjoining properties
along the sides or rear of such properties.
3. R;g}1t.nf_W~yTc:<:np.<:'
a. It is desirable for the City to have the standard 56 feet of right of way width for
construction of full street improvements on both sides of a two-way street;
however, at the sole discretion of the City Manager (or designee), the acceptable
right of way width for construction of street improvements may be reduced on a
projcct-by-project basis to a minimum of 46 feet.
b. If existing street right is less than 46 feet, right of way acquisition will be
required. Property owners within the proposed District boundaries must
unanimously agree to dedicate sufficient right of way to meet this requirement to
the City at no cost to the City in order for District formation to proceed. The City
will not pay for right of way acquisition or undertake condemnation proceedings
under this nolicv.
1-41
SUBJECT: FORMATION OF ASSESSMENT
DISTRICTS WITH OTYPARTICll'ATION FOR
CONSTRUcnON OF INFILL STREET
IMPROVEMENTS
COUNCIL POLICY
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
POLICY
NUMBER
EFFECTIVE
DATE
PAGE
505-01
1/27/04
40f5
ADOPTED BY: Resolution No. 11373
AMENDED BY: Resolution No. 2004-031 (1/27/04)
I DATED: 8/30/83
4. f)P.f~Ah:
Property owners who construct improvements on their properties above a specific
value are required to construct infill street improvements. They may apply for a
deferral on constructing such improvements based on the existing conditions of the
surrounding area. If the deferral application is approved, the property owner must
sign an agreement with the City, which is secured through either a lien on the
property or by payment of a cash deposit.
a. If the deferral is secured by a lien, the lien or portion of the lien associated
with the deferral of construction of infill street improvements to be installed
and financed through an Assessment District will be released after formation
of such District including such properly has been accepted as complete by the
City Council and! or City Manager. This property will be assessed for the
special benefit received by such property from the improvements to be
[manced through the new District in accordance with applicable sections of
the California Streets and Highways Code.
b. If the deferral is secured by a cash bond covering the cost of curb, guller and
sidewalk, such bond plus the interest that has or should have accumulated
since the date of payment will be applied as a credit to be subtracted from the
portion of District costs allocated to the property. This will only apply to the
amount paid to cover the cost of the portion of the public street or public alley
to be installed and financed through the District.
c. After formation of the District and construction of all facilities is complete, it
will be determined if the current owners of the properties with cash bond
deferrals are eligible to receive refunds. The portion of the cash bond
associated with infill improvements for the street or alley installed and
financed through the District will be determined and added to the interest
which the City has or would have earned on this amount from the quarter
when the deposit was made, to the quarter when the construction contract was
awarded. The amount payable by the properly owner under the District will
be subtracted from the cash bond plus interest. If the resulting difference is
positive, such difference shall be refunded to the property owners.
1-42
COUNCIL POLICY
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
SUBJECT: FORMATION OF ASSESSMENT POLICY EFFECTIVE PAGE
DISTRICTS WITH CITY PARTICIPATION FOR NUMBER DATE
CONSTRUCTION OF INFILL STREET
lL>fPROVEMENTS
505-01 1/27/04 50f5
ADOPTED BY: Resolution No. 11373 T DATED: 8/30/83
AMENDED BY: Resolution No. 2004-031 (1/27/04)
d. Should the provisions of Section 4, np.fP.1T::llr:: conflict with the provisions of a
Deferral Agreement properly executed by the City designee and the property
owner prior to approval of this Council Policy, the Deferral Agreement will
govern.
5. rn"R<1 F1n~n(,lne:.
It is anticipated that additional funding for the construction of infill street
improvements in the Montgomery area will be available if a low interest loan is
received under the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Section 108
Program. Under this program, the previous provisions of this policy will apply in
addition to the following additions/ exceptions:
a. Only public streets in developed residential areas will be eligible for this
additional CDBG funding. Alleys will not be eligible.
b. The following costs will be paid by the City: rehabilitation of the existing
roadway; additional roadway pavement; curb, gutter and sidewalk; relocation of
existing utilities, design, inspection and administrative costs; repair or
replacement of existing damaged improvements outside the existing road right of
way. Right-of-way acquisition costs are not included.
c. The following costs will be paid by the property owners: paved driveway aprons and
repair or replacement of existing private improvements encroaching on the existing rdad
right-of-way.
1-43
ATTACHMENT 4
COUNCIL POllCY
CITY OF CHUlA VISTA
SUBJECT: SlDEWALKS - MAINTENANCE
POllCY EFFECITVE
NUMBER DATE PAGE
576-13 03-20-73 1 OF 2
I DATED: 03-20-73
ADOPTED BY: Resolution No. 6785
BACKGROUND
Problems: have arisen in the past regarding the obligations of the City for the repair and maintenance of
sidewalks where damage has been the result of root growth of City street trees and it is, therefore, desired to
clarify the policy of the City in this regard. Section 6510 of the Streets and Highways Code and Section 27.2
of the City Code imposes the responsibility for the maintenance of sidewalks upon the property owner
abutting the sidewalk. The maintenance is usually accomplished on a cooperative basis between me City
government and the property owners. A5 improperly maintained sldewalks present a hazard to pedesnians,
the following policy provides a proper arrangement for mainrenance. This policy amends Resolution No.
4675.
PURPOSE
Amending Resolution No. 4675 establishing a sidewalk maintenance policy in accordance with the provisions
of Section 6S10 of the Streets and Highways Code of the Srare of California and Section 27.2 of the Chula
Vista City Code.
POUCY
1. Sidewalk Maintenance
a. City recognizes the primary responsibility of the abutting property owner [0 maintain the sidewalk
abutting his property in a non-hazardous condition for pedestrian traffic. It sliall be the
responsibility of the property owner to prevent vegelation, either from his property or the parkway
area, to grow in such a manner so as to obstrUct the streets, sidewalks, curbs and gutters.
b. It shall be the responsibili"ty of the propeny owner to notify the Director of Public Works when any
City street tree in a public right of way adjacent to his property is obstructing the street, sidewalk,
curb and gutter.
2. Sidewalk Repairs
a. Interim Reoalrs_ Where hazardous condition is brought to the attention of the City, such a
differential settling or elevaling, deterioration, cracks or any other condition which might contribute
to the hazardous condition of the sidewalk, the City will inspect the condition and make interim
repairs.
b. Permanent Reoairs. If permanent repairs require rhe removal and replacement of sidewalk, the City
will participa.te in che removal and replacement to the extent of the removal and preparation of the
grade for the installation of a new sidewalk except. under conditions outlined in No.4 and No. S.
The property owner will secure a licensed and bonded contractor to make installation of the new
sidewalk at his expense. A no-fee pennit will be issued to the contractor. Any repairs required
within a street intersection of alley entrance will be made at the expense of the City.
1-44
COUNCIL POLlCY
CITY OF CHUlA VISTA
SUBJEcr: SIDEWALKS. MAINTENANCE POLlCY EFFECTIVE
NUMBER DATE PAGE
576-13 03-20-73 20F2
ADOPTED BY: Resolution No. 6785 I DATED: 03-20-73
3. Curb and Gutter Repairs
Where a hazardous condition is brought to the attention of rhe City involving the curb and gutter. such
as differential settling or elevating, deterioration, cracks or other condition which might contribute to
the hazardous condition of the curb md gutter, the City will make repairs.
4. ProDertv Owner's Sole Resoonsibilirv for ReD airs
Where it can be shown that a hazardous condition is the result of a properry owners action. the City
will require the repairs to be made .at the sole expense of the property owner.
5. Cif'ls Sole Resoonstbilirv for Reoairs
Where it can be shown that a hazardous condition is the result of City 'treet trees adjacent to the
sidewalk, all costs of sidewalk repair and/or replacement will be borne by the City in accordance with
Council Resolution No. 6192.
1-45
.---~~._-_._-"--~..-~.-_~~--~-,.,.",,-,._-~-~....~,-----,"
......_"...._~_~__,__~__..."__~__~_~.~_~-_._~_..-_.~-__.~____m_"__~___~._.._......_._."._"."__~..._"~_.~____~._~._
ATTACHMENT 5
Missing Improvements
All Curb and
Sidewalk Cost
Per School
ALLEN $6,401,658 $143,000 22 $6,258,658
CASILLAS'-- ~-" $602,703 ""$208,000 32 -..... $394,703-
CASTLE PARK ----$25,256~~~ ....$~.g~.cC::.::.7~ -$24,762c657"']2'094,270 ....-I3=~5..
S;HULA VISTA HIL~.~.._..."..".....,,$621J.c2112- $162,500 25 $4!i'7ZIl!... _..."..
CLEAR VIEW $904,036 $143,000 22 $761,036
COOK $2,814,274 $1~fofo~~'-22' $2,671,274 $2,589,165 3,571
DISCOVERY $97,500$~7.500 ..~.. ,,_....:-=~.. ==... .__
EASTLAKE $130,000 $130,000 20
fEASTER--.....-........ -...~.$1.4:i6:566"~ml,000 34 .$1,21.~5~$ii2731 238" $1,042,834
GREG ,ROGE'3.S ._......"." $326,263 ".. $227,5'!.o. ....2.5" _._.....,,$~8,7~3... .........,,_ .._.."..__ .._~.~~
HALECREST $513,500 $513,500 79
HARBORSIDE .-.- ""$24~7fi2)23 $312,000 --4S" .....- $24,470,823 $23,550,771 --32,484- $920~052 --6,134- 38,618
HILLTOP DRIVE ." " ,,=:=--'$2~ 121,508" --$61 ~~ --'95"-]1 ,504:tQ't' -......$186,115..."...257------$1:317,893 -....::..8,786 ...Jl:~
KELLOGG ______ __ $33!',(JiJ.Q.... _...!3.~~,000 50____...._....._ 1----_.
LAUDERBACH _ ____ __$8,326,~~.. $91,000 _..1"... ~8,235,489" ..~~,298,029
.~OMA VERDE __._ ___.$381,~3IJ._.._ $175,5Q.q_,,2Z_....,_.......!206!1J~0 $46,596
MARSHALL $6,500 $6,500 1
MON'fGOMERY ."........ '--""$4.378~i25" ....$110,500 17 '~'''-$4~67,625'
MUELLER - ~:::.... $3::'4.~8.~1?.s..::' =]5'72:000 --"88 ---$2,8-66,196
OLY~~C VIEW __.___" _____..J13,iJ.qq" _~~!},ooq ___,~_ _".._._
OT~.._, _.__" __,._,_$,12,282,B~ll... __$~~O,OOO 80 $11,762,930 $11,170,977 15,408
PALOMAR $844,573 $637,000 98 $207,573 1--- $112,5321 155
PARKVIEW __ __"..!299,00iJ..... _$299,00iJ. 46__ ____._"...
RICE $5,789,797 $279,500 43 $5,511J.~ _ $4,480,527" 6,180
ROHR $14,337,943 $344,500 53 $13,993,443 $13,902,701 19,176
.,....------.,-..-.... .......,,-~...._. --,....----....--..... "-'''- -."..
ROSEBANK ~________$,~1J.19,869 . $~64,000 56,_ __ $10,655,8.~ $7,068,895 9,750
TIFFANY $305,500 $305,500 47
VALLE LINDO ------~ --$10}i8:D13 --$286,000 "-'44-- $10,492,013
VISTA SQUARE $799,274 $208,000 32 $591,274
$7,949,500 1,223 $131,384,016
Total
Len9th
(feet)
_ $4,250,6~ ........3.8.c338_2!c!Q.~
$394,703 __~,.6_:J.1.... ....3~~
$268,387 1,789 __.35,5!~
$457,787 3,052 3,052
_~__M"
$761,036 5,074 5,074
$82,109 547 4,119
8,687 $1,937,460 _12,916
_..__~~ __~~,435 __ 1,063
",,"-..--
_..!~,46.~~07 4,~~
$1,017,116 1,403
School Name
Total Costs
Per School
Ramp Cost M' .
Per School lsslng
@ $6,500 ea Ramps
Curb/Sidewalk
@ $725/Linear
foot
._.._.E,1lO2,98~1.
Sidewalk
@$150/Linearfoot
Curb &
Sidewalk
Len9th
2,770
~
I
.j:>
m
$804,919
$1,849,080
$591,953
$95,041
$1,029:771
$90,741
$3,586,974
.".__.~.--:.=
$6,274,785
$258,192
$107,094,091
8,655
356
147,716
$4,217,228
$333,082
$24,289,925
S_ull1ll1al}'; _
IMis~!ng C.uo:t>JGutte!.,&"Sidewalk: ,,__ 147,716 LF $107,094,091
IMissing Sidewalk: 161,933 LF $24,289,925
~~~~~~~=~~=~=~~L:~~~~:1~;;c=~::::~m .
Sidewalk
Length
6,952
658
5,366
12,327
3,946
634
6,865
605
23,913
28,115
2,221
161,933
_7,190
658
21,603
1,127
10,142
13,730
19,355
----
789
--
13,045
19,781
------
33,663
36,770
2,577
309,649
I
I
I
i
,
I
.1
ATTACHMENT 6
CROSS-GUTTER Priority List
STOP
SIGN
RANKING
Gran e .t\~~~e & HHlto~ Drive <YY^f!:~rL__~~.. ___Li:Lane M~C?E.J__,_~Q,0091,__wl.~t~^,~J 40 _. _~_~~~ _M_~
2 Pa19.rl!.'3.,r..,,~~~~~__~_Tbi~q,,~Y_~_I1_IJ_~_{YJE;:,~) Class I 22,000 - 13.5 . 35 I N 124 90.9
_ 1......"'..'.'..'.........._....'1_...._.................___.................--"............--....-..............,.)..".........-..-.".....,..-,...-...,.,..,....--.-... ...c...._...,...,......_......,.
I Street & Hilltop Drive (West) Class III ' 22.00, 14.7 : 25 iN: 115 i 84.6
4gr..,&. fiill,op D~v."JE,a~t.., Class I .,.... 2?,Q6QC"'''10.5. :''''''"35'''''''~-'''''""i:"i2""''"""82.3"
5 t-'1_~lr~se AX~nu.r:!,l3i:_~(t_~__()@ng_r:!___I:\\lenueJ?()uth) Class III '?'{,?QO_ 12.4 30 N 109 -80.2
6 ^,_.L,l? Street & Broadway ___..__..._~_M'W~ ___~____. "_..__~~~~JJ .~_~?tQQQ~."_" 12.5 ____,,~,,__ _w_w~__.....-.lQ~___<-i" ".J_~~_.^,
7 Fifth Avenue &FSt",et(North) Class II 12,0,00 11,5 30' N . 108 . 79.2
..~,........j'Ol~ander..'l.~enue & OI:Ll11fllcJ'arkw9Y,~.... Class III 7,500 12.5 , 25 i N 106 78.3
~.____,,_~eco~g._f\!en':l~~_~YP~?:~~~. _ _ _"___~~~~fi~II'"' ~J.'.~=!?J.9QQL=:-__lO.O"-.~=r=._"}~~_"J-_~_N_w=~r.~...-i02.-':-.-'74.~ ..'--
10 _._C~_~_e.t,~..~~.~~~i3y qa~.I .??!.Q9.Q; 7.8 35'- ~J loi- - -74:5'"
..,...l..r.."iFiftllAvenue IX_L Slree,CN.."rthL..,.. Class II . . 12,000 9.8 . 30 . N. 101 74.4
12 G Stre~t & Vista Way '~.'._.'~'Class il'-".,.. 12,000.""'''-9-:-8~ ...:i.O............r".,.~i.... '-loT- .." 74:4'.
,~.3__~__,?econd Avenue & Palom_ar Street ,,_,,____"~__S~~_~L_ L _~:g;ooi___,_~_..w.., _"....1.9~_J_____~,,__._,,1QQ<_._,~""?~.~___.
I4"Fir.s.t..A:;en.ue.iXJ.St.",e!(North) Cla,.ss II .12,,009: ..1'lA 30 Y ,:J9... 7.2.8 .
IS Fift,.h..~y.enu~ .8<~.St:r~et .. Cla.ss II. 12,'0'001. 9} " .......,..3.Q fi 99 JU
16 Se~9~d .~y~nue & !:.?treet C1i3ss II ' ._grQqgl. __~.~~_ 30~. N 71.8
17 Melrose Avenue & Main Street Class III ?,,?QO 9.4 "1 _m ,}9u__, N 97 71.6
18 1First~yenue&.().JO'~rdStr~~.t(Soutl1) ...cl<issIJI..7(.~Oo.... ..1~:5. !f3.,o,.... J Y 97 "J7.1,5.....
19 ,E Street &First Avenue(East) Class I 22,000 7.5 30 N 97 lLS
20I'lqVJerg,~~tll<]3..roadVJ9y_(.Eas.t) ....,....R.e~i9...ntiaL. ". ...h~Q!. .11,3 ..25. N 2Ei....... .._.29}...
21 \?!e.!.@..~~_~.?e.~~_~,~_..A,,~,l}l!~_JE;;!s:~}, Class II 1~!.q.o_9 14.2 2S Y 95, ,_.?9.~~__
22 l~_~!_r.Cl.~~__~Y~~~_~__~__~~_~".~~!~~_?t:reet Class II~?-,9991 13.3 30 Y 95 69.7
. 23..~.L~elrose Avenue..8<..~~st Or:aJl]."!,ven~~,CN.ort~L Class II . 12,000.. . 8.9 .. 25... N ....9.5. 69.6
24 KStreet & FourthAvenu~ (East)C;;SS iI.....12~OOOu -8:0. -, '''"30.' r ~j 94 -'69:2" ...
,
_?5 _~!S.~tre~t & Thir!! Aver:!~.~JEast1___~_,,~ _^_, ..'" __.f@.~~U~" __,~19Q9~__._~:.Q,_"" i .~~,~~~.." '^'~__~~'"_ ,.. _"____9~,~._., __,_?~,;.~,
26 F.l~~_~~~!:1.LJ~.~~i3!9~~.rStr~~t_(St:l.~,tbL ,9.~.~.~n _?2QQ.l ,,~,:9~ __,__~.- 25 ,___~,____.,' 93 .__~~~?
27 RfthAvenue"Il<EStreet(~orth) Class II 12,9'00 75 30 N 92 67,8
28 . !i~~enue & ~S.tr~e!..(t!.'?!!I'L ..... .~... . .fJa.ss.II......" .....r2"QO~. .2~..... ~_..3.Q...__ i_IIJ... 1........9..2....,..,.672
29 ,E?~IStrl;!~t ~..~.Cl9_'?r:t:~-"~T1':-le (East) ____u:__c:lCI~}I~____:-JJ.?9g"i-~.?' 25 -- N 92 67.4------
,~~_~fferson Avenue & K Street (SouthLw___~"_.""._ Residential-,L.. _. 1,200+-_._15.4 ___ m-'__~'___~"___i_'~__'C.~ 92 ,_,_.~Q_
31_ .!.~..cond.'l.venu~.&_OrallJle..'l.'!...n~e{jIJ~rth) ....... ._.."Cla~sII ...1._...r.2,g.QQ+~.JlL.. 2..5., ...~L..... .~. .... _~?L
32 ,.__ :__S~f2__n_q Ay'e!l~u!:~ J Street (~~LJt!!t_______ __,_~Iass ~_LJ,~..Q9QL_ ___-2.~ L- _.'----3.Q____~__-m-~'__- __.. '''__,,?~__^~. < "_.~6:~
33 Irst Av~~_~ Palomar Street (Nortb1_."..__..,,~___.__S~.~_~__~?,500: "'_'".__,,~~~__.__'" :_~_____[__ N 91 ,___...?~~?___
34 os~~~~.nue ~ _~'!~._~~~ Street __ ____.. _...... .._uu,,_;u__._.~.I.~~}~.u__~!___ ...,}~!q.9Qi ._m.. _ _l~~Q_J....______?_?, __.,_.......Ymuu!_u____~L_.... ... L..... .~_I?: 9,.
_.. ~ p DrivelLM.ajn Street (~)_....... .......~.~_..sJ9.ss I......J..._..12,00Q!..........?.l.L. ...L......2?i~...l....J'l"...i....9.Q..._..l....??L
36 Melrose ~veT1LJ.~_?t ,,~_i3:?t_ ~i3..!(}r:':li3.r.,?~~~t... _. ............__u_ ..u.... ......._ CI~_~ .II__m_..';_..... 12(.q09._.u.~7~_9.. ........ ..I.u... ._. ..25_ .."..."j. _".. Y .. 90 - 66.3
,t'I~dison Ave~,e & K S~~U~ll~tDL___~_~~~.:>19!:!l~La}--i---,,__..!~"',,~_~_14.~,_._;__..__~~_." __~,___~L
38 RfthA"!e~LJe.ll<L?~.e."t (~o,!!h).. Clas~ II .., l:1,QO,D.... 6..7...."".. 3.Q, 1...~L 89 ..6S's
39 Tb!~9_~IJ:~~LJt:!.~.~..?q:~f;!~..c~(}_~~) q~ss I , _~?,_9_Q9! 4.5 35 [_..."u..~!___. 89 65.1
40 ..F!!'h..A,,!~n~1l< E Street (South L.._... , .. ..9ass_IJ. .:......l2,QQQ...... .. 6.2.... L..30...L .... J'L~.~ 8.!..., ..M,9"..
41 Fifth Avenue&D~treet.(~outh) Class II 12,000 11.5 . 30 i Y 88 64's
42 ....,Eifth A:<.e.".LJ...~LStreet .(Sout!>J... ..CI.~~ l~" ....gOOO"'".,.._~,O ..22.... ~.. ._.,...13~ .~L..
43 '"..,Naples~treet..&.:rhirdAve.nu,e tE.a~) .9a.ss II... g,QQ9~ 6.0 30 N 86 63,5...
44 .~.f(}~d_?treet ~.~!~9._~~~l1tJ~_u(~~)_ Class II __.gIQ90 6.0 30 N 86 6,3.5
..,"...~L...J.ole~,~der A,,!en.~~...U~s;, NaplesStreet (NorthL.. ~ Cla~.lJ..,...L~..12,000,..._"...~~..." .,..._2..5 N ".. _~~.......~L.
46 ;.~ac:i~f!_~Y'?~u.~,,~_~?:?t~,i3.PI~~__?~~~.et(N(}r:t!J) c,J'!..S? Ill' 7,500" 12.1 25 Y 85' 62.4
.__3J_____Q.Stre~~F.!2~~tJ~..,,_...~_._,,---_.. ____ q~~_g,_,_,_ ..~__p,OO.Q:_____^ !Q~~._..___~_..._._ }__~_ , _.._,,_~__ ,,~1.~. ,,~2~._q_..._
1012
1-47
ATTACHMENT 6
CROSS-GUTTER Prioritv List
RANKING
:: .... i6:~~~d~;iX~~~~~~~~r~~~i;~~-",1?~.~ .... g::::i 'Lii:666j_~lltJ~..i~=ik~:I ~ J ... ~~:~
50 iD Street & Third Avenue . .., ClassIl.i. .12,000:.. 10.1.. i ...30 : Y.! 82 60.5
~~i'-"-'TB~~~~i~5Y~_yi:_~~'~~ji~~~.t_ i "aa$~ii --,- "'.-..-?~Q9r -- S},." -..". ---25 --'~-----N"-- ='.'. 8.!.. r ~~~~_""_
_~~_Fif!!!'lY~nue~~Stre~.I:ltJ-"r;J1l~_._.. .. _.I...claSSII~_12,OOo... 4.3...._3.0.......J~._2'__L_8Q.._._..5~..
53 it'-1EeIr"9~~_~X~I1.u~, ~.~i:l~ ~ Street Class II i 12,000i 9.4 30 - Y ! 80 ' 58.5
._,,,?~-_. LL?~,~.t& Fir~~~~~~_~~~Q...._,__'_.~m_ _ _ ----"'1 ",_ .g~~.!~ _ _ J'- ,_..i.~QQL.. . ~_:~,,~. ~._?~._ ,~_._ j ~~_,_,__. 57.?__..
5S._...",J~~_~,~,l]~!:.~,.~~~~~!.~~.~,~~~n.lJ.~_.(~~2._" l- ..~_~~~~n_~.a.L ,"_~2i'_Oi"~' ._~,!!:!3. w~~.. _,,~.__,'i __l__.zs _.__..52:9.,.
- ,.~5.~_,^_"nL~,~dison ~~~~e_.~JS~treet^.llio~t.. ~_~~n___M" ,,,L.,B.esidenti,~L-'~M_" 1,200 i_ _._ .) ~_, _ --t-.M. _."~._....:_ .-,,-'(.---'-4.-"..~-,.-i-.~~~~
57 l~'2~~.,~~~n.~_~_"~}~~!Il~.~,,?E."~~.~ .~-._~~identi9!_. ,,"..~dQ9J,,__. 6:~ : _2~ i____.._,N .J.., ?_~__, __s.,~.O-"
58_nj~.c~~.~._,o,vE;!r'l~e.~,,~~,dro~~_S~~~~~. , .____"CI~_~~_g_." ~?_!q99 3,0 30 N' 75 54.9--
~ 5~. . ~JSec~".d Av~nue & 1. Stree.I:QJorthJ~...__.~... .-.L Class lL_J__ .12,000~ ._ 8Jo.. _-+_.3.Q... .+__.'1_,,1 _.2L_._ 54.8
60 .;Oleander Avenue & Main S_~eet ' Class III .?r5.QQL 4.3 _:.....___~?___)..__~__ i 75 54.8
.6! IFgr.e~t.&FirstAY.'~".'!."J.EastL._.._. .! _9~SS_~I~...i ....12,000j J.L._ _ 3.1l..__..__. i 7L..,S3.!.
.62..~..~~_~E~~SE:..~!.~elix",ven'!."iw~J .f(esldenti~1 . 1,.2.99, S~1..2~__. __.....N. i _71 .._._521...
63 . IFif\h ~ve".ueIl,DStree~(N!'r!f1) ,I gass}I. l2,090'L3, 30 Y i 71 .5.2.5
....24.,__1 First Avenue & Pro~ect Street (South) I. .~....Q;l~~g. _c.._.],500L .... 3.:.L._L_._~~_. '_ _.N_ _~ '...D..._._. 52.5 .
6S jTele9",phCa".yon~9~d.ll.Hilltopgrive. Class II . 12,000 6.S 35 Y. 71 . 52.4
_66~..jPaseo Ladera .!.~su. Street__..._..._~ ; __Q~ss II_ L__1.i,,6.oo _.6;L_..3.L_~.L.Y ._L...?..L ... _~~
67 ., l:!{29~!~_~..A_~~r'll}_e",,~,~.~~~,~_(r--!~_r1:h)R~:5ide.r'l~ar 1,?OQi 10.1 25 y! 71 52.2
68 jKStreet& Seco.ndAvenue(East) -Clis; i1 . 12106.0[' 6.8 30 Y 69 51.1
. '.. ~~~ East Prospect Street & Helix"Aven'!."..(EaS!.L_... .,. _R~sldenti..L j ... _..1,200' _32._. ___.2L.._. i._.2'_._i._~.. ___~
70 ; East Oxford Street & Nadon Avenue (West) I Class III: ?,.5.Q.Q, 7..1. 30 Ln__.....'!."...__ Lm___"?~ ...~..9.3
71 'Gs"I&F'lii'-cf;tj ... ... ..., ..... J(:T'il J i2,000' 6.5 . 30 . Y i 68 50.2
72- ";~ie~~~~~~~~~'ioe~t ~~9~h1~~'--" -+-"cT~iii.:~~::::'-7,5ooT-"~i;5~:~-~="25.:~=Y:::.=p,':':T49:2
Z.3. I Street & First Avenue ~L___. ._.~_ _'c._Class 111._:._ .],SOO: ._._~...._.i. .__~_...i.._ _L._.62.....1. _ 48.9 _.
74j.M.(},n.tg()",...ry.?tree!.~_:r:ryl~.~~.n.ue.~East2 i.~R-,,"id.ential_L..__1c?00L.. 2.6 }9 N i 65 47.6
75 ,iFirstAvenuell.GStre~t(N_or!f1L i. ..CI~.;;eII 12,009: 5.5 30 Y J 64 47.4
,~,_~2EL.,_.iJeffers'?n A~~!U1~ K Street <!:!9~!!)~______,,_.~_~ Residential L___h~Q.QL._ ~.:~~.~~_, ~,1L,,,.~_^__~_y~ ._.;.__~.Jii-".;.~..~~~
77 "' .:~a._:5~n~~rl~_a.,,?~~~e_~~_r--1i:1~_AY.~_~.~.~_(YY~t) Residential !,_?991 7.9 2? Y i 62 ; 45,9
78 jNaci()r:!,A~~~ue ~ ~.a.~_t_Na.p~e~_?trl:!~USo~~hl I_ Class IP,___, !!?qg:.. _5.3 3Q", 1'" 61"~ ,,_I",:--:.:'~~~i
~~ J~~~..@.~!l"AY~~~~~,!.LStreew~(~.Y!~l_ .~~~"__mm_I___.B-~_sid~T!!~a.L.~ ,__-.!!~Q~L_.. ...." ?:~.w .- ,.. ~_. ____ Y ." .-l,,'- __2! _____. ~...~~,.,
80!c;,?lc:lra.9l:l_ ,o,ve_l1u~ _& J SqE!E!t{~o_rth)_ __.:__ _RE!:5_i~e.rl1:i~_I__'.1!29{J:" 6.5 30 Y -t 60 44.0
:} ~~:~:~~-~~i~~f~~::~~~::t~--. - ,~ ~I-~~~~~~~~-~ --t~~~-" i.~ -~ _w_~_ ...- --~--"; -'~~-~--,- ~.~ '
~3 _iThe;e.!!' W~y..ll. East QUlntard Street (No~ . _ Reslde"!'.aL..:...._ 1,200 _ _ ..6.L. _ _ ~~~_....: _ ~L. 1_. .s..6..........L_..il.~
84 . ;C()".!'!!Y<;Ilill.Drl"-~ll..L.stree!(~o.r!f1) I . R"s,!!ential .l,..29,Q, 6.9 . .. .~5 Y f_..55 4.9.4
B~ ..."-Jti~J~l?_s_~..~Y.~~_~_~__~.~~.~~,~.~~_s._~~~J_~g~L '"..~e.~!~~~t!~J _ ),--~.Q!l.l.^ s:.~ _~5 _ . ,,_X_.... ,1, _?? 38.4
86 pudson Way & East Prospect Street (Sou!f1J Residential -4-._ 1,200: 4.8___.25...... Y 50 ,.....3.LQ._
87 I Melrose Avenue & East Rienstra Street South Residential I 1,2001 3.7 25 Y 46' 33,8
2of2
1-48
ATTACHMENT 7
City ofChula Vi~lil
EllgineeringDepartmeot
ADA Curb..cut.!i (Pedestrian Ramps) Ptugrilm-
"
20
"
22
"
8/2312007
"0 .~ rl
5~ ~
fi ~.Ei :-..... ! i ~
0 ~ Ii z_
. <"' . ~ o~
Iii""'- '~~ 0 ..
,N ~ E .. E oc 0...::;;:
;t__ .- s .u w ~ ~c
~ ~:~ , < ! 0
.0 . , E 8 . ~
.a .
'g . :g8 . .
a a a oc
V
V
lOF13
City of Chula Vista
EnglOeeringDepartment
ADA Curb-Cuts (Pedestrian Ramps) Program-
36
37
36
40 BUENA VISTA WY
41 VALENCIA lP
" VALENCIA LP
" AZALEA ST
.. BUENA VISTA WY
40 BUENA VISTA WY
..... CST.
~7 CREST DR
<J.;1. HIDDEN VISTA DR
Gt MARINA PARKWAY
50 TOBIAS DRIVE'
" VASSAR AVE
52 WINDROSE WY
53 ALBANY AVE
" CST"
.. CALLE SANTIAGO
36 CUYAMACA AVE
57 F ST (SOUTH SIDE)'
58
"
CANYON OR
" COLORADO AVE
" CONNOlEY AVE
58 .CONN()lEY AVE
8 .
~ff 5S -
~ jj- i ~
~.~ - -g ~ . x
. t ,< a <
.~a: b EO " . .
.- w n " 0
. I-E . ~
. , <(E ~.
~ :g'6 W .!.!E g
" ~. :g8 j
~ . "
BUENA VISTA CT
LA MANCHA PL
EUCALYPTUS PARK EXIT
WAY
(AT 636 f ST. ALLEY TYPE OJW. AT
8/2312007
See comments a.t the end otreport
H'ROPOSED PED RAMPS-LOG rev.xls I RAMP LOG
20f 13
CityofChulil
Engineering Department
ADA Curll<uts (Pedestrian Ramps) Proglilm-
DOUGLAS ST
EAST SAN MIGUEL DR
fiRST AVE
" ""T
"' LILAC AVE
..... MALTA AVE
~2 MALTA AVE
Ql MAX AVE
-t. MAX AVE
55 MAX AVE
56 MONTCALM ST
" MYRA CT
8S NOLAN AVE
89 OAKLAWN AVE
89 OAKLAWN AVE
" OAKLAWN AVE
" OLEANDER AVE.
89 ORDVIEW CT
94 PALOMAR ST'
" PROSPECT CT
" SAN MARCOS PL
" SECOND AVE
8S SECOND AVE
" SECOND AVE
'" SECOND AVE
'" SIERRA WY .
>0,
>03 SMlTHAVE
'" THERESA WAY
6/23/2007
See comment5 at the end o(report
~ ~
aE -
" ~a iifd ~ ~
" <- &. ~ ~~
. ~~ . E <
1i~ .
>N a E1i " ..
c- I!'; ~r2 -. ~s
.
~ e- o i
.._5 <E
0 .0 . n g
~ .. ~
. :g8
. . "
~-~---
:JUNJPERST
MALTA AVE
QUAIL DR
EAST ONEIDA ST
ENTRANCE TOAPTS, NIO H ST, EAST SIDE
ENTRANCE TO APTS. NIO H ST, WEST SIDE
IN FRONT OF 494 OAKLAWN AVE, BETWEEN G ST AND H
,
5
DRIVEWAY
i-PROPOSED PED RAMPS-LOG rev.xlsl RAMP LOG
30F13
OtyofChulaVista
Engineering Department
ADA Curb-Cuts (Pedesbian Ramps) Program ~
~ .
0 ~(j
fi
w q:,," ~
. 1l;-g
~N d t
.O~ e- w
" ~1! ,
.
" ~ 'S .
" ."
if ,
i
~
~
2~
o~
".
~~
g
THIRD AVE'
THRUSH ST
:!()Blp,~DR
WOODLAWN AVE .
109 WOODLAWN AVE'
XAVIER AVE
XAVIER AVE
ALP!NE-MINOT AVE
ALPINE.MINOT AVE
ANiTAST
BEECH AVE
ST"
120 DALECT
121 DAVIDSON ST
122 DOUGLAS ST'
123 EASTHST'
124 EAST JST
125 EAST QUINTARD ST
126 EL CAPITAN OR
127 EL LORO ST
128 FST'
129 FiRST AVE
130 FIRST AVE
131 FLOWERST
132 FLOYD AVE
133 FLOYD AVE
134 FLOYD AVE
135 FLOYD AVE
136 GST
137 GST"
138 GARRETT AVE
'"
'"
BROADWAY
1!1~~ANY ""'!.
EAST PARK LN
'CREST OR
EtO HILLTOP DR. NORTH SIDE
...i~!:~_~9I,;p,P~~__
;ECKMAN AVE
-:MONSERATE AVE
.
;EL LUGAR ST
.,,~!()_~El:?I'J_o. P,\I~._S()l!:J::l_~Ii?E: 180 F ST
MITSCHER ST
SHASTA ST
CEDAR AVE
ALLVIEWCT
;BERLAN~ WA"Y,
6/2]/2007
$ee comments at the end or report
i-PROPOSEO PED RAMPS-LOG rev.xls / RAW lOG
40f 13
CityofChulilVlsta
Engineering Department
ADA Curb..cuts (Pedestriiln Rilmps) Program.
HILLTOPDR'
INKOPAH ST
J5T
'" J 5T (NORTH SIDE)
'" JST{NORTHSIDE)
'" JOSSELYN AVE
H7 JUDSON WY
,., K5T
'"
'" KEARNEYST
'" LAKE SHORE DR .
-, LORILN'
1153 LORILN'
tJ;1" MELROSE AVE
~5 MELROSE AVE
'" MELROSE AVE
'" N SECOND AVE
'" N SECOND AVE'
'SO <N SECOND AVE .
'60
'"
'" OLEANDER AVE
'" OLEANDER AVE'
'" OLEANDER AVE'
'" OLIVE AVE
'" OLYMPICPW
'" ORANGE AVE
'" OTAV VALLEY RD'
'TO SECOND AVE
'" SECOND AVE
m SECOND AVE
m SEOUOIA CT
'" SONOMA CT
m THRUSHST
'" THRUSHST
8/23/2007
See comments i1t the end of report
BEECH AVE
1"5 FREEWAY RAMP, EAST OF
'-5 FREEWAY RAMP, WEST OF
EAST ONEIDA ST
EAST PAISLI:.Y ST
MADISON AVE, NORTH SIDE
MADISON AVE, SOUTH SIDE
, T'v'JINOAKS"AVE
CREEKWOOD WY
DAVID OR
. ~
. - I h 5S - -
Et> !
E. " . I ~
~..jl . . .
- ~ , 6~
0.= . .~ ~ . E< .
Cl u ii.~ 0-
. ," . E. " ..
l~ E
0- ,- . 0., w " ~t.
. i;;;.~ B.
~ . ~ , < E 0 I
0/18 ., .0 m .2E i ~
l8 ..
~ . ~8 .
m < "
T V
T Y
FOUR-WAY
FOUR-WAY
T y
T Y
Y
T Y
fOUR-WAY
T
T
T
"
BAYV'EWWY
i:"'C~?~~..[!J\~IJI_~IfV__~,~~IIJ!'~~.~^'IfV_~~!,S,I(lE
;ENTRANCE TO KOA. SlO SR54
'NANETTE ST
IPRIVATE DRIVEWAY
T
T
MILLAN ST
;VANCE ST
c
OCALAAVE
;EAST ONEIDA ST
RAVEN AVE
WAXWING LN
.,,'L"
y
T
y
y
I-PROPOSED PEO RAMPS-LOG rev .xls / RAMP LOG
SOFE
City or Chula Vista
Engineering OepcIrtment
ADA Curb-Cuts (PedestriilR Rilmps) Progl"ilm-
'"
'"
200
2"
202
o
.~
E'"
E.
~~
t3~
"9....
;I,:
0/18
$~
~
..
~
.
.~a
"
~
"
~
.
,~
~'"
<"'
_n
.~ ;S
C~
5~
.
!
0_
0_
~ i
E<
..
H
.!.! E
" 0
,0
"
iii
~
~
"
I
"
~
z~
"~
".
~o
~
,
~
'78
17'
'00
'"
1B2
"3
'B<
,OS
'"
167
~,
1189
~o
'"
'02
'"
'"
195
".
HI?
WHITNE'l' ST
IIVllERDR
WOODLAWN AVE
ALVARADO ST
ANITAST
APACHE OR
BANNER AVE
BANNER AVE
BANNER AVE
BANNER AVE
BANNER AVE
BAYSIDEPW
BEECH AVE
BEECH AVE
BEECH AVE
BISHOPST
BONITA RD
CANYON DR
CARUlAVE
CARLA AVE
CEDAR AVE
CITRUS WY
COUNTRY VISTAS LN
1503 ApachllDr
ALLEY BIW MONTGOMERY & ZENITH
T
FOUR-WAY
B1W ZENITH & MAIN ST
TREMONT ST
ZENITHST
QUAY AVE (eV MARINA)
CENTERST
JAMES ST
MADRDNA ST
FOUR-WAY
FOUR-WAY
T
FOUR-WAY
T
205
206
20'
.208
20'
210 DAVID OR
211 DAVIDSON 5T
212 ~I:?EL MAR AVE
8113/2007
See comments at the end of report
5T
l-PROPOSED PED RAMPS-LOG rev.xls I RAMP LOG
60F 13
City ot ChuJiI Vista
Engineering Department
ADA Curb-Cuts (Pedestrian Ramps) Program.
'" DOUGLAS ST
2" DOUGLAS ST
205 DURWARD ST
'" DURWARD ST
2H EAST MOSS ST
'" EAST OXFORD ST
'" EAST OXFORD ST
22' EAST OXFORD ST
'" EAST OXFORD ST
222 EAST OXfORD ST
'" EAST OXfORD ST
...... EAST OXfORD ST
~25 EAST OXFORD ST
en, ,EAST OXFORD ST
en, EAST OXFORD ST
228 EAST OXFORD ST
'" EAST OXFORD ST
230 EAST PAISLEY ST
". EAST PALOMAR ST
m EAST PROSPECT ST THERESA WY
'" EAST QUINTARO ST MYRACT
'" EAST QUINTARD ST THERESA WY
"5 EAST WHITNEY ST CARLA AVE
236 FjFTH AVE
237 fIG AVE
238
'" FIRST AVE
'" FIRST AVE
W FIRST AVE
2<2 FIRST AVE
'" .FIRSTAVE
2"
'" FIRST AVE
2<7
'"
8/23/2007
See mmments at the end of report
~ -
-
~ i'l g " i ~
<- - ~ ~ ~ 2 X
"",.g ~ E < 0 .
b ~ .. ~ " . .
.- g~ w -. " 0
';;; -~ , < E 0 " ~
.0 . 0 !l i ! 0
.. "
. ~
. 0: "
-'""-=""=,_e.,_,."",,,'
T
T
I-PROPOSED PED RAMPS-LOG rev.xls I RAMP LOG
70F 13
aty of Cbula Vista
EngineerlngDepartmel1t
ADA Curtl-Cuts (Pedesbian Ramps) Program-
FLOINERST
FLOWER ST
GST :COLORADO AVE
GST ^ ;WOO'DLAWN' AVE
GARRETI AVE 'GLOVER Pl
'" GARRETT AVE JASONPl
255 GOTI-lAMST CORNELL AVE
'" GOTHAM 8T iVASSAR AVE
"7 GOTHAM Sf WAYNE AVE
'" HALSEY8T BRIGHlWOODAVE
'" HAL8EY8T COLORADO AVE
_0 HALSEYST
~" HALSEYST
tn, HEATHER CT
~3 Hill TOP DR HILLTOP DR
'" HORIZON VIEW DR BAY LEAF DR
'" INKOPAH ST iM1SSION CT
'" INKOPAHST NEPTUNE DR
"7 INKOPAH ST NOLAN LN
'" INKOPAH ST NORMA CT
269 ITHACA8T ETONCT
UO ITI-lACAST ITHACA CT
'" ITHACA ST LOYOLA CT
m -ITHACA ST 'SCRIPPS AVE T
273 JADE AVE JASPER AVE T
m JAMULCT OSSA AVE T
275 JASMINEST CAMELUA CT T
m JASMINEST CARISSA CT T
m JEFFERSON AVE SIERRA Wf FOUR-WAY
m JEFFERSON AVE. CRESTED BUTTE ST
279
~ . "
. "~ -
0 iff 0_ " ~ ~
~ "" .. ~
. .
<- - ~ , ~ ~~
. 'lii~ . e< ~
~B oI ~ EO 1: " ".
" ,- 0 @e w ~ ~~
. ~ "~ ~ < 1 .
. ;& . ,e i ~ g
~ . :g8 "iC
0 0 0: "
284 ST
8/23/2007
See,omment;;C1ttheendofrepoJt
I-PROPOSED PED RAMPS-LOG rev.xls / RAMP LOG
80F13
.."..."."........,..-......--......-.--,..,.-.-.-.,
City of Chula \li5ta
Engineenng Department
ADA Curb-Cub; (Pede5uian Ramps) Program-
K5T
288 K5T
'" KEARNEYST
200 KEARNEY ST
m KEARNEYST
'" KEARNEY ST
203 KEARNEY ST
2" KEARNEY ST
205 KEARNEY ST
-, KEARNEY ST
~" KEARNEYST
Q\B KEARNEY ST
"1!" KEARNEYST
300 LST"
eo, LANSLEY WY
302 LANTANA AVE
'"3 LARKHAVEN OR
30< LARKHAVEN DR
305 LAUREL AVE
JO' LAUREL AVE
307 LILAC AVE
388
JO'
3W LOTUS OR
'" MADISON AVE
m MADISON AVE'
In MARIETTA ST
3-14 MARIPOSA Cl
m MARIPOSA CI
'" 'MAX'Ave'
3n MELROSE AVE
'" MELROSE AVE
'" MINOT AVE
3>0 MISSION AVE
8123/2007
See comments at the end otreport
! . ~
C! 0_ ~
~'" o~ E ~ .
~~ l "
. < . - ~ 2_
~- '~ ~ . E< 5~
>' a eo ! " ".
.<:~ .~ H I ~s
" l'=i1 .
. , <E .
0 ~~ m .j,! E i ~
" , 00 ,
i/. 'U . .
" " "
WOODLAWN AVE
ALLEY WEST OF FIRST AVE
ALPINE AVE
BRIGHTWOOD AVE
DELMAR AVE
ELDER AVE
T
GARRETT AVE
;GUAVA AVE
;JEFfERSON AVE
MADISON AVE
WOODLAWN AVE
'SlS 80 COUNTRY CLUB PRIVATE ST
LAS FLORES DR
WISTERIA ST
T
fOUR-WAY
FOUR-WAY
DRIVEWAY
T
T
T
T
EAST ONEIDA ST
T
2 P
I.PROPOSED PED RAMPS-LOG rev.xls / RAMP LOG
90F 13
-'"-....'..-.....-------.--.------------.----------....--.-.----.--------.-------.-----.---.-----.-----.----.-.--...--"---.-...-..--...--
OtyofChulaVi51:.i1
Engineering Department
ADA CurtJ<u1:5 (Pedestrian Ramps) Progrilm ~
322
m
m
m
326
327
328
'"
330
'"
....,
b33
Cl;\,
~5
336
m
33'
no
"0
'"
342
"3
'"
"5
'"
342
'"
"9
350
.351
. . "
8 j~ 5E E -
ti 'iii ::l ~ ~
. - ~ , . z "
~- 'ii~ ~ E< ~ ~ is .
~~ or E< " . .
E- . H w ". " 0
~ ~-~ , , ~ ~
" 0 m ~ g i ~
~ .. .
. ~u
. . < "
'MONSERA TE AVE
'MONSERATE AVE
" MONSERATE AVE
MON5ERATE AVE
MON5ERA TE AVE
MON5ERATE AVE
.M()NS~RATE AVE
MONTCLAIR 5T
MONTEBEllOST
MONTEREY AVE
MOSSST
MOSSST
M05SST
MOUNTAIN VIEW IN
MYRA AVE
NACION AVE
NACION AVE
NACION AVE
NACION AVE
NACION AVE
NAPA AVE
NAPA AVE
NEPTUNE DR
NOLAN AVE
NOLAN AVE
,NOLAN AVE
NOLAN AVE
NOLAN AVE
.:~CJl!-t>l~_
'NOLAN WY
EAST ORLANDO ST
ST
FLORES DR
_ ___~l3!_~~~Ip;.~!
CORTE MARIA AVE
OAKLAWN AVE
VISTAWY
PEARlWOOD 5T
MYRA AVE ENTRANCE TO SWEETWATER TANK
EAST MILLAN ST
THERESA WY
E EMERSON 5T
355
356 OLEANDER AVE
8/23/2007
5eecommentsattheer.dotreport
l-PROPOSED PfD RAMPS-lOG rev.xls 1 RAMP lOG
lDDFB
City of Chili a Vista
--------.-.-...---.....-.-.....-.--.--..-....-.,..--.-.----,----.------..--......--.......-.........-...-....-...-,-....-.-----.-..-.--.-..-......-...............-..............-.........-.............-.-....-.-....-------.-.-.---..--.--.-.--.....---.--.-.---..----.-.--..----..-.....-.--.---.-.---
Engineering Deportment
ADA Cllrb-cllts (Pedestrian Ramps) Program.
'"
'"
'"
'67
l'
b"
~o
~,
OLIVE AVE
OLIVE AVE
ORLANDO CT
OSAGE AVE
OSAGE AVE
OSSA AVE
PRINCESS MANOR CT
QUAILPL
QUINCEPL
;QUINCEPL
QUINCEST
ELEVADO WEST SIDE
;ENTRANCE TO CONDOS SID OTAY VALLEY RD
'ENTRANCE TO PRIVATE ROAD
N RANCH?P:fOL f{~Y P1J'.l,BY ()fO~,,~E~~_LY()__
;COUNTRY CLUB DR
VISTA Wi
CORALWOOD CT
EUCALYPTUS CT
OCALA AVE
SATINWOOD CT
RIDGEVIEW WY
RIOS AVE
RUTGERS AVE
S RANCHO DEL REY PW
SAN MIGUEL DR
SAN MIGUEL DR
SANDALWOOD OR
SANDALWOOD OR
SATINWOOD WY
SATINWOOD WY
SHASTAST
SHASTA ST
'"
m
'"
no
m
m
m
m
'"
'"
'"
ST
365 SHEFFIELD CT
386 SIERRA WY
387 SMITH AVE
388 SMOKYCl
389 SMOKYCl
390 SPRUCEST
m
392 OR
6{23/2007
See comments at the encl Of report
.
0 -
~fi 0 ~
. jj
"- - " .i z
< . 1 ~ "
.-=.g ~ 0 <
b E. oc 0 .
,- w Be i " 0
t; .~ " < 1 ~
::& m ~8 ~
,
. .
0 oc
I-PROPOSED PED RAMPS-LOG rev.xls {RAMP LOG
11 OF 13
OtyofChulilVilita
EllQineenng Department
ADA Curtl..cuts (Pedesbian Rampli) Program-
".
'"
,,.
'"
""
"9
"0 TAMARACK ST
'" TANBARK ST
'02 TESOTACT
'02
ST
"9 WINDSOR Cl
'" WOODLAWN AVE
'" WOODLAWN AVE
MUSTANG Pl
RAWHIDE CT
,STALllONPl
SURREY Pl
;WAGON'NHE~~,\Jlf'!~.
~
8 ~fi
~ -
<"'
. ,,0 !
.~ ~~
>"
0- ,-
~ ';; .~ ~
.
0 .0
~ .~
,
~
MISSING RAMPS PRIORITY 1: 14
" "''''''-''''''''''------''1
l"~. .~()c:_a_t_I()(l~_I_t:l_I::l_~Q,~_Q_i_(l..t.~I:!..~~_~~Jist________
8/23/2007
Seecommentsattneeodotreport
TOTAL MISSING:
917 RAMPS
16 MISSING FROM '94 LIST
BUILT
947 BUILT (In '94 list)
I
TOTAL RAMPS:
i-PROPOSED PED RAMPS-lOG rev.xls 1 RAMP lOG
.--..--.---.- - --.--...-.--.
.
sf:
" .
!]
EO
I"
< ~ 0
~8 ~
~ <
="-~-~.,-~-=-._..~-,
s
E
~
~
"
E
w
120f 13
s
i
.
I
.~
.
~
z_
o~
~,
~~
g
ATTACHMENT 8
SUBJECT:
USE OF UIlllTY FUNDS FOR
UNDERGROUND CONVERSION OF
PRIVATE SERVICE LATERALS
COUNCIL POllCY
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
POllCY
NUMBER
\
585-01
EFFECTIVE
DATE
07/11/00
PAGE
100
ADOPIED BY: Resolution No. 11977 I DATED: 04/02185
AMENDED BY: Resolution No. 16934 (12/15/92), Resolution No. 2000-233 (07/11100)
BACKGROUND
In 1982, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) by Decision 82-01-18 gave the
authority to the local agencies to request electric utilities to expand allocation funds for the
conversion of electric lateral services for each customer in utility allocation funded undergrounding
districts. On October 18, 1983, Pacific Telephone (now Pacific Bell) filed a change in tariff with
the CPUC so that communications utilities would also be in conformance with Decision 82-01-18.
Cox Cable TV (now Cox Communications), is not governed by the CPUC, but chooses to
cooperate with the program by providing conduit and service wires up to 100 feet in length at no
cost. Decision 82-01-18 provides the mechanism to reduce the property owner's cost for the
conversion from the distribution line to the residence. This cost depends on the distance from the
property line to the point of connection with the customer's wiring and varies from customer t6
customer. On December 6, 1999, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUG) approved a
revision to San Diego Gas & Electric's (SDG&E) Rule 20, "Replacement of Overhead with
Underground Electric Facilities", allocation funds. This revision of SDG&E Rule 20 gives the City
the option to fund tbe conversion of the electric meter panel cost as part of tbe allocation costs.
The CPUC decision permits the use of utility funds to provide up to 100 feet of the property
owner's service lateral (trenching and underground conduit) and all or portion of the cost of
modifications to the existing overhead electrical service panel and/or installation of "pull can". The
net result is a reduction in cost that will benefit the individual property owner. Under the City Code
it is the property owner's responsibility to provide and maintain tbe underground supporting
structure needed on the property.
PURPOSE
To establish a policy for the use of utility fuuds for conversion of the customer's service laterals to
encourage properly owner acceptance for desirable conversion district projects.
POLICY
The City Council establishes the following policy for the use of utility funds for underground
conversion of private service laterals:
1.
General Provisions
..
Funding sball be limited to the following facilities which customer traditionally
supplies/installs:
(1) Trenching and underground conduits from property line to point of connection.
(2) Portion of electric service panel conversion and/or "puil can" installation.
1-61
SUBJECT:
USE OF UTILI1Y FUNDS FOR
UNDERGROUND CONVERSION OF
PRIVATE SERVICE LATERAlS
COUNClLPOUCY
CTIY OF CHULA VISfA
POllCY
NUMBER
585-01
EFFECTIVE
" DATE
07111/00
PAGE
20f3
ADOPTED BY: Resolution No. 11977 I DATED: 04102185
AMENDED BY: Resolution No. 16934 (12115192), Resolution No. 2000-233 (07111/00)
A. Funding shall be as follows:
(1) Cost of the trenching and conduits within the trench not to exceed thirty-five
dollars per linear foot ($35/LF) for the required length of trenching on the
property up to a maximum of 100 feet.
(2) Residential and commercial underground work requiring the installation of a
service connection box, commonly called as 'Pull Cans," and/or service
panel conversion (installation of "Myers" adapter) of existing meter service
panel will be reimbursed $300. Commercial and multi-family dwelling units
(apartments and condominiums) with at least 200-ampere service panel will
be reimbursed $400.
2. Implementation Procedures
A. Underground Utility Advisory Committee (UUAC) members shall determine the
length of service laterals (trenching and underground conduits) and electric panel
conversion that is (I) eligible for utilily funding for each property within lhe
conversion district and (2) the length of conduit and wire that the appropriate utility
company will provide free of charge.
B. UUAC members shall agree on a "reasonable" cost per lineal foot of lateral
conversion and electric panel conversion. This cost shall be reviewed and updated if
necessary to compensate for the inflation rate.
C. All property owners within the COnversion district shall be informed of the estimated
utility fund amount proposed for reimbursement prior to the public hearing on the
conversion district formation.
D. The City shall inform San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) in writing as to the final
amount of utility funds required for work on private property within 30 days of the
established "Customer Ready Date" as approved by the City Council. SnG&E sball
deposit into the City account the requested funds within 30 days of the receipt of the
City's written notice.
E. The City shall pay the appropriate amount of reimbursemeut due each property
owners when:
(1) The customer has satisfactnrily completed their service lateral conversion;
1-62
SUBJECT:
USE OF UTILITY FUNDS FOR
UNDERGROUND CONVERSION OF
PRIVATE SERVICE LATERALS
COUNCIL POllCY
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
POlley
NUMBER
585-01
EFFECTIVE
DATE
07/11/00
PAGE
3of3
ADOPTED BY: Resolution No. 11977 I DATED: 04/02185
AMENDED BY: Resolution No. 16934 (12/15/92), Resolutioo No. 2000-233 (07/11100)
(2) the electric metering equipment has passed a City inspection certifying it
ready to receive underground service; and
(3) the property owner has submitted to the City a signed statement certifying
to the cost of the service lateral conversion work to include the extent of
the "Pull Can" and/or electric panel conversion work on the property.
Copies of the contractor's invoice pertaining to the work performed and
SDG&E' s "Electric Meter and Service Location" form shall be attached
to the signed statement.
F. Within 30 days after SDG&E's official notice to the City that aU electric service
conversions within the district have been completed, the City shall refund to
SDG&E any monies not disbursed to the property owners.
NOTES:
(1) The service laterals shall be defined as: trench, backfIll, and any necessary conduit from
the customer's property line to the underground sweep at the base of the customer's
termination facility. In those cases where the service conduit enters the customer's
building, the service lateral will terminate at the point where the conduit enters the
building.
(2) For the purpose of this policy utility is defmed as any company providing electric,
telephone communications, cable television and data transmission services.
1-63
ATTACHMENT 9
UTILITY UNDERGROUNDING SURVEY
City of Chula Vista
07/24/2006
Agency
Contact
Phone
Email
COMMENTS
~
Alameda - Cnty !!}fQ@.a_s;~a,or.9 No Response
Anaheim Dukku Lee (714) 765-4126 20A; 4% Surcharge (increase in Franchise Fee)
Bakersfield PW CJP(iiJbakersfialdcilv.us No Response
Carlsbad Marshall Plantz (760) 602-2766 20A
Coronado Ed Walton (6l9) 522-7320 20A
Del Mar (858) 755-9313 20A; 20B using Assl. Ois!.
EI Cajon Trev Holman 619) 441-1665 20A
Encinitas (760) 633-2601 20A
Escondida Henry (760) 839-4574 20A
Fresno - Cnty Jim May (559) 262-4109 imav{d;co.treSI1O.C8.US No Response
Glendale (818) 548-2011 No Response
Imperial Beach Hank levien 20A
Irvine John Young (949) 724-7308 20A; 20B using Ass. Disl
La Mesa Matt Sauttere (619) 667-1171 20A
Laguna Beach www.la unabeachcit .net 20A; Asst Dist
Lemon Grove Robert Larkins (619) 825-3805 20A
Los Anoeles - City Steve Chen (213) 485-4516 Similar to 20A; use 01 General Fund.
Los Angeles - Cnty AIiZadeh (626) 458-3125 20A; 20B using Gen. Fund. CDBG, franchise fees
Manhattan Beach Stephanie (310) 802-5368 www.cit mb.info 20A; 20B using Asst. Disls.
Marin - Cntv DPW Webrnaster(dlco.marin,ca.us No Response
Modesto www.ci.modesto.ca.us Ulilily rale increase
Monterey - City suoaesl@ci.monlereV,ce,us No Response
Monterey - Cnly Peter Le (831)755-4809 20A; 20B granlfrom PG&E for annroval of power plant
National City (619) 336-4226 20A
Oakland Victor Lassey (510) 615-5425 :ilasse~landnetcom 20A; 20B using Ass. Dis!. Or RDA
Oceanside (760) 435-5095 20A
Orange - Cnty Tina Taverner (714) 834-4766 20A & 20B using Transnel, RDA, Ass. Dis!.
Pasadena Danny Wooten (626 744-7401 Surcharge on electric bills
Poway Ken Kwan (858) 668-4650 20A; 20B using Transnel, otlier CIP funds & General Fund
Rancho Palos Verdes www. alosverdes.com/r V 20A; 206 using Asst. Dists.
RoJljng Hills www.oalosverdes.comlrh 20A; 20BusingAsst. Disls.
Sacramento - City (916) 808-5656 No Response
Sacramento - Cnty Dan Regan (916) 874-7056 reaandltilsaccountv.ne\ 20A; 20B using PropA, FlEA, and PBID Association.
San Bernardino ~ City 909) 384-5140 No Response
San Bernardino - Cnty Sherman Davis (909) 387-7946 sdayisr@dpw,sbCOUnlY.OOV 20A; 20B using General Fundfolher funds
San DIego - City Nate Bruner (619) 533.3777 20A; 4 1/2% Surcharge (increase in Franchise Fee)
San Diego - Cnty Lawrence Hirsch (858)694-2215 Lawrence,Hirsch1'ilsdcount .ca.oov 20A; 20B using lransnet, CDBG, CIP funds.
San Francisco Lynn Fong/Arnber Seaton (415) 554-6167 dow@sfdpw.oro No Response
San Jose Webmaster.owrrosanioseca.oov No Response
San Luis Obispo - City Kelly Lindsay (805) 781-7034 No Response
San Luis Obispo - Cnty Q'~g.@fQ.slo.caus No Response
San Marcos Paul Va (710\744-1050x3215 20A; 206 using lransnet and olher C1P fund:;;
San Mateo - Cnty nmerrillrroco.sanmaleo.ca.us No Response
Santa Barbara. City Homer 805) 564-5467 20A
Santa Barbara - Cnty Dwwebl1Vco,santabarbara.ca,us No Response
Santee Rob Zaino 619) 258-4100x174 20A
Sausalilo www.ci.sausalito.ca.us 20A; 20B using Ass\. Dists.
Sunnyvale www.cLsunn vale.ca.us 20A
Ventura - City (805) 667-4127 20A; 5% Surcharge (Franchise File)
Ventura - Cnty alan. browrHIDmail-co .Yllnlura. ca.us No ResDonse
Vista (760) 726-1340 20A
Prepared by Palricia J. Petersen
I
'"
./>0
ATTACHMENT 10
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item
Meeting Date
/3
11122/05
SUBMITTED BY:
Staff Report on Utility Undergrounding Program Funding and Priorities
City Engineer .?f<' .
City Manager (( ~ PK
(4/5ths Vote: Yes_No.20
ITEM TITLE:
REVIEWED BY:
In August 2005 an Information Item was presented to Council regarding the City's Utility
U ndergrounding Program. This item discussed the estimated costs for the Undergrounding Districts
that have not yet been constructed and the ramifications of expediting the design and construction of
L Street from Monserate Avenue to Nacion Avenue. This report provides more details on said
project and the overall City Utility UndergrOlmding Program. Staff has subsequently met with
representatives of the property owners in the L Street Undergrounding District, as well as the utility
companies and is presenting the following report outlining currently projected schedules and costs
involved for the recommended alternative.
RECOMMENDATIONS: That Council accept the staff report.
BOARDS! COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable.
DISCUSSION:
Back~round
The City's policy regarding the undergrounding of utilities is addressed in Chapter 15.32 of the
Municipal Code. All new developments in the City must have underground utilities, which shall
include electrical, communications and cable television services. Such utilities can be
undergrounded in existing areas with overhead utilities through formation of Utility Undergrounding
Districts. A public hearing is held for all property owners within the boundary of the proposed
distric~ which is then formed through the adoption of a Council resolution. San Diego Gas &
Electric (SDG&E) generally takes the lead in the design and construction of under grounding projects
in developed areas, although SBC, Cox Communications and other cable companies are also
involved. Actual design and construction activity is subjectto SDG&E staffing and scheduling. The
funding and execution of such Undergrounding Districts must comply with Rule 20 of the California
Public Utilities Commission. Rule 20A provides for the undergrounding of existing overhead
electrical facilities at SDG&E's expense where both the City and SDG&E agree that it is in the
general public interest. Rule 20B provides for the undergrounding of existing electrical facilities at
the expense of either a group ofproperty owners or a municipality.
Underl!round Conversion Pro\1:ram
The City's Utility Underground Conversion Program was instituted in 1968. The Council approved
subsequent Utility Undergrounding Programs in 1979, 1984 and 1991. Streets were selected for the
1-65
Page 2, Item I?;
Meeting Date 11/22/05
Undergrounding Program in accordance with the City's rating system, which was originally
approved by Council in November 1972 and revised in July 1979 (Attachment A). The streets in the
1991 program included Fourth Avenue, E Street, F Street, Palomar Street, Broadway, Main Street, L
Street, Otay Lakes Road and J Street. An update to the Undergrounding Program was included as an
Attachment to Ordinance 2746, which was adopted on September 15, 1998 (Attachment B). This
did not revise the City's list of priorities, but presented a schedule for the completion of the priority
projects. Since that date, the City has added one undergrounding project at Council's request,
Quintard Street from Third Avenue to Orange Avenue. This District was formed in November 2002
and construction has since been completed.
The district formation process has been completed for all 15 projects included on the 1998 list
(Attachment B) and construction has been completed on 9. As noted above, one additional project
was completed at Council's request, bringing the totals to 16 identified projects, 10 completed to
date. Target project dates shown in the 1998 list have been modified through the years due to
competing priorities and in consideration of available funding. The following table reflects the
proj ects remaining from the 1998 list that have been officially established as Utility Undergrounding
Districts by Council with the most recent estimated construction dates and costs. Note that the three J
Street projects have been combined into two larger projects.
Fourth Avenue from L Street to Oran e Avenue
L Street from Monserate Avenue to Nacion Avenue
includes Nolan Wa
L Street from Broadwa to Third Avenue
'J Street from Broadwa to Hillto Drive
J Street from Hillto Drive to Lori Lane
Total Estimated Cost 2005 Dollars
2013
2014
2015
$2,009,000
$2,038,259
$1,553,320
$10,221,579
The Fourth Avenue Undergrounding District construction is currently in progress. This project is
being done in conjunction with STI-29 I, Fourth A venue Sidewalk Improvements between L Street
and Orange Avenue. SDG&E has completed the initial design for this project, and the 30 percent
design has been provided to the utility companies for comments. The construction of this proj eet is
scheduled for completion by mid-2007.
In addition to citywide undergrounding projects, the City entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) with SDG&E on October 12, 2004 that included agreements regarding the
undergrounding ofthe Bayfront 138KV transmission lines. On November 9, 2004 Council approved
two new ten-year franchise agreements with SDG&E for the provision of gas and electrical service.
Both the MOU and the electrical franchise agreement affirmed the importance of undergrounding
said transmission lines along the Bayfront as a major utility priority of the City. In the MOU. the
1 Although aU construction work is scheduled for ~ompletion by the end of 2007, funding will not be deducted from
the 20A funds until 2008 as sbown on Attacbment C.
1-66
Page 3, Item / :;
Meeting Date 11/22/05
City agreed to designate its entire unspent 20A allocation for Bayfront undergrounding, in addition to
half its $2 million annual allocation from 2004 to 2013. Approximately $6.7 million out of the
City's allocation balance of$8. 7 million (as of March 31,2005) is set-aside for the Bayfront Project.
It is currently estimated that the total Project cost will be approximately $17 million. As further
discussed in the MOU, the City may borrow ahead a maximwn of$10 million (5-year allocation)
interest-free to finance the Bayfront Undergrounding Project. Due to the structure of the MOU, the
Bayfront project is tracked separately from citywide projects. Attachment C provides a detailed
breakdown of the funding projections.
Current Issues and Recommended Actiou Plan
Residents within the boundary of the proposed district on L Street from Monserate to Nacion have
requested that the City expedite the undergrounding of their utilities. Staff has investigated several
options and recommends that the next two Undergrounding Districts be completed in.the following
order to fulfill commitments made to residents:
1. Complete the construction of the Fourth Avenue Undergrounding District
2. Design/construct L Street District from Monserate Avenue to Nacion Avenue
This recommended action plan would expedite construction of the L Street District between
Monserate Avenue and Nadon Avenue without disrupting the construction of the Fourth Avenue
Project and disappointing the property owners along Fourth Avenue who have already been notified
of the construction schedule for this project. It is important to note that this L Street project also
includes Nolan Way. The schedule for each project is dependent on SDG&E's workload and the
amount of 20A funds that are available each year. After discussions with SDG&E and the other
utilities representatives, staff concluded that the L Street District, between Monserate and Nacion
Avenues can be designed in 2006 and completed in 2007. Two representatives of the property
owners participated in said discussions with SDG&E and concurred with the recommended schedule.
N ert Steps
Staffhas met with a group of property owners from Alpine and Minot Avenues who have requested
that their streets be included on a priority list for utility undergrounding. It does not appear that their
neighborhood would have a high ranking based on the City's existing criteria and the Rule 20A
regulations. which give priority to streets with heavy volumes of traffic, a heavy concentration of
overhead electrical facilities or location in civic or recreational areas. Staff is currently working
with these property owners in an attempt to address their main concern, which involves pavement
rehabilitation.
However, given this neighborhood request, continuing competing priorities and the fact that the
project priority list has not been updated since 1998, it is recommended that staff return to Council in
2006 so that Council can have the opportunity to:
1. Consider the current big picture regarding remaining overhead utilities;
2. Discuss funding options;
3. Revisit the rating criteria in consideration of current Council priorities; and,
1-67
Page 4, Item 13
Meeting Date 11/22/05
4. Create an updated citywide priority list for utility undergrounding projects.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Selection of the reco=ended action plan will not have any fiscal impact on the City.
Attachments:
A. Rating System for Undergrounding of Utilities
B. Utility Undergrounding Table included as part of Ordinance 2746
C. Utility Undergrounding Program Funding Projections
J:\Eng.neeMGENDAICAS2005\11.22.05IUniity Unde'groundinglUtility UDdergrounding Report.DOC
1-68
ATTACHMENT 11
RECOMMENDED RATING SYSTEM FOR 20A PROJECTS
RATING CATEGORY
POINTS
AveraQe Daily Traffic (ADT) and Street Classification
D 10,000 ADT or greater
D < 10,000 ADT and classified as Arterial or Class I Collector
D < 10,000 ADT and classified as Class II or III Collector
20
15
10
Location
D Adjacent to Civic, Scenic, Recreational or Historic Area
OR
D Entrance to City or within Y. mile of freeway interchange
10
10
Relationship to Approved UnderGroundinG Districts! Previously
UnderGrounded Facilities
D Project is closing link between approved underground districts 10
and! or previously undergrounded areas
D Project connects to an approved underground district or previously 5
undergrounded area
Concentration of Overhead Lines
D Light to moderate 5
D Heavy to full capacity 10
D Both distribution and transmission lines 15
Association with Public Construction: Road WideninG, Reconstruction
or Construction of MissinG Street Improvements (such as sidewalks)
D Construction within two years 25
D Construction within two to five years 15
RfW and Road Improvement Status
D Road has ultimate RfW and improvements
D Road has missing improvements but ultimate RfW
D Marginal RfW and improvements for undergrounding
D Inadequate RfW for undergrounding
20
10
o
-20
TOTAL POSSIBLE POINTS
100
J:\ENGINEERIADVPLAN\UUDISTlUU REPORTlRECOMMENDED RATING TABLEDOC
10fl
1-69
0('; ofChlllu V;S111
MISSING
PEDESTRIAN
INFRASTRUCTUR!
(West Side)
U'I...'ln'....p........,
1..-_.....l"Yl<..PI.b/<>'
- DRAFT -
Legend
-Hl.....51......,..""<...
o ~...""P.....","
.....""'.,-
/"'"
--
.....--:.;;o~=._
~".H11'5<II"1
'----/ .-
_.........d.n..lIoun......
-""',......
......-"""
~...c_
, ~.".".~don>'
..-......",e:J....
,...
I
~
~
~1Jf:.
~
=0'
CHUlAVISI'A
City of CIUlla Vista
MISSING
PEDESTRIAN
INFRASTRUCTURI
(East Side)
tII..=::=::':',;~':::';';..-:'1o
- DRAFT ~
Legend
"''''''''.Sld.-.kondC...
=MI..."OSl.&..oII<
._".'~.m.
.....CIP_...
,m,!"J
-::... ~ ===--
Sc:ft<>O''''mo
A*",,"n""
In-...,,_
1l......""""'fI6...
r-
I
~
."Ii
..
r,U'
7
~
~If?.
- -
c:nVisrA
,---,~...
-.,.~,-
"---"-~'~'--
City of Cllllla Vista
Utility
Undergrounding
Projects
Engln....r1ngPepartm..nl
Inl...."'lruclureServlc.... ."vlslon
- DRAFT -
o Transmis$ion Substations
Transmission Lines
~~069kV,OH
_ .-Ofj9kV, UG
_138kV,OH
== City Bound"rv
Utility Poles
All other Sl"""t~
& Att"'1>II!eolled:o,St,,,,,t,,,
Total Expended For Ullllry
Undergroundlng:!f:JO,3s9,632
Total Expended Since 1995:
$24,9S0,2S5
".,.,.Flnlshed Projects
....., {PartlalUotl
'.FourfhA""
"",u.H~
.....;'3-7..,.7.
1l1..MsJnSlnfo'
,~_'o"'........."'...
.....,.711ltu.
11.eSInf8'
.."""Av.I. "'....."'."
''''; ,~~n,"'"
12. Main Slreo'
........,....",""M
"''''17''.70.
lJ.F...rttrAve.
;:~7;'::;:~m N
::.:..SA":::"'.....J::::'-
...."."'..03. 1
15.S1<I.dwlry
H..."'."LH ......
....,..,.....
16. OMy Valley Ro.d
.................N"""_
"";U",'"
17.0lllyLakesRoed
E.N""''''''''m.''''.
...",7''-'"
EsUmaledTotaICUlTentProl""ts:
$30,221,S79
CcunenlP,oject.
jFou,.,ilAv",,,,,o 4.JSu.e(
."'''''.. ,. _~_A_.~' """'........ MJIt".. """"'
n..,..... ,....o,u.
2.lS""o' 5 JS(,c.'
_~"A."."'N.d..,""".p""'.'.L.""..'
............ ,J,.n3-J..
J.LS",'., /; B,')"fH""
__..."""',...... .."b..lJo"-...._
,............ _t-e,............
1.0....yL.kuRoaI1'
...,.....d..
"".........'c.'"_~....
.....,'...u,.u
2.ESlJul'
.................""""".
...",....'"
3.0rnngeAve.
..._'n..F......Av.
.....,fJ7...4u
4.B~dW"Y
.n......''''''''''
..u,,,...n.
S.Mal"Slreel
..-."'.......,,,'''''.
.....;f..U7;.....
&.Qt1In""'/JS"""~
........_.....~....Av.
,.....;'...."7
lPlllomarSrreet
1-<1...._ri"'....
....s,'.........
'.E1roa<lway
Csr...ES~
....S;f............
~-
110."""..0,..."'..._.........,.."'..,0<.."'.
.._......... ,....,...I.. I!o.........<o......
...'"......".."''''~_...,."'.1<fqg,."d"..doo''...
~1It-
=0'
CJ-lJlAVISfA
..........".....
I
RESOLUTION NO. 2008-
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA APPROVING THE ADA CURB CUTS
PRIORITY LIST
WHEREAS, States and local governments nationwide are required to construct
pedestrian ramps (curb cuts) at street corners in accordance with the federal Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, which became effective on July 26, 1992; and
WHEREAS, the Department of Justice Title II of the ADA requires state and local
governments to prioritize the installation of curb cuts on walkways serving State and local
government offices and facilities, public transportation hubs, places of public accommodation
and places of employment; and
WHEREAS, staff has identified the locations with existing sidewalk and missing curb
cuts Citywide and has prioritized them in accordance with ADA requirements (Exhibit I); and
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City ofChula Vista
that it approves the ADA Curb Cuts Priority List.
Presented by:
Approved as to form by:
~..::z.?) ~v /'
/Uu~
I
r
iI
Jack Griffin
Director of Engineering and
General Services
1-73
City ufChllla\lista
EngIneering Department
ADA Curb-Cuts (Pedestrian Ramps) Program.
~
~ ~~
0 ~
. .-
-" .
~E!: ~i .
" .
. ,
0 .' m
" .'
, >
~
y y
y y
T Y
Y
y
T
T
OTAY LAKES RD'
'BONITARO
"THIRD AVE'
!6 CUYAMACAA\lE
7 FIR5TAVE'
INDUSTRIAL BLVD'
lST
..liI. MAIN 5T
I' MAIN5T
-..l MAINST
-Ii'! ,MAIN ST'
14 MAIN ST'
" THIRD AVE
" THIRD AVE
17 THIRD AVE'
" HILL TOP DRIVE
" NAPLESST'
20 OLEANDER AVE.
" OTAY LAKES RD'
22 BONITA RD
" COLORADO AVE
24 EAST MILLAN ST
25 INDUSTRIAL BLVD'
26 KEARNEYST
" KEARNEYST
" LST'
25 MADISON AVE
20 MONTGOMERY ST
" MOSS ST
n MOSSST
" OXfORD 6T
J4 PENELOPE DR
8/23/2007
~ST PALO~~g~~~()()I<EL~,M,ENT~R~L
FLOWER ST
ADAST
INDUSTRIAL BL
ALBANY AVE
;FOURTHAVE
HILLTOP DR
DEL MONTE AVE
"THIRD AVE
:ANITA ST
EMERSON ST
"EL RANCHO VISTA
DEL MAR AVE
AZALEA ST
ALLEN SCHOOL LN I CAMINO ELEVADO
HILLTOP OR, NORTH SIDE
; KEARNEY 5T
MYRA AVE
DOROTHY 5T
CHURCH AVE
RIVERLAWN AVE
SECOND AVE
SIERRAW'f
BANNER AVE
COLORADO AVE
WOODLAWN AVE
FIRST AV
CARLA AVE
FOUR-WAY
T 1 ,'XST
FOUR-WAY EXiST
T
T E)(51
T
T ,
FOUR-WAY fXST
T
fOUR-WAY EllSl
T nSl
FOUR-WAY El.:,;;T E~ST
T E~5-i
T :':'>-:5"
FOUR-WAY fiST 1
T -~-~" l:: x~,..
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
lOfn
m
y:.
.:r:
-
il1
-\
\-"
City ofChula Vista
Efl9lneerinQ Departmeot
ADA Curb-CIlts (Pedestrian Ramps) Progrilm-
1 . "
. gE "
:lfi 0 .
~::: i "
. "~ - ~~ , 2~
~fi .-; ~ . ~ . 5~
b 0 EO . ^.
^ ,- w tl"~ w I ~~
. '; -~ , < E 0
0 .0 . ~~ ; g
~ ..
.
. . " .
SMITH AVE . CASSELMAN ST
" BUENA VISTA Wi CAllE SANTIAGO Y Y
" BUENA VISTA wY '_~~,~~1!9~~T... Y Y
" EAST OXFORD ST OCELOT AVE Y y
" BUENA VISTA wY CAUENTE lP NORTH T y
" BUENA VISTA wY CAUENTE lP SOUTH T Y
" VALENCIA lP AVENIDA YSIDDRA T y
" VALENCIA LP VALENCIA CT T y ,
" AZALEA ST LILAC AVE T 4
.. BUENA VISTA Wi BUENA VISTA CT T y y 4
" BUENA VISTA Wi LA MANCHA Pl T y y 4
~ CST' EUCALYPTUS PARK EXIT DRIVEWAY
I' y y 4
..:.J CREST DR DOUGLAS ST FOUR-WAY y y 4
Cl'I HIDDEN VISTA DR 'MNDROSE WY T Y 4
" MARINA PARKWAY MARINA WAY T y y 4
50 TOBIAS DRIVE' PROSPECT CT FOUR-WAY Y Y 4
" VASSAR AVE ELMHURST ST T 4
52 W1NDROSE WY MOON VIEW DR T 4
" ALBANY AVE ALLEY BlWANITA & CARVER 4 T Y
" CST' ENTRANCE TO CANTERBURY APTS 4 T Y
55 CALLE SANTIAGO VALENCiA LP 4 T Y
" CUYAMACA AVE EAST SIER~_,^,A 'l'_(C<:l,<:l1< _EL~fo.lE~!}\!lY SCHOOl) 4 T Y y
,WEST OF BROADWAY (AT 636 F ST. ALLEY TYPE D1W, AT
" F ST (SOUTH SIDE) . :A~ARTMENTS) y y
" FIFTH AVE DST 4 Y
50 SOUTH GREENSVIEW DRIVE y
" TEALST y
" WALNUT DR Y 3
" BISHOPST T ,
" CANYON DR , T ,
" COLORADO AVE CRESTED BUTTE ST , T
" CONNolEY AVE SUZANNE LN T
" CONNOLEY AVE TAMARINDO WY , T ,
" CORTE DE VELA CALLE CANDELERO , T ,
" CREST DR ENTRANCE TO CONDOS NlO TEL CYN RO , DRiVEWAY Y Y
" CREST DR 'LORILANE , Y y
8/23/2007
$eeCOmn1eots ilt the end of repOrt i-PROPOSED PED RAMPS-LOG rev.xls / RAMP LOG 20F 13
City ot Chula Vista
Engineering Departrnent
ADA Curb-Cuts (Pedestrian Ramps) Program-
11_ ~ . S
EO! 5~ ~
E. ~ ~" '" "' J ~
. . ~ ~~ . z_
i!;~ ." ,
"".g ~ . 5~
0" ! .
~~ >N h 2 E_ " ".
o~ ~i . !r~ 1 ;Ie
.
~ B . , < E <; 1-:::'
" .0 m n a
uS: " .. . "
. ~8 "
'0 it. . "
. . .
" CREST DR COURT V V
" OST "BRIGHTWOOD AVE
n DATE AVE MCINTOSH 8T
" DENNiS AVE EAST MILLAN 5T
'4 DOUGLAS 6T DOVER CT
" EAST QUINTARD ST JUDSON Wi V
" EAST SAN MIGUEL DR CUYAMACAAVE V
77 fiRST AVE SHERWOOD 5T ,
78 FOURTH AVE' OR5ETT 5T V ,
78 'ST EAST PARK LN V V ,
"" ULAC AVE 'JUNIPER 5T 2
t MALTA AVE MYRA CT
MALTA AVE TALU55T T
d> MAX AVE EAST QUINT ARD 5T FOUR.WAY
'4 MAX AVE MALTA AVE T
85 MAX AVE QUAIL DR . T
" MONTCALM 5T MONTEREY AVE . FOUR-WAY V
"' MYRACT MAUTO CT . T V
.. NOLAN AVE EAST ONEIDA ST . T V
as OAKLAWN AVE ENTRANCE TO APTS. N/O H ST, EAST SIDE . DRIVEWAY V
" OAKLAWN AVE ENTRANCE TO APTS. NlO H ST, WEST SIDE . DRIVEWAY V
IN fRONT OF 494 OAKLAWN AVE, BETWEEN G ST AND H
" OAKLAWN AVE -- ST, BOTH SIDESO~ ~T. V V
" OLEANDER AVE' 'MANZANITAST V V
" ORDVIEW CT OR5m ST
" PALOMAR ST' 'ORANGE AVE V V
05 PROSPECT CT MONTEREY CT
.. SAN MARCOS PL JAMULAVE
" SECOND AVE K1NGST V V
.. SECOND AVE MURRAY ST - -- -" .-" ~ V V
85 SECOND AVE SHASTA ST T V V
'" 5ECONDAVE WHJTNEY-MANKATO ST T V V
'" SIERRA Wi . EAST PARK LN T V
'" SMITH AVE OTIS 5T FOUR-WAY V
'0; SMiTH AVE ROOSEVELT ST T
", THERESA WAY EA5T QUEEN ANNE DR T V V
8/23/2007
Seecommellt'i at the end of report 1-PROPOSED PED RAMPS-LOG rev.xls I RAMP LOG 30F 13
CityofChulaVim
EngineerlngDepartment
ADA Curb-Cuts (Pedestrian Ramp!;) program-
0
Z
c
0
"
.
0
0
....
'" THIRD AVE '
H" THRUSHST
'07 TOBIAS DR
'" WOODLAWN AVE'
'" WOODLAWN AVE'
'" XAVIER AVE
'" XAVIER AVE
'" ALPINE-MINOT AVE
'" ALPINE-MINOT AVE
'" ANITA ST
'" BEECH AVE
~~ CST'
CASSELMAN PL
..tl" CREEKWOOD Wi
'" CRESTED BUTTE ST
'" OALECT
'" DAVIDSON ST
m DOUGLAS ST'
>23 EASTH ST"
'" EAST JST
125 EAST QUINTARD ST
'" EL CAPITAN DR
m ELLOROST
'" FST'
'" FIRST AVE
"0 FJRSTAVE
'" FLOWERST
>32 FLOYD AVE
'" FLOYD AVE
'" FLOYD AVE
'" FLOYD AVE
'" GST
m GSr'
'" GARRETf AVE
'" H ST, SOUTH SIDE'
'" HILL TOP DR
8123/2007
5ee comments at the eod of report
. TREMONT ST
.ROBINPL
SHERWOOD ST
ENTRANCE TO PWOPS YARD
SID E ST. AT CAR~ASI-i
'ELMHURST ST
YALEST
MINOT AVE. NORTH OF F ST
MINO"!" AVE, SOUTli.lJF E ~T
.MOBlli:HO.ME ST~~EY W/FOURTI-i ~YE
DAVIDSON ST
N DEL MAR AVE
.CORTE MARIA AVE
,LAKESHORE DR
.ALlEY WID BROADWAY
: TIFFANY WY
EAST PARK IN
CREST DR
80 HillTOP DR. NORTH SIDE
. PASED LADERA
ECKMAN AVE
MONSERATE AVE
EllUGAR ST
ElO SECOND AVE, SOUTH SIDE, 160 F ST
MIT6CHER ST
SHASTA ST
CEDAR AVE
AlLVlEWCT
BERLAND WAY
SKYHILLCT
W1ll0WCREST WAY
ALPINE AVE
SO.UTI-i SIDE I.OJOTl:l,~R,DAYE .ALLEY
KEARNEY Sf
ELM AVE, SOUTH OF H Sf
PALOMAR DR
~t~~~;f:~.:i~:~'~
>:Ili<~; .0'1<
<ZF< ~'Z~
..~ ^ ~<g8
'0 ';~l~~
5i~
."
. .
H
o.il
~~
~~
..
~o
y
y
T
DRIVEWAY
T
T
T
T
FOUR-WAY
i-PROPOSED PEO RAMPS-LOG rev.xls / RAMP lOG
.
o
~
.~ fi
.
.
.
~
.
y
y
~t;:
~~
b
~i
:; .0
..
.
o
~
. ~
c_ -
o~ . I ~
" . .
00 ~
n , Z ~
1. 0
EO ~ " . .
Ie w ~ " 0
~
. ! 15 ~
,. .
:g8 0 <,
0 .
. " "
y
,
m
y
y
y
y
y
,
,
2
,
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
.qOFB
CityufChulaVi.!ita
EngineenngDepartment
ADA Curb-Cub; (Pedestrian Ramps) Program-
HILL TOP DR "
'" INKOPAH 5T
'" '"
'" J ST (NORTH SIDE)
'" J5T(NORTHSIDE)
H' JOSSELYN AVE
'" JUDSON WY
H' K5'
H' K5'
'" KEARNEYST
'" LAKESHORE DR .
J; LORILN"
LORILN"
c!iI MELROSE AVE
'" MELROSE AVE
156 MELROSE AVE
,,, N SECOND AVE
"" N SECOND AVE'
"" N SECOND AVE"
'" N SECOND AVE .
'" NSeCONDAVE"
'" OASIS AVE
"3 OLEANDER AVE
'" OLEANDER AVE"
'" OLEANDER AVE"
'" OLIVE AVE
'67 OLYMPIC PW
". ORANGE AVE
'" OTAY VALLEY RD'
'" SECOND AVE
'" SECOND AVE
m SECOND AVE
m SEOUOIA CT
'" SONOMA CT
m THRUSH ST
'" THRUSH ST
6/23/2007
Seecommentsilttheendo(report
'SIERRA WY
MONTEREY CT
BEECH AVE
1.5 FREEWAY RAMP, EAST OF
1-5 FREEWAY RAMP,lNfSTOf
EAST ONEIDA 5T
EAST PAISLEY ST
MADISON AVE, NORTH SIDE
MADISON AVE, SOUTH SIDE
TWIN OAKS AVE
CREEKWOOD WY
DAVID DR
HALECREST DR
CHERYL PL
EAST OLYMPIA sT
,EAST ORLANDO ST
BA YVIEW WY
ACROSS BAYVIE.~~, p~IY~!~~.~~T~.IP.f:.
ENTRANCE TO KOA, SlO SR54
SID BAYVIEWWY, PRIVATE OJVII EA5T SIDE
.~O.BA.'(YIEIfII,V!!' .r:R~V~!I:'p~.~E.?!,,~~[)f:
NANETTE 5T
:P~IV!, TE DRIVEWAY EAST 5lD~ NlO, !<::~
SEQUOIA ST
THRUSH 5T
'TALLOW COURT
CONCORD WY IACROSS fROM
'EAST Of ALBANY AVE
RIOS AVE
KEARNEY ST
MILLAN 8T
VANCE ST
OCALA AVE
EAST ONEIDA ST
RAVEN AVE
WAXWING LN
g . -
5;:: -
~ Iii :a:; 1 I w
"
<- - '8e ~ z x
. ,= -g . E< 5 <
.- h 0 EO ~ " . .
,<> ~i . lr~ . l "
. , ~
. m < E 0
. .0 E
g .. :g8 . .~ "
.
. . " "
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
y
SOf 13
,
,
,
,
FOUR-WAY
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
2
,
.
,
.
.
.
.
.
.
1 1
..--.--.----
i-PROPOSED pEQ RAMPS-LOG rev.xl.1 RAMP LOG
City ot Chula Vista
Engineering Department
ADA Curb-Cuts (Pedestrian Ramps) program-
"8 . cc
j~ iSE ~ ~
~ fii :;; I ~
- u , z_
. -" ~ 1 < ~ i5~
~€l .~ :f . Eo ~ " ..
. e:;' w @ .~ w -0 ~s
. "- , 0 ~
uI _S < E
0 00 m 'E ~ g
~ .. .~
. :g8
. . 0: "
TOBIAS DR PRIVATE ROADSlO E OXFORD ST Y
TOBIASDfI QUINTARD ST FOUR-WAY Y
WHITNEYST CARLA AVE , T Y
,GO VvlLERDR TIFFANY WY T Y
'" WOODLAWN AVE .SIERRA WY FOUR-WAY Y
'" ALVARADO ST DEL MAR CT T
'" ANITA ST TROLLEY RR FOUR-WAY P
". APACHE DR Condo sl III 1503 ApllciJe Dr T , P
'" BANNER AVE ALLEY 8N\I MONTGOMERY & ZENITH fOUR-WAY 4 P
'" 8ANNER AVE ALLEY BIW TREMONT & MONTGOMERY FOUR-WAY 4 P
"7 BANNER AVE ALLEY 8fW ZENITH & MAIN ST FOUR-WAY 4 P
~ 8ANNER AVE TREMONT ST fOUR-WAY , P
~"
..2.1' 8ANNER AVE ZENITH ST fOUR-WAY 4 P
cJjO BAYSJDEPW QUAY AVE (CVMARINA) T 1 P
'" 8EECHAVE CENTER ST FDUR-WA Y . P
'" BEECH AVE JAMES ST T , P
'" 8EECHAVE MADRONA ST fOUR-WAY ., P
". BISHOPST T081AS DR T , P
'" BONITA RD HILL TOP DR. SOlfTH SIDE T 1 P
'" CANYON DR CUMBRE VIEW T 1 P EXST f'XSl"
,., CARLA AVE EAST MANKATO ST T , P
'" CARLA AVE EAST SHASTA ST T , P
'" CEDAR AVE JAMES ST T , P
200 CITRUS WY TAMARINDO WY T 2: p
'01 COUNTRY VISTAS LN CANYON DR T
202 COUNTRY VISTAS LN CANYON RIDGE DR T P
203 D6T ,GUAVA AVE fOUR-WAY P
20. D6T 'LAS FLORES DR T 2 P
,0> DATE AVE , CST 2; P
206 DATE AVE JAMES ST T ': p
207 DATE AVE SEA VAlE CT T 2 P
'00 DAVID DR 'DOUGLAS ST T 2; P
70S DAVID DR FIFIELDST T P
'10 DAVID DR WILER DR T P
2" DAVIDSON ST CEOARAVE fOUR.WAY 4 P
21' DEL MAR AVE CYPRESS ST T 2 P
8/13/2007
See comments <It the end of report I-PROPOSED PED RAMPS-LOG rev.xls/ RAMP lOG 6OF13
CityofChulaVista
EnglneenngDepartment
ADA Curb-Cuts (Pedestrian Ramps) program-
.--, .
-,; 0 - -
~ ~ N 0 " I .
1 c
. ~ - "I ~ z
. < < . 5 x
~ . . t <
E :s 0 E . " . .
. ~ . " 2 w l "
. c 0 < 1 " ~
, 0 m . i g
~ ~ . ~ ,
. . U 0: "
'" DOUGLAS 5T DURWARD 6T
'" DOUGLAS 5T HAlECRE5T DR
'" DURWARD 5T .FIFIElD5T
'" DURWARD 5T TlFFANYWY T
m EAST MOSS 5T MARIA WY T
'" EAST OXFORD ST 'HELIX AVE T
>to EAST OXFORD ST JOSSELYN AVE T
220 EAST OXFORD ST JUDSON W( FOUR-WAY
'" EAST OXFORO ST MISSION AVE T
'" EAST OXFORD ST MONTEREY AVE T
m EAST OXFORD ST MYRA AVE T 1
~: EAST OXFORD 5T NACIONAVE T 1 1
EAST OXFORD ST NAPA AVE FOUR.WAY 1 1
c::t EAST OXFORD ST NEPTUNE DR FOUR-WAY ~.!.. 1
227 EAST ,OXFORD 5T NOLAN AVE FOUR-WAY __~M~'_'_ 1
'" EAST OXFORD ST OASIS AVE T 1
no EAST OXFORD ST OCALAAVE T 1
'" EAST PAISLEY 5T HELIX AVE FOUR-WAY 1
m EAST PALOMAR 51 PECANPl T 1
m EAST PROSPEC1 ST THERESA WY T
m EAST QUINTARD 6T MYRA CT T
'" EAST QUINTARD 5T THERESA WY T
'" EAST WHiTNEY 5T CARLA AVE T
>;, FIFTH AVE KEARNEY ST T 1 1
227 FIG AVE HAL5EYST FOUR-WAY 1 1
'" FINCHPL 'THRUSH 6T T -~. -'
m FIRST AVE flONITA RD T 1 1
"" FIRST AVE CA5lT AS CT T , 1 1
'" FlRSTAVE DAVIDSON ST T ,
,,, FIR5TAVE HALSEY ST T ,
,,, FIRST AVE KlNGST fOUR-WAY 4
'44 FIRST AVE LEOMA LN T ,
'" FIRST AVE MONTEflElLO 6T T ,
", FIRST AVE MURRAY ST ,
W FIRST AVE WHITNEY 5T T 2
'" FLOWERST BRIGHlWOOP AVE. NORTHSIPE T
8/23/2007
See comment5 at the end of report l-PROPOsED PED RAMPS-LOG rev.xlsl RAi"IP LOG lOf 13
City of Chula Vi1i;ta
Engineering/)ep<lrtment
ADA CUrb-Cuts (Pedestrian Ramps) Program-
'" FLOWER ST BRIGHTWOOD AVE. SOUTl-lSIDE
'50 FLOWER ST GUAVA AVE
'" GST :COLORADOAVE
'" GST WOODLAWN AVE
'" GARRETT AVE GLOVER Pl
'" GARRETT AVE JASONPL
'" GOTHAM ST CORNELL AVE
'" GOTHAM ST VASSAR AVE
'" GOTHAM ST WAYNE AVE
'" HALSEYST BRIGHTWOODAVE
.3.' HALSEYST COLORADO AVE
j50 HALSEYST ELDER AVE
d!i' HALSEY ST GUAVA AVE
..., HEATHER CT LAUREL AVE
,OJ HILLTOP DR VISTA WY WID HILLTOP DR
'" HORIZON VIEW DR BAY LEAF DR
'" INKOPAH ST MISSION CT
7" INKOPAHST NEPTUNE DR
'" INKOPAHST NOLAN LN
'" INKOPAHST NORMA CT
2fiq ITHACA ST ETON CT
770 ITHACAST ITHACA CT
271 ITHACAST LOYOLA CT
272 ITHACA ST SCRIPPS AVE
m JADE AVE JASPER AVE
m JAMULCT OSSA AVE
'" JASMINEST CAMELUA CT
'" JASMINE$T CARISSA CT
277 JEFFERSON AVE SIERRA WY
'" JEFFERSON AVE " CRESTED BUTTE ST
779 JUDSON WY EAST OLYMPIA ST
280 JUDSON WY .EAST ONEIDA ST
'" JUDSON WY EAST ORlANDO ST
'" JUDSON WY EAST PROSPECT ST
'83 JUDSON WY EAST QUEEN ANNE DR
'" KST COLORADO AVE
612312007
Seecammentsattheendafrepart
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
FOUR-WAY
T
FOUR.WAY
FOUR-WAY
T
FOUR-WAY
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T ,
T
T
T
T , ,
T ,
FOUR-WAY P
FOUR-WAY P
T P
FOUR-WAY , P
T , ,
FOUR-WAY , P
T , P
FOUR-WAY , P
1
1
1
EXSl EX~T ExST
-L
1
1
1
1
1
.----L.
1
1
1-PROPOSED PED RAMPS-LOG rev.xlsl RAMP LOG
. .
0 gE -
fi ~" ii ::l I i .
"
. <'" - 2: l!! 2 :l
<- -" . ,< "
.~ :f ~ 0 .
>M 0 EO' " .
0- .- . n w I " 0
" t;~ ~
. , < , 0
. .0 . " . ~
.. .
~ ~ :g8 .
" . "
" "
60F 13
City ofChul<l Vista
Engineering Department
ADA Curb-Cuts (Pede5trl<ln Ramps) program-
o
Z-,
o
~
.
o
,0
...
'"
'"
'"
'"
""
'"'
'"
'"
'"'
'"'
'"
....
J;~
.."
""
"0
J01
'"
JOJ
JO'
JOS
J06
J07
JO'
JO"
m
'"
'"
m
J"
'"
'"
'"
""
""
"0
KST
",T
K5T
K5T
KEARNEYST
KEARNEY ST
KEARNEYST
KEARNEYST
KEARNEYST
KEARNEYST
KEARNEYST
KEARNEYST
KEARNEY 5T
KEARNEY5T
KEARNEYST
LST'
LANSLEY WY
LANTANA AVE
LARKHAVEN DR
LARKHAVEN DR
LAUREL AVE
LAUREL AVE
LILAC AVE
LILAC AVE
LILAC AVE
LOTUS DR
MADISON AVE
MADISON AVE'
MARlEnA ST
MARIPOSA CI
MARIPOSA CI
MAX AVE
MELROSE AVE
MELROSE AVE
MINOT AVE
MISSION AVE
JEFFERSON AVE
OAKLAWN AVE
RIVERLAWN AVE
WOODLAWN AVE
ALLEY WEST OF FIRST AVE
ALPINE AVE
BRIGHTWOOD AVE
DEL MAR AVE
ELDER AVE
FIG AVE
GARRETT AVE
GUAVA AVE
JEFFERSON AVE
MADISON AVE
WOODLAWN AVE
S/S EJO COUNTRY CLUB PRIVATE 5T
LAS FLORES DR
WISTERIA ST
MEADOINlARKAV
WOODLARK LN
.AZALEA 5T
WISTERIA ST
'JASMINEST
LAUREL AVE
WISTERIA ST
SPRUCE RD
WHITNEY 5T
CRESTED BUTTE 5T
GUAVAAV
MARIPOSA Cl
MARIPOSA CI
RAINIER CT
MYRA AVE
SHEFFIELDCT
HALSEYST
EAST ONEIDA ST
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
FOUR-WAY
T
T
FOUR-WAY
T
FOUR-WAY
FOUR~WA Y
FOUR-WAY
T
FOLlR-WAY
T
FOUR-WAY
FOUR-WAY
FOUR-WAY
DRIVEWAY
T
T
6/23/2007
See comments <It the end of report
p
p
p
p
p
p
, p
, P
4 P
2 P
4 P
2 P
4 P
, P
4 P
2 P
2 P
,2 P
P
1
1 H=J 1 1
-----..~-----t--._-~--" __.L_ ___L.
1 1 1 1
1 r 1
1 1
1 1
, 1
1 1
___~__ ___1-__
1 ,
P
2 P
2 P
1 P
2 P
2 P
2 P
2' P
2 P
, P 1
2 P 1
, P 1 ~
4 P 1 1
, P 1 ....1.._-
I-PROPOSED PED RAMPS-LOG rev,xlsJ RAMP LOG
l'
~fi
E
..
>""
8~
~~
~ 8
-.
:;0
m
!
m
_!E
.
.
,
~
.
.~
~~
~~
.-
~ -~
.0
..
.
o
~
w
.
o
o
'8 e
E<
E.
@ .~
< E
, E
:g8
.
~
t
w
<;
.
o
.
.
.
"
2~
5~
. .
~~
~
.
,
o
.
"
'.
~
,
"
90f 13
City of Chula Vista
Engineering Department
ADA Curb-Cuts (Pedestrian Ramps) Program-
327
'"
329
330
33'
~
I"
dO'
<>>'
335
336
337
33'
339
346
3<,
3<,
346
3'4
3<5
3<6
3<'
346
3<9
350
3"
352
353
35'
355
356
MONSERATE AVE
"MONSERATE AVE
MONSERATEAVE
MONSERATE AVE
MONSERATE AVE
MONSERATE AVE
MONSERATE AVE
MONTCLAIR ST
MONTEBElLO ST
MONTEREY AVE
MOSSST
MOSSST
MOSSST
MOUNTAIN VIEW LN
MYRA AVE
NACION AVE
NACION AVE
NACION AVE
NAC10N AVE
NACION AVE
NAPA AVE
NAPA AVE
NEPTUNE OR
NOLAN AVE
NO\.ANAVE
NOLAN AVE
NOLAN AVE
NOLAN AVE
NOLAN wY
NOLAN w(
OAKlAWNAVE
OAKlAWN AVE
OAKLAWN AVE
OCALAAVE
OCALAAVE
OLEANDER AVE
8/23/2007
See comment5 at the end of report
'EAST Ol YMPlA ST
lEAST ONEIDA ST
EAST ORLANDO ST
EAST OXFORD ST
,EAST PAISLEY ST
.EAST PROSPECT ST
EAST QUINTARD ST
OSAGE AVE
\.AS FLORES DR
EAST ONEIDA ST
CORTE MARIA AVE
OAKLAWN AVE
VISTA WY
PEARlWOOD ST
MYRA AVE ENTRANCE TO SWEETWATER TANK
EAST MILLAN ST
EAST PALOMAR ST
OAK CT
PEARLWOOO 5T
THERESA WY
E EMERSON ST
EA5T ONEIDA 5T
MONTCLAIR 5T
E EMERSON ST
EAST RIENSTRA 5T
NOCTURNE CT
QUINCE PL
QUINOA CT
NOVAPl
.ROMAN WY
K"
KEARNEY ST
SIERRA WY
TAMTA CT
TIMBER CT
JAMUL CT
f.
i
i
,
T
FOUR-WAY
T
T
T
T
T
FOUR-WAY
,
DRIVEWAY
fOUR-WAY
FOUR-WAY
T
T
T
T
T
FOUR-WAY
T
fOUR-WAY
T
T
T
T
T
FOUR-WAY
FOUR-WAY
FOUR-WAY
T
T
T
1
1
1
P ~__~__
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
, 1
2 1
2 1 1
4~1-
1 I 1
2 __L 1
2 1 1
2 1 1
2 ,
1
1
P
4, P
, P
, P
2:P
, p
P _~
i-PROPOSED PED RAMPS-lOG rev.xls I RAMP lOG
i . ~
H 5~ -
:=", ~ i ~
. . .
- ~. z "
. ~~ "
. ~ . E" ~ . <
,N 0 E. " .
c- ,- W " . "
. w ". 0
. ';;;~ ~ " ! , ~ ~
" ~~ " E 0
. :gS . ~ "
ii' .
. 0: "
lOaf 13
City ot Chula Vista
EnglN,ering Department
ADA Curb-Cuts (Pedestrian Ramps) Program.
'"
""
'"
'"
,OJ
'"
'"
'"
'"
'"
'67
~
J,:
....,
m
m
m
'7'
m
'"
m
""
""
'"'
'"
'"
'"
'"
'"'
'"'
'"'
'"
'"'
"0
'"'
'"
OLIVE AVE
OLIVE AVE
ORLANDO CT
OSAGE AVE
OSAGE AVE
OSSA AVE
PRINCESS MANOR CT
QUAILPL
QUINCEPL
QUINCEPL
QUINCE ST
REGENCY WY
RIDGEVIEW CT
RIDGEVIEW WY
RIOSAVE
RUTGERS AVE
S RANCHO DEL REY PW
SAN MIGUEL DR
SAN MIGUEL DR
SANDALWOOD DR
SANDALWOOD OR
SA TININOOD WY
SATINVVOOD WY
SHASTA ST
SHASTAST
,SHASTA ST
SHASTA ST
SHEFFIELD CT
SHEFFIELDCT
SIERRA WY
SMITH AVE
SMoKYCI
SMOKYCI
SPRUCEST
SURREY DR
SURREY DR
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
DRIVEWAY
T
T
T
T
T
fOUR-WAY
T
T
T
T
T
DRIVEWAY
DRIVEWAY
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
;TEAK CT
TOBIAS OR
JAMULCT
MONTCALM ST
INKOPAH ST
EAST RIENSTRA ST
NACION AVE
NACION AVE
NAPA CT
OCALA CT
RIOS AVE
RlDGEVIEW WY
ENTRANCE NIO CMNO ELEVADO WEST SIDE
ENTRANCE TO CONDOS SID OTAY VALLEY RD
ENTRANCE TO PRIVATE ROAD
N RANCHO DEL REY PW, BY DEL REY BLVD
COUNTRY CLUB DR
VISTA WY
CORALWOOD CT
EUCALYPTUS CT
oCALA AVE
SATINWOOD CT
ELM AVE
FIG AVE
GUAVA AVE
LlNDALN
ENTRANCE TO CONDOS
EXIT FROM COt,jOOS
'RIVERLAWNAVE
VANCE ST
HIDDEN VISTA DR
.TRAMPL
PEARLWOOD ST
BRONCO PL
BUCKAROO LN
8{23{2007
See comment5 i,lt the end or report
i-PROPOSED PEO RAMPS-LOG rev.xls I RAMP L<XO
!
I . 00
0 00
~fi 0 i ~
. . E
. ~E - " . ~x
. . 1 " ~
. ~ r!:i 0 ~ O.
>N 0 E. " ".
c- e- o " " ~~
0 w ".
. ~ -~ ~ . E 0 i
. .0 " . 0
~ .. ~ . , "
. "
" u . "
" .
11 OF 13
CityllfChu!;tVh.ta
Engineering Department
ADA Curb-Cub (Pedestrian Ramps) Program-
I ~ -
. 0 -
~" 0 " ~
~ i ~
. ~
w - " z
<- 1 . :i
~N -~ ~ < 5
.~ :f E. 0. . .
, E " .
0- .- w ~ '~ "
. .=~ . w i ~ 0
~ , < E 0
0 5;f . .!olE ~ ~
~ . :g8 .n
. . " "
'" MAVERICK PL T
'" SURREY DR MUSTANG PL T
"" SURREY DR RAWHIDE CT T
'" SURREY DR 5TALUON PL T
"7 SURREY OR SURREY PL T
", SURREY DR WAGONWHEEl W"f T
'" SURREY DR WRANGLER CT T
400 TAMARACK ST TAMARACK CT T
401 TANBARK 5T TANBARK CT T
402 TESOTACT OCALAAVE T
40' TIFFANY WY DAVID DR T
~ TULANE AVE HARVARD ST
J; WAYNE AVE HARVARD ST T 2 P
c1f WHITNEY aT CORTE HELENA AVE T 2 P
407 WHITNEY-MANKATO ST ,WHITNEY ST T 2[ P
", WINDSOR Cl MELRosE AVE T 2 P
'" VoJINDSOR Cl WINDSOR Cl T 2 P
'" WOODLAWN AVE HALSEY ST T 2 P
<11 WOODLAWN AVE KST FOUR-WAY , P
MISSING RAMPS PRIORITY 1: 14
TOTAL MISSING:
917 RAMPS
16 MISSING FROM '94 LIST
BUILT
947 BUILT (in '94 list)
1
TOTAL RAMPS:
'... .... ....... .-.-.-. .-. .-.-.--..:-.-.-...........-. -.--1
~~_ ~O~~!!9i1~_j!15!!:!~_f::Q.!!}Jt!~_!~~ilj~~__
8/23/2007
$ee.oommentsattheelldofreport
i-PROPOSED PED RAMPS-LOG rev.xls I RAMP LOG
12 OF 13