Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Agenda Packet 2000/12/05
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA December 5, 2000 4:00 p.m. Council Chambers Public Services Building 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista CI'IY OF CHULA VISTA City Council City Manager Patty Davis David D. Rowlands, Jr. John S. Moot City Attorney Stephen C. Padilla John M. Kaheny Mary Salas City Clerk Shirley A. Horton, Mayor Susan Bigelow The City Council meets regularly on the first calendar Tuesday at 4:00 p.m. and on the second, third and fourth calendar Tuesdays at 6:00 p.m. Regular meetings may be viewed at 7:00 p.m. on Wednesdays on Cox Cable Channel 24 or Chula Vista Cable Channel 47 December 5, 2000 I declare uncl8t penally of perjury thaI I am employed by the City of Chula V.ta in the OKice of Ihe CIty Clerk lIIld lhet I POlted lhiI docum8nton the buIIItin DoMa eclQQI'dInlillO ~~1IIlII1lI. ~ 01 . 0..- / / ~~~ IIgMd _U~ 4:00 P.M. I I CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL: Councilmembers Davis, Moot, Padilla, Salas, and Mayor Horton. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG, MOMENT OF SILENCE SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY · RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA RECITING THE FACTS OF THE SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION HELD IN SAID CITY ON NOVEMBER 7, 2000 AND DECLARING THE RESULTS THEREOF AND SUCH OTHER MATTERS AS ARE PROVIDED BY LAW The Registrar of Voters has transmitted the certified results of the Special Municipal Election held on November 7, 2000. Elections Code Section 15372 requires the City Clerk, as the elections official, to transmit the certified results to the Council. Elections Code Section 15400 requires the Council to declare the results of the election. The proposed resolution contains the official results as reported by the Registrar of Voters. Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolution. · PROCLAMATION PROCLAIMING TUESDAY, DECEMBER 5, 2000 AS "JOHN S. MOOT DAY" IN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA · PRESENTATION OF PLAQUE TO COUNCILMEMBER MOOT BY STEVE MILLER ON BEHALF OF CHULA VISTA FIREFIGHTERS . COMMENTS BY OUT-GOING COUNCILMEMBER JOHN MOOT . OATH OF OFFICE FOR NEWLY ELECTED COUNCILMEMBERS MARY SALAS AND JERRY RINDONE TO BE ADMINISTERED BY THE HONORABLE FEDERICO CASTRO . COMMENTS BY COUNCILMEMBERS MARY SALAS AND JERRY RINDONE . RECESS FOR RECEPTION FOR NEWLY ELECTED COUNCILMEMBERS ROLL CALL: Councilmembers Davis, Padilla, Rindone, Salas, and Mayor Horton. SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY (Continued) · PRESENTATION OF A PROCLAMATION TO THE EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH, LEILANI HiNES, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SPECIALIST II, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT · PRESENTATION BY VIVACE, A CHULA VISTA VOCAL TRIO - iNTRODUCED BY COUNCILMEMBER SALAS · PRESENTATION OF HIGHLIGHTS OF THE 2000 SEASON AT CHULA VISTA'S ATTRACTIONS: ARCO OLYMPIC CENTER, COORS AMPHITHEATRE, KNOTT'S SOAK CITY U.S.A., CHULA VISTA NATURE CENTER CONSENT CALENDAR (Items 1 through 16) The staff recommendations regarding the following items listed under the Consent Calendar will be enacted by the Council by one motion, without discussion, unless a Councilmember, a member ofthepublic, or City staff requests that the item be removed for discussion. If you wish to speak on one of these items, please fill out a "Request to Speak"form (available in the lobby) andsubmit it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting. Items pulled from the Consent Calendar will be discussed afier Action Items. Items pulled by the public will be the first items of business. I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES of Regular Meeting and Adjourned Regular Meeting of November 14, 2000. Staff recommendation: Council approve the minutes. 2. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS A. Letter from the City Attorney stating that to the best of his knowledge from observance of actions taken in Closed Session on November 14, 2000, there were no actions taken which are required under the Brown Act to be reported. Staff recommendation: The letter be received and filed. 3. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING A GRANT IN THE AMOUNT OF $10,902 FROM THE AGiNG AND INDEPENDENT SERVICES OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY (AIS) FOR TELECONFERENCING EQUIPMENT TO ENABLE SENIOR SERVICES TO START A TELECONFERENCiNG PROGRAM FOR HOMEBOUND SENIORS AND PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES AND AUTHORIZING THE PARKS AND RECREATION DIRECTOR TO EXECUTE SUCH AGREEMENT AND AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 2000/2001 BUDGET BY APPROPRIATING UNANTICIPATED GRANT REVENUE FUNDS 1N THE AMOUNT OF $10,902 (4/5THS VOTE REQUIRED) Page 2 - Council Agenda 12/05/2000 The Parks and Recreation Department wishes to partner with Aging and Independent Services of San Diego County (AIS) to initiate a teleconferencing program for homebonnd seniors and persons with disabilities by accepting a grant from AIS in the amount of $10,902 for equipment and phone lines. Staffrecommendation: Council adopt the resolution. 4. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ADOPTING THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA CAFETERIA BENEFITS PLAN FOR 2001 The Internal Revenue Code requires that employers offering cafeteria plans under Section 125 have a written Plan Document and that the employer adopt the plan document annually. This resolution will fulfill this requirement. (Director of Human Resources) Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolution. 5. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA DECLARING SPECIFIED VOLUNTEERS TO BE EMPLOYEES FOR THE PURPOSE OF W ' ORKER S COMPENSATION COVERAGE In order to limit a public agency's liability as it relates to persons who provide voluntary service without pay, it is necessary to distinguish between an employee and an independent contractor. The California Labor Code, Section 3363.5 permits public agencies to declare by resolution, for purposes of Workers' Compensation, that all or certain designated volunteers are employees of that agency while performing such services for the agency. This resolution will declare such for volunteers assigned to specific City programs whose names are included in the City-wide volunteer database and to members of all City boards and commissions. (Director of Human Resources) Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolution. 6. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA WAIVING THE CONSULTANT SELECTION PROCESS AS IMPRACTICAL, APPROVING AN AGREEMENT WITH HARRELL & COMPANY ADVISORS, LLC FOR FINANCIAL ADVISORY SERVICES RELATED TO FINANCING THE POLICE HEADQUARTERS FACILITY AND CIVIC CENTER REMODELING CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT The Police headquarters facility and Civic Center remodeling capital improvement projects are multi-million dollar projects that will require long-term financing. The City has historically utilized the services of a financial advisory firm to provide added insurance that the costs of borrowing are minimized. On two other borrowings that were successfully concluded within the last ninety days, the Corporation Yard project and the Redevelopment Agency financial plan, two different financial advisory firms were Page 3 - Council Agenda 12/05/2000 chosen through the normal consultant selection process. Although both firms performed well on those assignments, due to the complex nature of the Agency transaction, Harrell & Co. was required to obtain a much more in-depth understanding of the City and is, therefore, recommended for appointment to this assignment without going through another formal selection process. (Deputy City Manager Powell) Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolution. 7.A. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE AGREEMENT WITH HIGHLAND PARTNERSHIP, INC. FOR THE PROGRAMMING AND PREPARATION OF A MASTER PLAN FOR THE NEW POLICE FACILITY AND CIVIC CENTER COMPLEX, APPROPRIATiNG FUNDS THEREFOR, AND AUTHORIZiNG THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAiD AGREEMENT (4/5THS VOTE REQUIRED) B. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA REGARDING ITS INTENTION TO ISSUE TAX EXEMPT OBLIGATIONS TO FINANCE THE CITY'S NEW POLICE FACILITY AND CIVIC CENTER EXPANSION AND DIRECTING STAFF TO RETURN WITH A FINANCING PLAN At its October 23, 2000 workshop, Council directed staff to eliminate Friendship Park from further analysis for the siting of a new police facility. Council also directed staff to look at the other sites that had been previously considered and which will accommodate the police facility and program as described by the consultants. It is staff's intent to reevaluate the sites using the relevant criteria, including proximity to the Civic Center and Third Avenue/Downtown corridor, consolidation of government services, facilitation of redevelopment efforts, ease of ingress and egress, and cost. The new direction to the consultant necessitates a change in the scope of work approved in the original agreement with Highland Partnership, Inc. (Assistant City Manager Morris) Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolutions. 8. REPORT REGARDING EXTENDING THE TEMPORARY CLOSURE OF CENTER STREET AND A PORTION OF CHURCH AVENUE FOR THE DOWNTOWN FARMERS' MARKET ON THURSDAY AFTERNOONS FOR A TWO-YEAR · PERIOD, SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AND REQUESTING PERMISSION TO PROVIDE A RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE SITE IN FEBRUARy 2001 On November 14, 2000, Council approved an extension of the Downtown Farmers' Market to include the southernmost lane of Center Street from Church Avenue to Del Mar Street. Council amended the resolution to include the recommendation that staff look at alternative sites for the location of the Farmers' Market. To facilitate a more open layout, staff has identified three alternative sites for review. These include Park Way at Memorial Park, the parking lot south of Davidson on Landis Avenue, and the parking lot north of Davidson on Landis Avenue. The alternative sites will be analyzed for Page 4 - Council Agenda 12/05/2000 environmental, traffic, safety, and financial impacts, along with citizen reviews. The Downtown Business Association and Town Centre I Project Area Committee must endorse the site. In addition, staff will analyze management techniques that might allow the operation to continue in its current location. (Director of Community Development) Staff recommendation: Council accept the report and permit staff to return with a recommended alternative site in February, allowing time for appropriate departmental and citizen reviews. 9. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA SUPPORTING THE EXPANSION OF THE SAN YSIDRO/OTAY MESA ENTERPRISE ZONE AND TARGETED EMPLOYMENT AREA TO INCLUDE CERTAIN AREAS IN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA; APPROVING AGREEMENTS WITH THE CALIFORNIA TRADE AND COMMERCE AGENCY, THE CITY OF SAN DIEGO AND THE PORT OF SAN DIEGO REGARDING ZONE EXPANSION AND IMPLEMENTATION; AND APPROPRIATING $29,500 FROM THE GENERAL FUND TO SUPPORT THE EXPANDED ENTERPRISE ZONE PROGRAM (4/5THS VOTE REQUIRED) The City of San Diego is requesting that the California Trade and Commerce Agency expand the existing San Ysidro / Otay Mesa Enterprise Zone and Targeted Employment Area to include certain areas in Chula Vista, including property owned by the Unified Port District of San Diego, and other property and business owners such as BF Goodrich and Raytheon. The proposed expansion would involve a regional partnership between the City of Chula Vista, the City of San Diego and the Port of San Diego, with each providing funding and/or programmatic support for the expanded Enterprise Zone. (Director of Community Development) Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolution. 10. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA WAIVING THE BIDDING PROCESS AS IMPRACTICAL, APPROVING AN AGREEMENT WITH ESTRADA LAND PLANNING, INC., FOR PLANNING AND DESIGN CONSULTANT SERVICES FOR PHASE I OF THE CHULA VISTA ENTRYWAY BEAUTIFICATION PROJECT, AND APPROPRIATING $58,000 FROM THE UNAPPROPRIATED FUND BALANCE OF THE GENERAL FUND TO IMPLEMENT THE PROJECT (4/5THS VOTE REQUIRED) The "E" and "H" Street segments between I-5 and Broadway, and the Palomar segment between 1-5 and Industrial Blvd. have long been considered primary entryways into the City that are in need of revitalization. The purpose of this project is to create a thematic approach to these entryways and corridors, emphasizing the City's unique character and providing an enticing door to the City's downtown and waterfront areas. In September 2000, a Request for Response (RFR) was issued to prospective planning and design consultants to draft the scope of work. Estrada Land Planning, Inc. was selected as the consultant due to their response to the scope of work, extensive planning and design experience, and satisfactory work on other projects of similar nature in other jurisdictions. (Director of Community Development) Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolution. Page 5 - Council Agenda 12/05/2000 11 A. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING FINAL MAPS OF CHULA VISTA TRACT NO. 96-04A, OTAY RANCH, VILLAGE ONE, PHASE SEVEN, NEIGHBORHOODS R-17 & R-16, ACCEPTING ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA THE GENERAL UTILITY AND ACCESS EASEMENTS, AND THE WALL EASEMENTS GRANTED ON SAiD MAPS WITHIN SAID SUBDIVISIONS, ACKNOWLEDGING ON BEHALF OF THE PUBLIC THE IRREVOCABLE OFFERS OF DEDICATION OF FEE INTEREST FOR OPEN SPACE LOTS J, K, AND L, APPROVING THE SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENTS FOR THE COMPLETION OF IMPROVEMENTS REQUIRED BY SAD SUBDIVISIONS, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENTS B. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING THE "B" MAP SUPPLEMENTAL SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT FOR OTAY RANCH VILLAGE ONE, PHASE 7, NEIGHBORHOODS R-16 AND R-17, CHULA VISTA TRACT NO. 96-04A, REQUIRING DEVELOPER TO COMPLY WITH CERTAIN UNFULFILLED CONDITIONS OF RESOLUTION NO. 19448, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT On May 4, 1999, by Resolution No. 19448, Council approved a Tentative Subdivision Map for Chun Vista Tract 96-04A, Otay Ranch, SPA One, Village One, Phase Seven. On May 9, 2000 by Resolution 2000-208, Council approved Village One "A" Map No. 2. On October 24, 2000 by Resolution 2000-371, Council approved the first "B" Map within Village One, Phase Seven. Adoption of the resolutions will approve two additional maps wltmn Phase Seven. (Director of Public Works) Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolutions. 12. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING THE SUBMITTAL OF TWELVE (12) APPLICATIONS TO THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (CALTRANS) FOR THE FEDERAL FISCAL YEAR 2002/2003 HAZARD ELIMINATION SAFETY PROGRAM The Federal Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982 created the Hazard Elimination Safety (HES) program by combining several existing safety programs. The HES Program provides funds for safety improvements to all public roads and highways, except for the interstate system. These funds serve to eliminate or reduce the number and severity of traffic accidents at hazardous public roads and highway locations, sections, and elements. CalTrans regulations require that official applications be submitted in order for projects to be considered for funding. In order for an application to be official, Council must approve a resolution authorizing, submittal of the Federal Fiscal Year 2002/2003 HES program. Projects are chosen and then approved for funding after the applications have been evaluated by CalTrans. (Director of Public Works) Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolution. Page 6 - Council Agenda 12/05/2000 13. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROPRIATING $88,000.00 FROM THE UNAPPROPRIATED BALANCE OF THE GAS TAX FUND AND $337,031.50 1N UNANTICIPATED REVENUE FROM THE SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY (SDG&E) INCENTIVE PROGRAM TO A NEW CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT TRAFFIC SIGNAL LAMp REPLACEMENT PROGRAM (TF-291); APPROVING A GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT WITH SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY FOR THE REPLACEMENT OF INCANDESCENT LAMPS TO LIGHT EMITTING DIODE (L.E.D.) LAMPS; AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO SIGN THE AGREEMENT, AND AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASING AGENT TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT WITH SYNCHRONEX FOR THE PURCHASE OF TRAFFIC SIGNAL L.E.D. LAMPS (4/STHS VOTE REQUIRED) The City is in a position to save approximately $74,000.00 per year in energy costs by switching the green traffic signal indication lamps from incandescent lamps to light emitting diode (L.E.D.) lamps. San Diego Gas & Electric Company has an incentive program that offers up to $175.00 rebate per light. The proposed project must be completed by June 30, 2001 in order to receive the incentive. This project is pan of the City's overall carbon dioxide reduction and energy conservation plan. (Director of Public Works) Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolution. 14. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AWARDING A PURCHASE AGREEMENT TO KEN GRODY FORD IN THE AMOUNT OF $129,282.16 FOR EIGHT INTERMEDIATE SEDANS THROUGH A COOPERATIVE PURCHASE WITH THE CITY OF SAN DIEGO The City of Chula Vista is participating in a current City of San Diego bid from Ken Grody Ford to purchase eight intermediate sedans. Municipal Code Section 2.56.140 and Resolution No. 6132 authorize the Purchasing Agent to participate in cooperative bids with other government agencies for the purchase of materials of common usage. The City of San Diego publicly advertised the bid as required by state law. In addition, one local dealer, Fuller Ford, was sent a bid package. At City staWs request, People's Chevrolet will now be added to the mailing list for future bids. None of the dealerships from Chula Vista were awarded the bid. (Director of Public Works) Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolution. 15. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNICL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING ONE-YEAR EXTENSION OF THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND LAW CRANDALL, A DIVISION OF LAW ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, 1NC., FOR MATERIALS TESTING AND GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTING SERVICES AND INCREASING THE MAXIMUM COMPENSATION FOR THE AGREEMENT TO $750,000 Page 7 - Council Agenda 12/05/2000 On December 15, 1998, Council adopted Resolution No. 19296, approving a two-year agreement with Law Crandall to provide materials testing and geotechnical engineering consulting services from January 1, 1999 to December 31, 2000. On March 21, 2000, Council adopted Resolution No. 2000-090, approving an increase in the maximum compensation for said services from $200,000 to $400,000 through December 31, 2000. Said agreement includes a provision giving the City the option to extend the original two- year agreement for one additional year from January 1, 2001 to December 31, 2001 upon mutual agreement between the City and the Consultant. Staff recommends that the City exercise said option based upon Law Crandall's satisfactory performance. (Director of Public Works) Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolution. 16. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING BIDS, WAiVING INCONSEQUENTIAL BID DEVIATION, AWARDING CONTRACT FOR THE "PARKWAY POOL RE-SURFACING/RE- LAMP1NG 1N THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CA. (PR-223)" PROJECT TO MISSION POOLS OF ESCONDIDO IN THE AMOUNT OF $407,599, AWARDING ALTERNATE (SECTION 01030) TO MISSION POOLS OF ESCONDIDO IN THE AMOUNT OF $28,775, AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE SAID CONTRACT On November 28, 2000, the Director of Public Works received sealed bids for the Parkway Pool resurfacing/re-lamping project, which provides for renovation work within and adjacent to the existing swimming pool located at the Parkway Gynmasium site. Parkway Gymnasium is located at the northeast quadrant of the Fourth Avenue and Park Way intersection. The renovation work to be done generally consists of demolition, installation of new construction, concrete work required for decks and walkways, finish work (plaster and tile) as required for the interior of the pool, installation of luminaries, some circulation piping and a surge pit. The work also includes all labor, material, equipment, transportation, protection and restoration of existing improvements, and all appurtenances and other work necessary for completion of the project. Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolution. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Persons speaking during Oral Communications may address the Council on any subject matter within he Counctl s jurtsdtctton that is not listed as an item on the agenda. State law generally prohibits the Council from taking action on any issue not included on the agenda, but, if appropriate, the Council may schedule the topic for future discussion or refer the matter to staff. Comments are limited to three minutes. Page 8 - Council Agenda 12/05/2000 PUBLIC HEARINGS The following items have been advertised and/or posted as public hearings as required by law. If you wish to speak on any item, please jqll out a "Request to Speak" form (available in the lobby) and submit it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting. 17. CONSIDERATION OF ESTABLISHING UTILITY UNDERGROUND DISTRICT NO. 132 ALONG BONITA ROAD FROM THE EASTERN CITY LIMITS TO OTAY LAKES ROAD AND ON OTAY LAKES ROAD FROM BONITA ROAD TO CAMINO DEL CERRO GRANDE/SURREY DRIVE On October 24, 2000, by Resolution No. 2000-378, Council ordered a Public Hearing to be held on December 5, 2000 to determine whether the public health, safety or general welfare requires thc formation of a utility underground district along Bonita Road from thc eastern City limits to Otay Lakes Road and on Otay Lakes Road from Bonita Road to Camino del Cerro Grande/Surrey Drive. Thc purpose of forming the district is to require the utility companies to underground all overhead lines and to remove all existing wooden utility poles within the proposed district. The proposed utility tmdcrgrounding district is about 4,350 feet long along Otay Lakes Road and 800 feet along Bonita Road and will bc mostly high voltage (65KV) transmission line conversion. This project will cost approximately $2,730,000 for both streets ($2,250,000 for Otay Lakes Road and $480,000 for Bonita Road). SDG&E's allocation funds (Rule 20-A) will be used to cover the cost of the project, including reimbursements to affected property owner(s) for their respective underground conversion cost. (Director of Public Works) Staff recommendation: Council conduct the public heating and adopt the following resolution: RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ESTABLISHING UNDERGROUND UTILITY DISTRICT NO. 132 ALONG BONITA ROAD FROM THE EASTERN CITY LIMITS TO OTAY LAKES ROAD AND ON OTAY LAKES ROAD FROM BONITA ROAD TO CAMINO DEL CERRO GRANDE/SURREY DRIVE AND AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE OF UTILITY ALLOCATION FUNDS TO SUBSIDIZE PRIVATE SERVICE LATERAL CONVERSION ACTION ITEMS The items listed in this section of the agenda are expected to elicit substantial discussion and deliberation by the Council, staff or members of the public. The items will be considered individually by the Council, and staff recommendations may, in certain cases, be presented in the alternative. If you wish to speak on any item, please 'fill out a "Request to Speak" form (available in the lobby) and submit it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting. Page 9 - Council Agenda 12/05/2000 18. CONSDERATION OF ACCEPTANCE OF BIDS AND AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR THE GREG ROGERS PARK IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT (PR-169) On November 17, 2000, the Director of Public Works received sealed bids for the Greg Rogers Park improvements project (PR-169). This project provides for improvement work within the existing ball field portion of the Greg Rogers Park site. Greg Rogers Park is located on the east side of Oleander Avenue between East Naples Street and East Palomar Street. The improvement work to be done includes grading, excavation and compaction, demolition of existing improvements, associated park and ball field lighting, associated irrigation and landscaping, fencing, hardscape areas, site building work, retaining walls, construction of a concession stand/restroom building, and construction of .an accessible parking area and accessible walkways from the parking lot to the ball fields ~n compliance with American's Disability Act. The work also includes all labor, material, equipment, transportation, protection and restoration of existing improvements, traffic control, and all appurtenances and other work necessary for completion of the project. (Director of Public Works) Staff recommendation: Council adopt the following resolution: RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING B1DS, REJECTING LOWEST BID DUE TO DEVIATIONS IN BID PROPOSAL, AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR THE GREG ROGERS PARK IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT (PR-169) TO FAMANIA CONSTRUCTION, INC., IN THE AMOUNT OF $410,212, AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE SAID CONTRACT 19. CONSIDERATION OF ELECTION CHALLENGE REQUEST BY CITY COUNCIL CANDIDATE MIKE DIAZ On November 29, 2000, Council candidate Mike Diaz filed a request to challenge the results of the November 7, 2000 election for City Council Seat #3. He is alleging that Council candidate Jerry Rindone was not eligible to run for the Council seat under City of Chula Vista Charter Section 300D. Staff recommendation: Council consider such challenge pursuant to Municipal Code Section 2.50.120 and take such action as the Council considers appropriate. ITEMS PULLED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR OTHER BUSINESS 20. CITY MANAGER'S REPORTS A. Scheduling of meetings. Page 10 - Council Agenda 12/05/2000 21. MAYOR'S REPORTS A. Appointment of Deputy Mayor. B. Proposed City Council committee assignments. 22. COUNCIL COMMENTS A. Councilmember Salas Direction to staff to rezone Friendship Park from professional offices to park-related purposes only. CLOSED SESSION 23. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDING SIGNIFICANT EXPOSURE TO LITIGATION PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.9(B) · Claim no. 00-14-027 24. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDING EXISTING LITIGATION PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.9(A) · City of Chula Vista v. Bamhart Construction, et al (SDSC No. GIS3859) 25. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDING INITIATION OF LITIGATION PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.9(C) · One case (Project no. 970101) 26. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54957.6 City Negotiator: City Manager Employee organizations: Chula Vista Police Officers Association ADJOURNMENT to the Regular Meeting of December 12, 2000, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. Page 11 - Council Agenda 12/05/2000 STEPHENSON WORlEY GARRATI SCHw ARlZ GARFlEill & PRAIRIE A LIMITED LtASUlTY PARTNERSHIP DANIEL A. FRIEDLANDER TIMOTHY K. GARFIELD GREGORY eM. GARRATT LAUREL LEE HYDE MICHAEL W. PRAIRIE WILUAM 1. SCHWARTZ, JR. GARY J. STEPHENSON DoNALD R. WORLEY LAWYERS 40 1 "B" STREET, SUITE 2400 SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92101-4200 TELEPHONE (619) 696-3500 FACSIMILE (619) 696-3555 OF CoUNSEL ELAINE L. CHAN KENT H. FOSTER RALPH E. HUGHES E-MAIL SDLAW@SWGSGP.COM WRITER'SEXT. December 5, 2000 Mayor and City Council City ofChula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council: We represent Jerry Rindone, the duly elected Councilmember for the Third District. We present this letter brief in opposition to the challenge of Michael Diaz. NATURE OF CHALLENGE Mr. Diaz challenges the eligibility of Mr. Rindone under Charter section 300.D, and bases his challenge on the language that says no person "may again seek nomination and election to said offices of Council. .. until a period of one (I) year from the termination of the record term for councilmember ... has elapsed." Specifically, Mr. Diaz contends certain activities, which occurred on or before December 8, 19991, amount to "seeking nomination and election." Mr. Diaz' challenge thus calls upon the Council to interpret the Charter. UNDER THE APPLICABLE STANDARD OF REVIEW THE DIAZ CHALLENGE MUST FAIL As your City Attorney has advised you in his Memorandum of Law dated December 1, 2000, the burden is on Mr. Diaz to prove his interpretation of the City Charter is correct, and, as the California Supreme Court has stated, any ambiguities are to be resolved in favor of eligibility to office. With one exception, Mr. Rindone does not dispute the fact that some activities occulTed before December 9, 1999. He disputes that he solicited contributions before December 9, 1999. The few coutributions he received before that date were unsolicited. STEPHENSON WORLEY GARRATT SCHWARTZ GARFIELD & PRAIRIE, LLP Mayor and City Council City of Chula Vista December 5, 2000 Page 2 Because "seek nomination and election" can have many meanings, the language is ambiguous. As explained below, there are several reasonable interpretations which support Mr. Rindone's eligibility, and the only interpretation which supports the Diaz challenge is inherently unreasonable. Consequently, the ambiguity in the Charter language must be resolved by the Council in favor of Mr. Rindone, and the Diaz challenge must fail. THE PURPOSE OF CHARTER SECTION 300.D IS TO PROVIDE A BREAK IN SERVICE. FOR TWO (2) YEARS UNDER NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES. FOR ONE (1) YEAR IN CASE OF SPECIAL ELECTIONS Charter section 300.D is a "term limit" provision. Its basic purpose is to prohibit more than two "consecutive" terms. However, the prohibition contemplates that a two- term Councilmember may run again for a non-consecutive term. Because Council terms are staggered, Council elections are held every two (2) years (Charter 9 300.D), and Councilmembers are elected at large (9 300.A), under normal circumstances the next available non-consecutive Council term begins about two years after the last Council term ends. Because there is no clear prohibition against running for the next available regular Council term, the Charter must be interpreted to allow a two-term Councilmember, such as Mr. Rindone, to run again for the office that begins two years after his last term ended. Since the basic purpose of Charter section 300.D is to provide a two-year "break in service" under normal circumstances, Mr. Rindone's reelection complies with that basic purpose, and that should end the matter. Keeping in mind the basic purpose, which is to provide a two-year break in service under normal circumstances, the prohibition against seeking nomination and election less than one (1) year after the second previous Council term ends must logically address a special election which is held in the interim. It prohibits a former Councilmember from running in a special election for a vacated Council seat where the election occurs within one (1) year of the end of the Councilmember's last (and second) term of office. In support of this interpretation is the fact that "seek nomination and election" is in the conjunctive form, not disjunctive (i.e., "nomination OR election"). One seeks STEPHENSON WORLEY GARRATT SCHWARTZ GARFIELD & PRAIRIE, LLP Mayor and City Council City of Chula Vista December 5, 2000 Page 3 nomination and election by running in an election. The language in question prevents a former Councilmember who has served two consecutive terms from running in an election which takes place within one (I) year of the end of his last term. Since the one-year provision reasonably applies only to special elections, has no applicability to the election of Mr. Rindone for an office which begins about two years after his last term ended, a result which the Charter allows. The Charter cannot be reasonably interpreted to prevent him from taking office when he has had the necessary "break in service" which the Charter demands. IF THE CHARTER LANGUAGE REFERS TO PRE-ELECTION ACTIVITIES. THEN TO "SEEK NOMINATION AND ELECTION" MEANS FILING NOMINATING PAPERS WITH THE CITY CLERK AND ACCEPTING THE NOMINATION It is undisputed that Mr. Rindone filed his nominating papers with the City Clerk on December 9, 1999, one year and one day after his second previous term of office ended. This act constituted "seeking nomination and election." The time of filing of the nominating papers is the first point in time that the candidate selects one of the seats for which he will run. (Charter S 300.E.) The time of filing is also when the candidate signs a verified statement that he or she accept the nomination and accept the office if elected. (Elections Code, S 10223l Before filing the nomination papers and signing acceptance of the nomination, the candidate is not officially "seeking" nomination and election, regardless of any pre-filing activities. As a matter of fact, the candidate can even withdraw the nomination papers after they are filed, ifhe does so not later than the 88th day before the election. (Elections Code S 10224.) Until that candidate files the petition and signs the verified acceptance of 2 Unless otherwise provided in the Chula Vista ordinances, all elections are to be held in accordance with the provisions of the California Elections Code. (Charter ~ 902.) This incorporation of the Elections Code into Chula Vista law includes the "liberal construction" provision wherein "no error, omission or irregularity shall invalidate an election if there has been substantial compliance with this chapter. . .." (Elections Code ~ 10200.) STEPHENSON WORLEY GARRATT SCHWARTZ GARFIELD & PRAIRIE, LLP Mayor and City Council City of Chula Vista December 5, 2000 Page 4 nomination, and leaves it on file beyond the 88th day before the election, he has not taken the irrevocable step that indicates he "seeks" nomination and election. Consequently, the acts of filing of the nomination papers and signing the verified acceptance of nomination are the first official acts which constitute "seeking nomination and election" within the meaning of that language in Charter section 300.D. Prior activities are of no legal relevance. Since Mr. Rindone filed his nomination papers and signed the acceptance of nomination one year and one day after the end of his prior term, he has complied with section 300.D. Mr. Diaz will undoubtedly argue that accepting campaign funds, opening a campaign account, and asking a person to sign a nominating petition are "seeking" the nomination and election. However, such activities can be, and for most candidates are, exploratory or "testing the waters." A candidate can return funds, close the account, and stop asking for signatures, or fail to file a petition with the necessary number of signatures, or even withdraw a previously filed petition. These activities do not irrevocably commit the candidate to run, as does the filing of the nominating papers and signing the verified statement accepting the nomination. Incidentally, the Campaign Bank Account form (California Form 502) and the Candidate Intention Statement (California Form 501), both filed before December 9, 1999, were state forms required by campaign finance laws adopted in 1985. The Chula Vista term limit provisions have been in the Charter since about 1973 and certainly predated the state laws with which Mr. Rindone complied by filing these forms. The Charter cannot be reasonably interpreted to prohibit activities or prohibit the filing of forms which did not even exist when the Charter term limit provisions were added. If the Charter prohibits "seeking" nomination activity, it must be interpreted to apply only to the act of a candidate irrevocably declaring to the City his intent to move forward toward election as an officially nominated candidate, and this is the act of filing his nominating papers and verifying he will accept nomination and election. All prior activities are legally irrelevant. STEPHENSON WORLEY GARRATT SCHWARTZ GARFIELD & PRAIRIE, LLP Mayor and City Council City of Chula Vista December 5, 2000 Page 5 THE CHARTER MUST BE INTERPRETED REASONABLY TO ALLOW SUFFICIENT TIME FOR A CANDIDATE TO PREPARE FOR ELECTION TO THE NEXT REGULARLY AVAILABLE COUNCIL SEAT As established above, the Charter "term limit" provision in section 300.D contemplates that a Councilmember finishing a second consecutive term may, without violating the Charter, run again for the next available at-large seat whose term begins about two years later, but he or she will be limited in how soon he or she can run in special elections held in the interim to fill a vacancy. If, as Mr. Diaz interprets the Charter, the "term limit" provision focuses on political activities, rather than "break in service," and precludes a prospective candidate from engaging in any exploratory or "testing the waters" activities - accepting campaign contributions, opening accounts, soliciting signatures on a petition, or even talking to people about running - within one (I) year of the end of his previous Council term, then absurd and unfair results will follow. By the rules of interpretation of law, absurd results should be avoided. The absurd result is that Mr. Rindone, a candidate for a Council term which begins about two (2) years after his last term ended, would have had only two (2) days to obtain nominating signatures, when the other candidates for the same Council seat all had 25 days to do so. This result arises from the fact that in 2000 the Chula Vista general municipal election was held in March to correspond with the presidential primary. Formerly, it was held in June. Voters may sign nominating papers no sooner than the 1 13th day and no later than the 88th day before the municipal election. (Elections Code ~ 10220.) For the election on March 7, 2000, the 88th day (the last day to file a nominating petition and to sign the verified statement accepting the nomination) fell on December 10, 1999. If, by Mr. Diaz' Charter interpretation, Mr. Rindone could not have solicited signatures on or before December 8, 1999, his time to "seek nomination" would have been truncated down to two days (December 9 and 10). However, any other candidate STEPHENSON WORLEY GARRATT SCHWARTZ GARFIELD & PRAIRIE, LLP Mayor and City Council City ofChula Vista December 5, 2000 Page 6 (including Mr. Diaz) would have been able to solicit signatures as early as November 18, 1999. Also, by Mr. Diaz' interpretation, Mr. Rindone could not have engaged in any exploratory, "testing the waters," activities usually associated with prospective candidacy before December 9, 1999, when the other candidates would have been under no such constraint. This result is not only absurd and illogical, it is contrary to the California Elections Code Gi 10220) allowing candidates to solicit signatures as early as the 113th day before the election, and it unfairly discriminates against Mr. Rindone by giving him far less time to engage in vital preparatory activities than the other candidate. Such political activities have a high degree of protection under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and any restriction on them must be strictly construed in favor of such activities in the absence of a compelling interest in their restriction. If the "seek nomination and election" provision of the Charter was indeed meant to cover all the preliminary, exploratory, political activities which Mr. Diaz claims, please bear in mind that the provision was adopted at a time when the general election was in June, not March. Formerly, a person seeking election to a Council term which starts about two years after his last term ended would first run in June, and would have plenty of time to seek nominating signatures (the I13th day, the first day on which signatures may be solicited, would fall sometime in February) and engage in other preparatory activities without violating the one (1) year rule. This is an additional reason to interpret the Charter "term limit" provision to allow a candidate to run for the next regular Council term, which begins two years after the last term ended, regardless of pre-election activity. MR. DIAZ HAS WAIVED HIS RIGHT TO CHALLENGE BY FAILING TO CHALLENGE MR. RINDONE'S CANDIDACY IN THE MARCH GENERAL ELECTION The general election for Seat 3 of the City Council was held on March 7, 2000. No candidate received a majority of the votes, so a run-off was scheduled during the November national and statewide election to determine the winner between Mr. Diaz and Mr. Rindone. Mr. Rindone won. STEPHENSON WORLEY GARRATT SCHWARTZ GARFIELD & PRAIRIE, LLP Mayor and City Council City of Chula Vista December 5, 2000 Page 7 According to Chula Vista Municipal Code section 2.50.110, any elector may challenge an election by filing within thirty (30) days an affidavit of challenge. A challenge may also be pursued in Superior Court within a very short time frame after the election is certified. Mr. Diaz never challenged the election of March 7, 2000, on any grounds, either by filing a challenge with the City Council or in the Superior Court. The results ofthat March election were certified and became conclusive in the absence of a timely challenge. Mr. Rindone was certified as the candidate to run against Mr. Diaz in the November run-off election. It is too late now for Mr. Diaz to challenge Mr. Rindone's eligibility to hold office. He waived his right to such a challenge by failing to take steps after the March election to contest that election. Mr. Diaz' non-action not only conclusively legitimized Mr. Rindone's candidacy, but it also damaged another party -- Mr. McCann -- the candidate who finished third after Mr. Rindone and Mr. Diaz in the March election. Had Mr. Diaz pursued a timely challenge and succeeded, he and Mr. McCann would have been in the run-off election. Mr. Diaz' failure to challenge in March deprived Mr. McCann of that opportunity. In the unlikely event that the Council interprets the Charter "term limit" provision in section 300.D in the manner suggested by Mr. Diaz, which precludes all activities before December 9, 1999, Mr. Rindone asks that the Council find that Mr. Diaz has waived his right to challenge the eligibility of Mr. Rindone, and he has conclusively legitimized Mr. Rindone's candidacy in the November election, by failing to file a timely challenge to the March, 2000 election. STEPHENSON WORLEY GARRATT SCHWARTZ GARFIELD & PRAIRIE, LLP Mayor and City Council City of Chula Vista December 5, 2000 Page 8 CONCLUSION For all of the foregoing separate and independent reasons, the City Council should refrain from upholding Mr. Diaz' challenge.3 DRW:sc cc: John Kaheny, City Attorney Dave Rowlands, City Manager X;\ WP\2000\Rindone\Mayor ltr.doc Procedurally, the only appropriate available motion is to uphold Mr. Diaz' interpretation and challenge, a motion which, according to the City Attorney, would require three (3) votes. If you agree that the challenge is unfounded, as we have established, then non-action is the appropriate course of action. If no motion is made to uphold the challenge, it fails automatically. Memo Mayor and Council Office \ ~~D0 To: The Honorable Mayor and Council From: Armando Buelna, Assistant to the Mayor and City Council Date: 12/19/2000 Re: LIST OF PROPOSED CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE ASSIGNMENTS Automated Regional Justice Information System (ARJIS) Bayfront Conservancy Trust Inter-Agency Water Task Force International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) Joint Intergovernmental Task Force Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) Metropolitan Transit Development Board of Directors (MTDB) Meets at 7:30 a.m., one hour before SANDAG. 401 B Street, San Diego. Meets on 4th Wednesday at 3:30 p.m. eyery other month at Chula Vista Nature Center. Next meeting, March 23rd. Meets monthiy in Council Conference Room. Meeting dates and times can vary. Meets as-needed. Includes Cities for Climate Protection meetings. Locations vary. Meets as-needed. Time and location of meetings vary. Meets 1st Monday 9:00 a.m. at County Admin. Center. 1600 Pacific Highway, Third Floor, Rm. 358, San Diego. Meets on 2nd and 4th Thursday of each month at 9:00 a.m., at 255 Imperial Avenue, Suite 1000, San Diego. Council member Padilla City Staff Alternate - Chief Emerson Mayor Horton Alternate - Councilmember Rindone Second Alternate -Councilmember Salas Mayor Horton Alternate - Council member Padilla Council member Padiiia Alternate - Council member Salas Second All. -Councilmember Rindone Mayor Horton Council member Davis Alternate -Mayor Sessom, Lemon Grove Jerry Rindone Aiternate - Councilmember Padilla Heather ~ Dan Beintema, \ ~-_._. John Lippitt . ~ David Rowlands I MikeOtt LAFCO Director Debra Gunn Clerk of the Board Metropolitan Wastewater Commission (Metro Commission) Otay Valley Regional Park Policy Committee San Diego Association of Governments' (SANDAG) SANDAG - Executive Committee SANDAG - San Diego Regional Energy Office SANDAG -San Diego Regional Power Pool Committee SANDAG - Housing Element Advisory Committee SANDAG - TRANSNET Subcommittee San Diego County League of California Cities Executive Committee South County Economic Development Council University of California - Chula Vista Task Force (UCCV) ab Meets on the last Fridav of the month, at 1 :30 p.m. at 600 B Street, Suite 500, San Diego, 92101. Meets every other month as called by Chair, usually at the Montgomery-Waller Rec. Center, 3020 Coronado Avenue, San Diego Meets on the 4th Fridav of each month at 8:30 a.m., at 401 8 Street, 7th Floor - Board Room. San Diego. Meets 1st Friday of each month at 9:00 a.m., at 401 B Street, San Diego. Meets Quarterly on the 3' Friday at 1 :00 p.m. at the SANDAG Office Meets the 2nd Friday at 11 :30 a.m. Or as-needed. Meets monthly on 4th Thursday, 10:00 a.m. to noon. Conf. Rm. A. Meeting dates may change due to pending restructuring. Meets monthly on the 2nd Thursday. 12:15 to 2:00 p.m. 7th FIr. Board Room. Meet on the 2nd Monday of the month at 11 :45 a.m. Meet at Four Point Sheraton. 8110 Aero Drive, San Diego. Meet monthly on the 1 st Tuesday at 7:30 a.m., 2727 Hoover Street, National City. Meets as-needed. Council Conference Room. Council member Salas First Alternate- Mayor Horton Second Alternate- Assistant City Manager Sid Morris Mayor Horton Alternate - Council member Padilla Second Alternate - Councilmember Salas Mayor Horton First Alternate -Council member Davis Second Alternate - Councilmember Salas Mayor Horton Councilmember Salas John Moot Council member Davis Mayor Horton Mayor - Mayor Horton Alternate Council member Padilla Council member Salas Alternate - Councilmember Davis Mayor Horton Council member Rindone Alternate - Councilmember Salas -- Frank Herrera-A Ken Sulzer I ) Kurt Kammerer - Steve Sachs - , Susan Baldwin '~'~I -- Eric Pahlke ( Carol McCauley Vicki Prosser .- .. Bob Leiter. ,- ._, - 1 The SANDAG delegate and alternate(s) also serve as the city representative to SANDAG's many subcommittees including: Bayshore Bikeway Policy Committee, Committee on Bi-National Regional Opportunities (COBRa), the Regional Planning and Growth Management Review Board, Integrated Waste Management Task Force,and Airport Land Use Commission. All of the subcommittees, if necessary, convene during the regular SANDAG meetings. SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item No. Meeting Date 12/05/00 ITEM TITLE: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, RECITING THE FACTS OF ~ SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION HELD 1N SAID CITY ON NOVEMBER 7, 2000 AND DECLARING THE RESULTS THEREOF AND SUCH OTHER MATTERS AS ARE PROVIDED SUBMITTED BY: Susan Bigelow, CMC/AAE, City Clerk SUMMARY: The Registrar of Voters has transmitted the certified results of the Special Municipal Election held on November 7, 2000. Elections Code Section 15372 requires the City Clerk, as the elections official, to transmit the certified results to the City Council. Elections Code Section 15400 requires the City Council to declare the results of the election. The proposed resolution contains the official results as reported by the Registrar of Voters. RECOMMENDATION: Council adopt the resolution. DISCUSSION: A Special Municipal Election was held on November 7, 2000, to select a member of the City Council to fill Seat 3 for a full term commencing on December 5, 2000. In addition, three Charter amendment measures were on the ballot (1) to modify Section 602 to authorize the City Council, by a four-fiflh's vote, to appoint non-electors of the City to advisory boards whose duties involve regional issues; (2) to amend Section 300D to permit the Mayor and Councilmembers to seek reelection without restriction as to the number of terms; and (3) to amend Section 300D to allow the Mayor and Councilmembers to serve a maximum of three consecutive terms and to also expand from one year to three years the period a termed-out incumbent must wait to seek reelection. The certified results of the November 7, 2000 election have now been received from the Registrar of Voters, and the results are as follows: Total Number of Registered Voters: 78,505 Total Number of Votes Cast: 51,976 (66.21%) Seat #3: Total Votes Percentage of Votes Cast Jerry Rindone 24,509 52.31 Michael Diaz 22,340 47.69 YES NO Proposition D: Appointment of 24,165 / 57.21% 18,072 / 42.79% Non-Electors Proposition E: No Term Limits 10,372 / 23.58% 33,608 / 76.42% Proposition F: Three-Term Limit 17,784 / 40.65% 25,962 / 59.35% Elections Code Section 15372 requires the City Clerk, as the elections official, to transmit the certified results to the City Council. Elections Code Section 15400 requires the City Council to declare the results of the election. Adoption of the attached resolution, containing the official restdts, will declare Jerry Rindone to be elected to Seat 3, declare the passage of Proposition D and declare the failure of Propositions E and F. FISCAL IMPACT: None. RESOLUTION NO. 2000- A RESOLUTION O'F THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, RECITING THE FACTS OF THE SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION HELD IN SAID CITY ON NOVEMBER 7, 2000 AND DECLARING THE RESULTS THEREOF AND SUCH OTHER MATTERS AS ARE PROVIDED BY LAW WHEREAS, a special municipal election was held and conducted in the City of Chula Vista, California, on Tuesday, November 7, 2000, as required by law, for the purpose of conducting a run-off election between Jerry Rindone and Mike Diaz, candidates for a full term for City Cotmcil Seat 3, neither of whom received 50 percent plus one vote of the total votes cast at the general municipal election held on March 7, 2000; and for the purpose of submitting three proposed Charter amendments to the electorate; and WHEREAS, notice of said election was duly and regularly given in the time, form, and manner as provided by law; and in all respects said election was held and conducted, the votes cast thereat received and canvassed, and the returns made and declared in the time, form, and manner as required by the provisions of the Elections Code of the State of California for the holding of elections in charter cities; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. 2000-284, adopted August 8, 2000, the election was consolidated with the statewide general election, and the Registrar of Voters canvassed the returns of said election and has certified the results to this City Council. The results are received and made a part hereof, attached as Exhibit A. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA does hereby resolve, declare, determine, and order as follows: SECTION 1: There were 175 voting precincts, including absentee precincts, established for the purpose of holding said election consisting of the regular election precincts in said City as established for the holding of state and cotmty elections. SECTION 2. The whole number of votes cast in said City was 50,847. SECTION 3: The names of the candidates for Seat 3 were Jerry Rindone and Michael Diaz. SECTION 4: The City Council does hereby declare Jerry Rindone as elected to Seat 3. SECTION 5: The City Cotmcil does hereby also declare that Proposition D, a Charter amendment to modify Article VI, Section 602 to authorize the City Council, by a four-fifih's vote, to appoint non-electors of the City of Chula Vista to advisory boards whose duties involve regional issues, was passed by the voters. SECTION6: The City Council further declares that Proposition E, a Charter amendment to modify Article III, Section 300D to permit the Mayor and Councilmembers to seek reelection without restriction as to the number of terms, was not passed by the voters. SECTION 7: The City Council further declares that Proposition F, a Charter amendment to modify Article III, Section 300D to allow the Mayor and Councilmembers to serve a maximum of three consecutive terms and to also expand fi.om one year to three years the period a termed-out incumbent must wait to seek reelection, was not passed by the voters. SECTION 8: The number of votes given at each precinct and the number of votes given in the City to each of the persons above named for Seat 3 and for which the persons were candidates, and for Propositions D, E and F, are as listed in Exhibit A, attached. SECTION 9: The City Clerk shall enter on the records of the City Council of the City of Chula Vista a statement of the results of the election, showing the whole number of votes cast in the City, the names of the persons voted for, for what office each person was voted for, the number of votes given in the City to each person, and the number of votes given for each Charter amendment. Presented by Approved as to form by Susan Bigelow, CMC2-fl, AE /~)A¢l. Kahehy ~ City Clerk ~.CAfy Attorney PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista, Califomia, this 5th day of December, 2000, by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers: NAYES: Councilmembers: ABSENT: Councilmembers: Shirley Horton, Mayor ATTEST: Susan Bigelow, CMC/AAE, City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO ) CITY OF CHULA VISTA ) I, Susan Bigelow, City Clerk of the City of Chula Vista, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2000- was duly passed, approved and adopted by the City Cotmcil at a regular meeting held on the 5th day of December, 2000. Executed this 5th day of December, 2000. Susan Bigelow, CMC/AAE, City Clerk 11/28/00 16:30 FAX 619 694 2955 SD CO REG OF VOTERS ~ CBLILA VISTA ~002/004 EXHIBIT A 11/25/00 16:30 FAX 619 694 2955 SD CO PEG OF VOTERS ~ CHITLA VISTA ~003/004 11/28/00 16:30 FAX 619 694 2955 SD CO REG OF VOTERS -+ C]~T. TLA VISTA ~004/004 DRAFT MINUTES OF A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA NOVEMBER 14, 2000 5:00 P.M. Mayor Horton called to order a Special Meeting of the City Council of the City of Chula Vista at 5:08 p.m. in the Council Conference Room, located in the Administration Building, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, California. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Councilmembers Davis, Padilla, Salas, and Mayor Horton ABSENT: Councilmembers: Moot ALSO PRESENT: Deputy City Clerk Norris ACTION ITEMS 1. INTERVIEWS FOR CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION VACANCIES Council interviewed the following applicants for the Civil Service Commission vacancies: Richard Gonzalez Sal Saucedo Arthur Triplette, Jr. ACTION: Mayor Horton moved to appoint Arthur Triplette Jr. to the Civil Service Commission and recommended the appointment of Sal Saucedo to fill the second vacancy on the Commission. Councilmember Salas seconded the motion, and it carried 4-0. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS There were none. ADJOURNMENT At 5:34 p.m., Mayor Horton adjourned the meeting to the Regular Meeting at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. Respectfully submitted, ~6..LF3S?~ Susan Bigelow, CMC/XAE, City Clerk DRAFT MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA November 14,2000 6:00 P.M. A Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Chula Vista was called to order at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, located in the Public Services Building, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, California. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Councilmembers Davis, Moot, Padilla, Salas, and Mayor Horton ABSENT: Councilmembers: None ALSO PRESENT: City Manager Rowlands, Senior Assistant City Attorney Moore, Deputy City Clerk Norris PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG, MOMENT OF SILENCE SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY . OATH OF OFFICE: COMMISSION LARRY PERONDI - PARKS AND RECREATION Deputy City Clerk Beunett administered the Oath of Office to Mr. Perondi, and Deputy Mayor Moot presented him with a Certificate of Appointment. . PRESENTATION BY ROD DAVIS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE CHULA VISTA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, UPON HIS RELOCATION TO THE EAST COAST Mayor Horton thanked Mr. Davis for being a strong advocate for the City and for his participation in strengthening the goals of the community. Mr. Davis thanked Council for the proclamation and key to the City. He also thanked Community Development Director Salomone, Deputy City Manager Krempl, City Manager Rowlands, and City Attorney Kaheny for their support during his service with the Chamber of Commerce. He asked Council to look at two issues of concern. The first was that elected officials in the South Bay get involved with the Port Commissioners to discuss funding for the South Bay community with events such as Harbor Days and Arturo Barrios, since the Port has adopted a philosophy of reducing the amount of funding to the South Bay. His second request was that Council continue to be vigilant on the issue of Proposition 13 and local government control. . PRESENT A TION BY SANDAG REGARDING AIRPORT ECONOMIC ANALYSIS Mike Hicks, SANDAG Project Manager for Airport Economic Analysis and Port of San Diego, gave a presentation on the Economic Analysis of Air Transportation in the San Diego region, discussing the "opportunity cost" to San Diego's region and residents if the demand for future transportation services is not met. He illustrated the relationship between cargo and passenger activity and interviews with 18 high-tech San Diego-region businesses, all of which utilize air transportation extensively. Mr. Hicks concluded that the San Diego region's economy is becoming more dependent on its visitor and high-tech industries, and the industries depend heavily on efficient air transportation. DRAFT SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY (Continued) . PRESENTATION OF A PROCLAMATION TO THE 2000 VETERAN OF THE YEAR - JAMES "BOB" LIND Mayor Horton read the proclamation, and Deputy Mayor Moot presented it to Mr. Lind. PRESENTATION OF A PROCLAMATION TO JOHN WILLETT FOR HIS OUTSTANDING EFFORTS IN COORDINATION OF THE OTAY RIVER VALLEY CLEAN-UP PROJECT; AND RECOGNITION OF CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS FOR THEIR CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE CLEAN-UP PROJECT: Pete Flores (Donovan Prison), Charles Moore (Pacific Waste Services), Steve Miesen (Otay Land Fill), Bud Chase (Allied Waste Industries), Frank Herrera-A (Chula Vista Planning Department), Bill Ullrich (Chula Vista Public Works Department), Byron Wishnek (San Diego Open Space Management), Sgt. Bill Frew (San Diego Police Department Street Team), Sgt. Roxana Kennedy (Chula Vista Police Department), Kevin O'Neill (O'Neill Construction), Gary McCall (Hanson Aggregate), Kyla Winters (The Alfa Project), Wayne Dicky (Otay Valley Regional Park Committee), Michael Meacham (Chula Vista Special Projects Manager) Mayor Horton read the proclamation, and Deputy Mayor Moot presented it to Mr. Willett. Mr. Willett thanked all those who contributed their valuable time to the project. He also thanked Council for recognizing the efforts of all the individuals who participated in the clean-up project. CONSENT CALENDAR (Items I through 18) 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF OCTOBER 24 AND NOVEMBER 7,2000 Staffrecommendation: Council approve the minutes. 2. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS A. Letter from the City Attorney stating that to the best of his knowledge from observance of actions taken in Closed Session on November 7, 2000, there were no actions taken which are required under the Brown Act to be reported. Staff recommendation: The letter be received and filed. 3. RESOLUTION NO. 2000-407, RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ADOPTING AN INJURY ILLNESS PREVENTION PROGRAM FOR THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA The City is required to maintain a written Injury Illness Prevention Program (lIPP) under the California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Chapter 4, Subchapter 7, Section 3203. The lIPP outlines the employee safety programs that the City has in place to help prevent occupational injuries and illnesses. The adoption and support of the plan presented satisfies this requirement. (Director of Human Resources) Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolution Page 2 - Council Minutes 11/14/2000 DRAFT CONSENT CALENDAR (Continued) 4. RESOLUTION NO. 2000-408, RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AUTHORIZING CONTINUATION, ON A FULL-TIME, PERMANENT BASIS OF THE POSITION OF RISK MANAGEMENT SPECIALIST/SAFETY AFTER DECEMBER 31, 2000 AND AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 200012001 BUDGET, THEREFOR (4/5THS VOTE REQUIRED) In March of 1999, based on a recommendation made in a staffing study conducted by the City's Special Projects Manager, Council authorized the addition of a Risk Management Specialist position in the Safety Program for an 18-month period, and an evaluation of the position at the expiration of that period. The evaluation has been completed, and the on-going need for the position has been established. (Director of Human Resources) Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolution. 5. RESOLUTION NO. 2000-409, RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AMENDING THE CURRENT FISCAL YEAR BUDGET BY RECLASSIFYING ONE BUILDING PROJECT SUPERVISOR IN PUBLIC WORKS/ENGINEERING TO SENIOR BUILDING PROJECT SUPERVISOR; ONE PROGRAMMER/ANALYST POSITION IN MANAGEMENT AND INFORMATION SERVICES TO LEAD PROGRAMMER/ANALYST; AND THREE SENIOR MANAGEMENT ANALYST POSITIONS IN ADMINISTRATION TO PRINCIPAL MANAGEMENT ANALYST The addition of duties and changes in level or authority and/or responsibility to these positions necessitates reclassification to the next level in the class series. These changes are requested to continue to effectively meet the service demands on the City. (Director of Human Resources) Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolution. 6. RESOLUTION NO. 2000-410, RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AUTHORIZING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT INTERNAL SERVICE FUND AND APPROPRIATING $585,000 FROM UNANTICIPATED STATE SUBVENTION REVENUE IN THE GENERAL FUND AS A TRANSFER TO THE NEW FUND TO ESTABLISH AN ADEQUATE RESERVE During the Fiscal Year 200012001 budget process, staff proposed creating a Technology Replacement Fund for the purpose of accumulating funds each year to replace various computer equipment, including microcomputers, printers, and the City's UNIX minicomputer. Staff, having defined the initial replacement schedule and identified a source of funds for an adequate reserve, is now seeking approval to establish the fund. (Director of Management and Information Services) Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolution. Page 3 - Council Minutes 1111412000 DRAFT CONSENT CALENDAR (Continued) 7. RESOLUTION NO. 2000-411, RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA EXTENDING THE TEMPORARY CLOSURE OF CENTER STREET AND A PORTION OF CHURCH AVENUE FOR THE DOWNTOWN FARMERS' MARKET ON THURSDAY AFTERNOONS FOR A TWO-YEAR PERIOD SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL On October 3, 1995, Council approved the closure of Center Street between Third Avenue and Church Avenue on Thursday afternoons for the Downtown Farmers' Market. The Market area was expanded on June 24,1997 to include a portion of Church Avenue in order to accommodate an increased number of farmers and add a section for craft booths. The Farmers' Market has grown in popularity and again needs to expand. In accordance with the adopted conditions of approval, Council must extend the street closure before December 31, 2000. (Director of Community Development) Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolution. 8. RESOLUTION NO. 2000-412, RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AUTHORIZING AYRES LAND COMPANY AS MANAGER OF ACI SUNBOW, LLC TO CONSTRUCT THE PORTIONS OF EAST PALOMAR STREET IDENTIFIED AND INCLUDED IN SUNBOW II, PHASES IE, lC AND 2A, AS WELL AS THE POGGI CANYON DETENTION BASIN INCLUDED IN THE PHASE lA CONTRACT, AND RECEIVE CREDIT AGAINST TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES The City has received letters dated March 3, 2000 and October 9, 2000 from Ayers Land Company requesting authorization and Transportation Development Impact Fee credit for construction of roadway facilities along East Palomar Street from Medical Center Drive to the easterly boundary of Sunbow II, Phases lB, lC and 2A, and for improvements related to Olympic Parkway construction between Oleander Avenue and Brandywine A venue, including drainage basin improvements in Poggi Canyon and mitigation (general biological, wetlands, CSS) for Phase lA and lB roads. (Director of Public Works) Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolution. 9. RESOLUTION NO. 2000-413, RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING A JOINT USE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF SAN DIEGO AND THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT The City of San Diego has approved a Joint Use Agreement with the City of Chula Vista for the Otay 2nd Pipeline to be relocated within Olympic Parkway, Paseo Ranchero and the City of San Diego water easement adjacent to Telegraph Canyon Road, which is also within publicly maintained open space. The agreement outlines each party's responsibilities and obligations for that portion of Olympic Parkway, Paseo Ranchero and the easement area that is being used jointly for public right-of-way, open space maintenance, the conveyance of water, sewer and storm drainage. (Director of Public Works) Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolution. Page 4 - Council Minutes 11/14/2000 DRAFT CONSENT CALENDAR (Continued) 10 A. RESOLUTION NO. 2000-414, RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING THE LOWEST RESPONSIVE BIDS AND AWARDING CONTRACTS AS DESIGNATED FOR AWARD ON EXHIBIT "A" FOR THE RENOVATION AND EXPANSION WORK ASSOCIATED WITH THE FUTURE PUBLIC WORKS OPERATIONS FACILITY AND CORPORATION YARD, AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS, AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE SAID CONTRACTS B. RESOLUTION NO. 2000-415, RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE OF UP TO $200,000 FOR GENERAL REQUIREMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE CORPORATION YARD PROJECT On September 26, 2000, Council passed Resolutions 2000-333 and 2000-334 approving the rej ection, re-bid and award associated with the first set of bids for the Corporation Yard project. On October 10, 2000, Council passed Resolutions 2000-353 and 2000-354 approving the rejection, re-bid and award associated with the second set of bids. On October 17, 2000, Council passed Resolutions 2000-364 and 2000-365 approving the rejection, re-bid and award associated with the third set of bids. On October 24, 2000, the City Council passed Resolution 2000-386 approving the award associated with the fourth set of bids. Approval of tonight's resolution will accept the lowest responsive bids and award all the contracts as designated for award on Exhibit "A" covering the remaining trade work associated with the construction of the Corporation Yard project. (Director of Public Works) Staffrecommendation: Council adopt the resolutions. II. RESOLUTION NO. 2000-416, RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING BIDS AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR THE OLYMPIC P ARKW A Y STREET IMPROVEMENTS, OLEANDER AVENUE TO BRANDYWINE AVENUE (STM-344) At 2:00 p.m. on November I, 2000 in Conference Room 3, the Director of Public Works received sealed bids for the "Olympic Parkway Street Improvements, Oleander Avenue to Brandywine Avenue in the City ofChula Vista, CA (STM-344)" Project. The general scope of the project involves the construction of curb, gutter and sidewalk, the reconstruction of the existing pavement and other work necessary to complete the project from Oleander Avenue to Brandywine Avenue to meet the Olympic Parkway construction to the east. (Director of Public Works) Staffrecommendation: Council adopt the resolution. 12 A. RESOLUTION NO. 2000-417, RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ORDERING THE SUMMARY VACATION OF A TEN- FOOT PEDESTRIAN ACCESS EASEMENT WITHIN A PORTION OF LOT "A" OF MAP 13845, ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 643-350-10 B. RESOLUTIONNO. 2000-418, RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING A TEN-FOOT PEDESTRIAN ACCESS EASEMENT WITHIN A PORTION OF LOT "A" OF MAP 13845, ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 643-350-10 Page 5 - Council Minutes 11/14/2000 DRAFT CONSENT CALENDAR (Continued) A request has been received to vacate and relocate a ten-foot pedestrian access easement within the property owned by The Otay Ranch Company. In accordance with Chapter 4, Section 8333 of the State Streets and Highways Code, this type of vacation may be performed summarily through adoption of resolutions ordering said summary vacation and relocation of such easements. (Director of Public Works) Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolutions. 13. RESOLUTION NO. 2000-419, RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING A TWO-PARTY AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND MERKEL AND ASSOCIATES, INC. FOR BIOLOGICAL MITIGATION MONITORING SERVICES TO BE RENDERED FOR TELEGRAPH CANYON CREEK IMPROVEMENTS OFF-SITE MITIGATION, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT The Army Corps of Engineers issued a nationwide permit for the Telegraph Canyon Creek improvements project. In accordance with this permit, a Mitigation Plan was prepared for the off-site mitigation requirement. The services of a qualified biological monitor are necessary for the implementation of this plan as well as other conditions of the permit. This report requests that the City Council approve the proposed contract with Merkel and Associates, Inc. for $39,513.00 to provide consulting services as the Environmental Monitor Specialist (biologist) to implement all of the conditions of the Telegraph Canyon Creek environmental permits. (Director of Planning and Building, Director of Public Works) Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolution. 14 A. RESOLUTION NO. 2000-420, RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VIST A WAIVING THE FORMAL BIDDING PROCESS AS IMPRACTICAL, AND APPROVING A THREE-PARTY AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA; MERKEL & ASSOCIATES, CONSULTANT; AND PACIFIC BAY PROPERTIES, APPLICANT, FOR BIOLOGICAL MITIGATION MONITORING SERVICES TO BE RENDERED FOR ROLLING HILLS RANCH (ALSO KNOWN AS SALT CREEK RANCH), AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT B. RESOLUTION NO. 2000-421, RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA WAIVING THE CITY'S FORMAL BIDDING PROCESS AS IMPRACTICAL, AND APPROVING A THREE-PARTY AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA; MERKEL & ASSOCIATES, CONSULTANT; AND MCMILLIN OTAY RANCH LLC, APPLICANT, FOR BIOLOGICAL MITIGATION MONITORING SERVICES TO BE RENDERED FOR OTAY RANCH, SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA ONE PLAN (INCLUDING VILLAGES ONE AND FIVE), AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT Page 6 - Council Minutes 11/1412000 DRAFT CONSENT CALENDAR (Continued) C. RESOLUTION NO. 2000-422, RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA WAIVING THE CITY'S FORMAL BIDDING PROCESS AS IMPRACTICAL AND APPROVING AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA; MERKEL & ASSOCIATES, CONSULTANT; AND OTAY PROJECT L.P., APPLICANT, FOR BIOLOGICAL MITIGATION MONITORING SERVICES TO BE RENDERED FOR OTAY RANCH, SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA ONE PLAN (INCLUDING VILLAGES ONE, FIVE, AND ONE WEST), AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT In compliance with state law, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Programs were adopted by Council for the Rolling Hills Ranch (AKA, Salt Creek Ranch) Sectional Planning Area Plan and Otay Ranch, Sectional Planning Area One Plan (SPA One). SPA One includes Villages One, Five, and One West. State law requires public agencies to adopt such programs to ensure effective implementation of mitigation measures. This report requests that the City Council approve the proposed contracts with Merkel & Associates for a total of $44,372 annually to provide consulting services as the Environmental Monitor Specialist (biologist) for Rolling Hills Ranch (AKA, Salt Creek Ranch) and Otay Ranch, SPA One and to waive the formal bidding process. (Director of Planning and Building) Staffrecommendation: Council adopt the resolutions. 15 A. RESOLUTION NO. 2000-423, RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA WAIVING THE CITY'S FORMAL BIDDING PROCESS AS IMPRACTICABLE, APPROVING THE THIRD AMENDMENT TO AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND MNA CONSULTING FOR LAND USE CONSULTING SERVICES RELATED TO THE PROPOSED CITY OF CHULA VISTA MULTIPLE SPECIES CONSERVATION PROGRAM SUBAREA PLAN AND IMPLEMENTING AGREEMENT, AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT, AND AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 2000/2001 BUDGET BY APPROPRIATING AN ADDITIONAL $226,025 TO THE PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT FROM THE AVAILABLE FUND BALANCE OF THE GENERAL FUND B. RESOLUTION NO. 2000-424, RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA WAIVING THE CITY'S FORMAL BIDDING PROCESS AS IMPRACTICABLE, APPROVING THE SECOND AMENDMENT TO AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND REMY, THOMAS AND MOOSE, LLP FOR LEGAL SERVICES RELATED TO THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA MULITPLE SPECIES CONSERVATION PROGRAM SUBAREA PLAN AND IMPLEMENTING AGREEMENT, AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT, AND AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 2000/2001 BUDGET BY APPROPRIATING AN ADDITIONAL $145,000 TO THE PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT FROM THE AVAILABLE FUND BALANCE OF THE GENERAL FUND Page 7 - Council Minutes I 11 14/2000 DRAFT CONSENT CALENDAR (Continued) I April 1999, MNA Consulting was retained by the City to draft a revised MSCP Subarea Plan (Plan), assist in the drafting of the Implementing Agreement, and assist in processing the Plan and Implementing Agreement through the public hearing and wildlife agencies' approval processes. In October 2000, Council adopted the Draft MSCP Subarea Plan. There are a variety of tasks necessary to ensure smooth and timely implementation of the Plan, and the City wishes to acquire incidental take authority for Quino checkerspot butterfly, a species not covered under the MSCP. City staff has determined that the scope of work for completion of the City's MSCP Subarea Plan has expanded, and additional tasks have been identified related to Plan implementation and legal review. Staffrecommends that the existing agreements with MNA Consulting and Remy, Thomas and Moose, LLP (Remy Thomas) be amended to include the expanded scope of work. The resulting fiscal impact of approving the MNA Consulting and Remy Thomas contracts would be an amendment to the Fiscal Year 2000/2001 budget to appropriate $226,025 and $145,000, respectively, from the available fund balance of the General Fund to the Department of Planning and Building. (Director of Planning and Building) Staffrecommendation: Council adopt the resolutions. 16. RESOLUTION NO. 2000-425, RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AUTHORIZING THE CHULA VISTA NATURE CENTER TO SUBMIT A GRANT PROPOSAL TO THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION WHALE TAIL COMPETITIVE GRANTS PROGRAM; AND AUTHORIZING THE NATURE CENTER DIRECTOR TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT WITH THE CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION IF A GRANT IS AWARDED The Chula Vista Nature Center has been invited to submit proposals to receive grant funds from the California Coastal Commission pursuant to the Commission's 200012001 Whale Tail Grants Program funded through the sale of the Whale Tail Coastal Protection License Plates. A resolution of the City Council authorizing the Nature Center's grant proposal submittal and designating the agency's representative is a required element of the submittal. (Nature Center Director) Staffrecommendation: Council adopt the resolution. 17. RESOLUTION NO. 2000-426, RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING BIDS, REJECTING LOWEST BID DUE TO DISPARITIES IN BID PROPOSAL, AWARDING CONTRACT FOR THE CORRUGATED METAL PIPE (CMP) REHABILITATION AT AUTUMN HILLS UNIT 1 (DR-152) PROJECT TO FORD CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC., IN THE AMOUNT OF $278,000, APPROPRIATING $40,000 FROM THE AVAILABLE FUND BALANCE IN THE SEWER FACILITIES REPLACEMENT FUND AS A LOAN TO CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP) PROJECT DR-152, AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE SAID CONTRACT Page 8 - Council Minutes 11/14/2000 DRAFT CONSENT CALENDAR (Continued) At 2:00 p.m. on Friday, November 3,2000, the Director of Public Works received sealed bids for the corrugated metal pipe (CMP) rehabilitation at Autunm Hills Unit 1 (DR-152). This project provides for the rehabilitation of two existing 42-inch corrugated metal pipes. The 42-inch CMP lines are located within and adjacent to the Autumn Hills Unit 1 condominium property. The Autumn Hills Unit 1 condominium property is situated, in general, between Malta Avenue and Maple Drive. The pipe lining method to be employed by the successful low bidder for the project is Cured-In-Place pipe liner. The ork also includes all labor, material, equipment, transportation, protection and restoration, and traffic control necessary for the completion of the project. (Director of Public Works) Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolution. 18. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AUTHORIZING AN AMENDMENT TO THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (MOD) WITH THE CHULA VISTA POLICE OFFICERS' ASSOCIATION EXTENDING THE MOU FOR TWO YEARS AND PROVIDING ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS AND AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 2000/2001 BUDGET, AND APPROPRIATING $282,000 FROM THE UNAPPROPRIATED BALANCE OF THE GENERAL FUND The Police Officers' Association and City negotiators have met to discuss various amendments to the Police Officers Association MOU, including extending the MOU (currently scheduled to expire on June 30, 2003) through June 30, 2005. (City Manager) Staffrecommendation: Council adopt the resolution. With reference to Item #7, a recommendation was made that staff explore other alternatives for the location of the Farmers' Market and to consider the Parkway location as one suggestion. Item No. 18 was removed from the Consent Calendar and tabled. ACTION: Mayor Horton moved to approve the Consent Calendar with Item #7 amended to direct staff to explore alternatives to the current Farmers' Market location and with Item #18 tabled, headings read, text waived. The motion carried 5-0. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Jim Johnson, 424 Stoneridge Court, Bonita, spoke against election campaign signs posted in open space areas. He requested that the City look at implementing sign restrictions and communicate the restrictions to candidates and their supporters, and suggested the levy of fines if necessary. Mayor Horton replied that the City does have an existing sign policy in place and the difficulty of daily tracking of illegal postings. Page 9 - Council Minutes 11114/2000 DRAr'~ ACTION ITEMS 19. CONSIDERATION OF ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION WAIVING GRADING DEVIATION POLICY NO. 460-02, AND AUTHORIZING THE INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS FOR THE TRANSFER OF CITY OPEN SPACE PROPERTY TO CERTAIN RESIDENTS WITHIN THE BONITA RIDGE ESTATES OPEN SPACE DISTRICT NO.4 The resident at 426 Camino Elevado, Mr. Juan Quintero, brought to the City's attention that there exists a discrepancy in the legal lot boundary between his property and the adjacent City-owned open space lot. After examination, staff determined that there are likely several properties in the subdivision with rear yards encroaching into the adjacent open space lot as result of a failure to process boundary adjustment documents by the developer back in 1974. Mr. Quintero wishes to process a boundary adjustment document that will correct the boundary discrepancy. Staff is recommending waiving Council Policy 460-02, Grading Deviation Policy, for Mr. Quintero and the other residents with similar boundary problems within the Bonita Ridge Estates Open Space District No.4 for a period of two years and allowing the residents to process boundary adjustment plats in order to eliminate the discrepancy. (Director of Public Works) Public Works Director Lippitt proposed to waive the Grading Deviation Policy for two years to allow those property owners affected by the boundary discrepancies the choice to make boundary adjustments and not encroach into the open space. He added that any changes to the lot lines would require Council approval since the open space is City-owned property. City Engineer Swanson stated that the developers had been forced to adjust the lot lines prior to the sale of homes, but that never occurred. When the map was approved, the proposed map showed that the lots were bigger than the subdivision maps filed. Councilmember Salas asked whether property owners would be affected by their ability to add onto the floor area ratio. City Engineer Swanson replied that, in most cases, the City would be adding area to the legal lots. Jim Johnson, 424 Stoneridge, stated that the condition needs to be rectified, and he hoped the property owners would not have to withstand substantial costs. He asked staff how many lots were involved and whether the present legal lot sizes were 10,000 square feet. City Engineer Swanson replied that there were 13 lots affected in the immediate vicinity. Mr. Johnson stated that he was in support of staff s recommendation. Lloyd Harrison, 414 Camino Elevado, stated that his fence was built along the grading line. He recommended that a single activity be implemented rather than obtaining individual surveys and that the adjustments be to where the lot line is graded. Roy Hammond of Bonita Ridge hoped that the situation would be rectified simply and was in support of not giving property away. Page 10- Council Minutes 11/14/2000 DRAF'~ ACTION ITEMS (Continued) City Engineer Swanson stated that notices were only being sent to owners of those properties that had been identified. He also encouraged residents to contact staff if they felt their property was affected. Mayor Horton suggested that notices be mailed out in addition to the 13 properties identified, prior to the two-year time limit. Councilmember Davis encouraged staff to take responsibility by contacting all owners, including out-of-town owners. ACTION: Councilmember Davis offered Resolution No. 2000-427, heading read, text waived: RESOLUTION NO. 2000-427, RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA WAIVING GRADING DEVIATION POLICY NO. 460-02, AND AUTHORIZING THE INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS FOR THE TRANSFER OF CITY OPEN SPACE PROPERTY TO CERTAIN RESIDENTS WITHIN THE BONITA RIDGE ESTATES OPEN SPACE DISTRICT NO.4 The motion carried 5-0. 20. CONSIDERATION OF ADOPTION OF THE CARBON DIOXIDE REDUCTION PLAN The C02 Reduction Plan was developed as a tool to reduce the effects of carbon dioxide on the environment. The plan consists of 20 action measures of which II have been successfully implemented since 1997. The remaining measures have been reviewed by stafffor future implementation. (Director of Planning and Building) Special Operations Manager Meacham mentioned some of the program's achievements, which included the retrofitting of major City facilities, thereby reducing energy costs; retrofitting portions of traffic signal lights; and the bus fleet conversion. He stated that staff would return on a regular basis to keep Council and the public updated. Deputy Mayor Moot stated that the Greenstar Energy Program had taken the longest to move forward. He added that a consultant was hired a year ago and he would like to see what has resulted from funds spent for the consultant. Assistant Planning Director Sandoval responded that staff went through a year-and-a-half exercise to acquire consultants. He stated that the City is working with SDG&E and other organizations to create a program that the City will be able to implement. Councilmember Davis acknowledged former C02 Task Force Chair Susan Herney, crediting her for her hard work on the program. Councilmember Salas requested that the synchronization of traffic signals be checked in certain areas to enable smooth traffic flow and eliminate unnecessary emissions. Page II - Council Minutes 11/14/2000 DRAFT ACTION ITEMS (Continued) ACTION: Deputy Mayor Moot offered Resolution No. 2000-428, heading read, text waived: RESOLUTION NO. 2000-428 OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ADOPTING THE CARBON DIOXIDE REDUCTION PLAN (CO2 REDUCTION PLAN) AND DIRECTING STAFF TO CONTINUE TO IMPLEMENT RECOMMENDED MEASURES WITHIN THE PLAN. The motion carried 5-0. OTHER BUSINESS 21. CITY MANAGER'S REPORTS There were none. 22. MAYOR'S REPORTS There were none. 23. COUNCIL COMMENTS There were none. CLOSED SESSION 24. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDING INITIATION OF LITIGATION PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.9(C) . One Case ACTION: Instructions were given to Counsel. ADJOURNMENT At 8:30 p.m., Mayor Horton adjourned the meeting to the Regular Meeting of December 5, 2000, at 4:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. Respectfully submitted, ~&.c~'<g~ Susan Bigelow, CMC/AAE, City Clerk Page t 2 - Council Minutes 11/14/2000 mY OF CHUIA VISTA November 30, 2000 TO: FROM: The Honorable Mayor and City Council David D. Rowlands, Jr., City Manager Gt C)\" Council Meeting of December 5, 2000 SUBJECT: This will transmit the agenda and related materials for the regular City Council meeting of Tuesday, December 5,2000. Comments regarding the Written Communications are as follows: 1. This is a letter from the City Attorney stating that to the best of his knowledge from observance of actions taken in Closed Session on November 14, 2000, there were no actions taken which are required under the Brown Act to be reported. IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT THIS lETTER BE RECEIVED AND FilED. CI'IY OF CHULA VISI'A OFFICE OFTHE CITY ATTORNEY Date: November 15, 2000 To: The Honorable Mayor and City Council From: John M. Kaheny, City Attorney ~ Re: Report Regarding Actions Taken in Closed Session for the Meeting of 11/14/00 The City Council of the City of Chula Vista met in Closed Session on 11/14/00 to discuss: ® CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDING INITIATION OF LITIGATION PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.9(C): One Case The Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista met in Closed Session on 11/14/00 to discuss: · CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.8: Property: Assessor Parcel Nos. 568-270-03; 568-270-11 (approximately 2.85 acres located at the southeast corner of Fourth Avenue and F Street) Negotiating City Council/Redevelopment Agency (Sid Morris/ Parties: Chris Salomone and Chula Vista Center (Robert Caplan) Under Negotiation: Price and terms for acquisition · CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDING ANTICIPATED LITIGATION PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.9(B): One Case - Claim No. 2000-00010 The City Attorney hereby reports to the best of his knowledge from observance of actions taken in the Closed Session in which the City Attorney participated, that there were no reportable actions which are required under the Brown Act to be reported. JMK:lgk 276 FOURTH AVENUE o CHULA VIS~ · CALIFORNIA 91910 o (619) 691-5037 · MX (619) 409-5823 November 30, 2000 MEMO TO: Susan Bigelow, City Clerk FROM: rY' .-\-../ Patricia Salvacion, Mayor/Council office SUBJECT: SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY - DECEMBER 5, 2000 Please docket the following proclamation for the above council meeting: PROCLAIMING TUESDAY, DECEMBER 5, 2000 AS JOHN S. MOOT DAY IN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA Thank you. COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item: S Meeting Date: 12/5/00 ITEM TITLE: Resolution accepting a grant in the amount of $10,902 from the Aging and Independent Services of San Diego County (ALS) for telecunfer.encing equipment to enable Senior Services to start a tclecon~'crencing program for homebound seniors and persons with disabilities. Authorizing thc Parks and Recreation Director to execute such agreement and amending the FY 00/01 budget by appropriating unanticipated grant revenue funds in the amount of $10,902. SUBMITTED BY: Director of Parks and Recreation ~ REVIEWED BY: City Manager ~i~' (4/5tbs Vote: Yes X No ) Thc Parks and Recreation Department wishes to partner with ALS to initiate a teleconferencing program for homebound seniors and persons with disabilities by accepting a grant from ALS in the amount of $10,902 for equipment and phone lines. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Council approve thc Resolution: 1. Accepting the grant in the amount of $10,902 from ALS; and 2. Authorizing the Parks and Recreation Director, or his designee, to sign the appropriate documentation from ALS; and 3. Amending the FY 00/01 budget by appropriating unanticipated grant funds revenue in the amount of $10,902. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable. DISCUSSION: The Parks and Recreation Department wishes to partner with AlS to initiate a pilot teleconferencing program for homebound seniors and disabled persons. The County will grant funding for equipment and phone lines provided the Parks and Recreation Department covers ongoing expenses associated with the program and equipment maintenance. Senior Services is attempting to address the issue of homebound citizens who are isolated and otten unable to participate in community events. With this teleconferencing equipment, Senior Sendces will be able to provide services to the homebound and disabled in their homes. This program would utilize telephone conferencing lines to connect isolated members of the community to other such individuals and to a facilitator. Facilitated support groups, book discussions, art, music and history lectures, as well as health talks would connect homebound individuals to other members of the community and provide valuable information and opportunities for socialization. It is believed this program is not being provided elsewhere in the State of California. The City's Management and Information Services Department (MIS) has researched the teleconferencing equipment and has recommended equipment for this program that can also be utilized by any Department in the City for similar teleconferencing purposes. To establish this program, twelve Pacific Bell lines will be installed and teleconferencing equipment will be purchased, with all equipment to be located wittfm MIS. The Senior Services staffwould oversee the program utilizing interns and volunteers for program development. FISCAL IMPACT: The cost of equipment will be 100% funded by the AlS grant and the existing Senior Services budget and participant fees will cover the associated costs of the pilot program for the remaining six months of FY 00/01. There will be no direct staff costs involved for the current fiscal year, as existing staff will supervise the intern and volunteers who will initiate the teleconferencing program. On-going telephone and associated maintenance costs will be identified as separate line items in the FY 01/02 departmental budget offset by participant fees. Attachments: Purchase Order from the County of San Diego AlS Grant Award Letter Letter of Commitment HEALTH ,tND HUMAN ~;~ERVICES AG~J~CY ROBER-f K. ROSS, M.D., DIRECTOR PAMEL~ B SMITH AGING & INDEPENDENCE ~RVICES DIRECTOI~ 9335 HAZARC WAY, SUITE 1~, SAN DIEGO, CN. IFORNI~ (858) 495-5858 FAX (858) 495-50~0 August 3, 2000 Karen Harvell Norman Park Senior Center 720 F St. Chula Vista, CA 91910 LETTER OF INTENT Aging & Independence Services (ALS) and Norman Park Senior Center plan to enter a ~ collaborative effort aimed at reaching and benefiting homebound seniors. Norman Park Senior Center has expressed an interest in being the pilot project for a teleconferencing project for this region. AlS would like to assist in the endeavor, as a project of this nature needs a testing ground and it is felt that Norman Park is an appropriate setting to begin. AlS is willing to commit to a one-time funding source for the equipment needed but is unable to assume the ongoing monthly costs of telephone billing. With a commitment from the City of Chula Vista to assume ongoing costs, we will be able to move forward on this project. Aging & Independence Services is requesting a letter of commitment from.the City of Chula Vista regarding the project. Sincerely, Pamela B. Smith, Director Aging & Independence Services -PBS/db CI'IY Of: CHULA VISTA PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT September 21, 2000 Donna Braise Aging & Independence Services 9335 Hazard Way San Diego, CA 92123 LE'I-IbR OF COMMITMENT The City of Chula Vista, P,'urks ,'md Recreation Depamnent will assume the ongoing costs for a teleconferencing progrmn aimed at reaching and benefiting our homebound citizens. Attached is a copy of the budget for Norman Pm-k Senior Center. We will be utilizing $1000. of unencumbered funds from the phone service line item to cover file costs of the teleconferencing calls. By utilizing our city phone system and new teleconferencing equipment provided by AlS, we will offer programs four hours a week. Our newly hired Recreation Supervisor I, Cannel Wilson, who supervises Project Care will be working on developing this progrmn wifll an intern frmn SDSU. IG'tren Harvell will oversee file project. We anticipate starting the program 3 1o 4 months ,after the funding for equipment is approved and look forward to providing tiffs service to a group of citizens not able to access services easily. cc: Andy Campbell 276 FOURTH AVENUE · CHULA VISTA · CALIFORNIA 91910 - (619) 691-5071 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING A GRANT IN THE AMOUNT OF $10,902 FROM THE AGING ~ INDEPENDENT SERVICES OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY (AIS) FOR TELECONFERENCING EQUIPMENT TO ENABLE SENIOR SERVICES TO START A TELECONFERENCING PROGRAM FOR HOMEBOUND SENIORS TO START A TELECONFERENCING PROGRAM FOR HOMEBOUNDSENIORS AND PERSONS 'WI.TH DISABILITIES AND AUTHORIZING THE PD~RKS AND RECREATION DIRECTOR TO EXECUTE SUCH AGREEMENT AND AMENDING THE FY 00/01 BUDGET BY APPROPRIATING UNANTICIPATED GRANT REVENUE FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $10,902 WHEREAS, the Parks and Recreation Department wishes to partner with AIS to initiate a pilot teleconferencing program for homebound seniors and disabled persons; and WHEREAS, the County will grant funding for equipment and phone lines provided the Parks and Recreation Department covers ongoing expenses associated with the program and equipment maintenance; and WHEREAS, with teleconferencing equipment, Senior Services will be able to provide services to the homebound and disabled in their homes; and WHEREAS, this program would utilize telephone conferencing lines to connect isolated members of the community to other such individuals and to a facilitator; and WHEREAS, MIS has researched the teleconferencing equipment and has recommended equipment for this program that can be utilized by any department in the city for similar teleconferencing purposes. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the city of Chula Vista does hereby accept a grant in the amount of $10,902 from the Aging and Independent Services of San Diego County for teleconferencing equipment to enable Senior Services to start a teleconferencing program for homebound seniors and persons with disabilities. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Parks and Recreation Director, or his designee, is hereby authorized to sign the appropriate documentation from AIS. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the FY 00/01 budget is hereby amended by appropriating unanticipated grant funds revenue in the amount of $10,902. Presented by Approved as to form by , ~ty-M. K~heny~ Andy Campbell Director of ~ Parks and Recreation Attorney [H:\HQME~ATTORNEY~RESOI AlS 9rant (November 27, 2000 (11:25am)l 2 COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT ITEM MEETING DATE 12/05/00 ITEM TITLE: RESOLUTION Adopting the City of Chula Vista Cafeteria Benefits Plan for 2001 SUBMITTED BY: DIRECTOR OF HUMAN RESOURCES! REVIEWED BY: CITY MANAGER ~'~i)~' (4/5th Vote: Yes No X.) The Internal Revenue Code requires that employers offering cafeteria plans under Section 125 have a written plan document, and that the employer adopt the plan document annually. This resolution will fulfill this requirement. RECOMMENDATION: That Council adopt the resolution. BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: N/A DISCUSSION: In June 1998, Council authorized updates to the City's flexible benefit plan in compliance with Internal Revenue Service (IRS) guidelines. In the fall of 1998, each of the City's bargaining groups was invited to send representatives to participate in "designing" the City's Plan Document in compliance with IRS guidelines. The document presented here is the result of that meet and confer process. The 2001 Plan Document has been updated to reflect the 2001 beginning Flex Plan amounts, current health options, and current IRS accepted changes in family status. FISCAL IMPACT: None with this action. Attachment: A - City of Chula Vista Cafeteria Benefits Plan 2001 C:lMy Documents/RM Counctl Repods~2000 Council Repods~00 lcafeldaplanA113 Dec 5 00doc - Final - 11~2/00 10:29 AM City of Chula Vista CAFETERIA BENEFITS PLAN January 2001 H:\Home\Personnel\Margarita~2001 Plan Document.doc City of Chula Vista Cafeteria Benefits Plan This is a "Cafeteria Plan" of benefits for City of Chula Vista employees and is intended to qualify under Section '125 of the Internal Revenue Code. ELIGIBILITY FOR PARTICIPATION This Plan is for the exclusive benefit of employees of the City of Chula Vista. Eligible employees are defined as individuals who are: 1. Directly employed by the City of Chula Vista, and 2, Working in a half time, three quarter time or full time benefit status. Hourly employees are not eligible for this plan except for School Site Coordinators under the STRETCH Program. Employees who are on approved leave, with or without pay, under the provisions of the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA), are entitled to full access to their flexible benefit plan during their absence. If an employee fails to return to work after such leave for any reason other than the serious illness of the employee or the family member for whom the leave was granted or through no fault of the employee, they will be required to pay all flexible benefit plan monies paid to them, or on their behalf during the absence. Employees who are on an approved unpaid leave of absence for their own disability or illness, beyond the 12 weeks allowed under the FMLA will continue to have their health insurance and their basic life insurance premiums paid by their Flexible Benefit Plan, but will not have access to any other portion of their flexible benefit plan allotment. Upon their return, their flexible benefit plan allotment will be prorated for the balance of the year. The City of Chula Vista does not pay for an employee's benefits if the employee is in an unpaid status for any reason than those indicated above. The employee may choose to continue their health, and certain optional benefits coverage at their own cost until they return to work or for the designated length of time as determined by the City of Chula Vista. If the premiums are not paid, the coverage will be short-term canceled. The coverage will be reinstated immediately upon the employee's return to work, or the first of the month after their return if premiums were not paid during the employee's absence. PLAN YEAR The Plan Year is from January 1 to December 31 of each year. H:~Home~Personnel~Margarita~2001 Plan Document.doc ELECTIONS Elections of benefits must occur during the open enrollment period prior to the start of each Plan Year or, in the case of a newly hired employee, as soon after commencement of employment as administratively practical. Elections must be made in wdting on forms/worksheets provided by the Risk Management Division. An authodzafion form must be signed by employees to allow for necessary deductions from their paychecks to provide the benefit coverages selected. In addition to the benefit election form (if applicable), the employee must also complete and sign all appropriate applications and enrollment forms for the specific benefits selected. If an employee fails to complete the election of benefits prior to the start of the Plan Year, that employee will automatically be enrolled at their previous year Health Insurance Plan (including dependent health offset). If not available, Risk Management will enroll the employee in a comparable plan. The remainder of the annual allotment will be placed in the cash payment. The elections are effective for the period of January 1 to December 31 of each year or, for employees hired after January 1 of a Plan Year, for the remainder of the Plan Year following the first date of enrollment. Benefits are prorated for employees hired after January 1 of each Plan Year. [~enefits terminate at the time an employee terminates employment except for health and dental, which terminate on the last day of the month in which the employee terminates his/her employment. Eligible employees who terminate and are reinstated or rehired within the same Plan Year will have their previous benefit elections reactivated. No new selections will be allowed until the new Plan Year commences. Elections are irrevocable except to accommodate changes in family status as defined in the Income Tax Regulations, 26 CFR Part 1, or to accommodate any significant curtailment or reduction of coverage under any given benefit plan, or in the case of any significant premium increase or decrease imposed by a third-party insurer. Participants who experience a change in family status may be allowed to change or revoke elections. Several examples, although not all inclusive, of the types of events that constitute a change in family status are as follows: o The marriage or divorce of the employee. o The birth or adoption of a child. The death of the employee's spouse or dependent. Termination or commencement of employment by employee's spouse. · Unpaid leave of absence by the employee or the employee's spouse. Changes are also permitted in the event of significant changes in health coverage of the H:\Home~Personnel~Margarita\2001 Plan Document,doc 3 employee or the employee's spouse that are related to the spouse's employment or are subject to the Special Enrollment Period as described in the Health Insurance and Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). Changes to benefit elections will be permitted only to the extent that they are consistent with and appropriate to the reason the change is requested. CONTRIBUTIONS Employer contributions are a fixed amount provided by the City to each eligible employee on a non-elective basis. Salary reduction agreements are provided for in this Plan for Dependent Health Insurance. In the event payroll deductions for reimbursement accounts are selected and subsequently stopped due to an eligible family status change, the reactivation of the account will not be permitted until the next plan year if elected during open enrollment, MAXIMUM CONTRIBUTIONS Eligible employees are allotted funds based on their bargaining groups. These amounts are prorated for non-full-time unclassified or unrepresented employees. The allotments are as follows: UNIT AMOUNT Confidential $6,540 CVEA $5,707 Executive $9,050 IAFF Level 1 $2,324 Level 2 $4,292 Level 3 $5,792 Middle Managers $7,140 POA Level 1 $2,283 Level 2 $4,185 Level 3 $5,751 Senior Managers $7,550 WCE $6,132 H:\Horne\Personnel\Mar§adta\2001 Plan Document,doc 4 Eligible employees may elect the cost of their dependent health insurance to be paid on a pre-tax (salary reduction) basis. In addition, an eligible employee may elect up to $2,500 for a Dental/MedicalNision Reimbursement Supplement account. Single or marded (filing a joint return), eligible employees may also set aside up to $5,000 from all sources per plan year for a Dependent Care Reimbursement Supplement Account. A married employee filing returns separately may set aside up to $2,500 per plan year. BENEFITS All eligible employees participate in the Flexible Benefits Plan. Each employee must select one health insurance coverage, unless married to another City employee and are covered under the spouse's policy. All employees except those represented by IAFF, POA and WCE must elect the premium for $3,000 in life insurance coverage currently $8.00 per year. The options in this plan are as follows: 1. Health Insurance a. Kaiser (01) (A)* b. Kaiser (02) (B)* c. PacifiCare Indemnity d. PacifiCare (HMO) Low Option e. PacifiCare (HMO) High Option f. Spouse of City employee coverage *Note: A. For classifications represented by POA, WCE, Confidential and IAFF only. B. For all classifications represented by other than POA, WCE, Confidential and IAFF. 2. Life Insurance a. $3,000 (C)* *Note: C. Does not apply to POA, IAFF or WCE. Remaining money may be used for: 1. Dependent Health Insurance 2. Cash Payment (taxable) 3. Dental/MedicaINision reimbursement 4. Dependent/Child Care (daycare) reimbursement 5. Employee group dental H:~Home\Personnel~Margarita~001 Plan Document,doc 5 Each of these benefits is described in more detail in the Flexible Benefits Plan Summary for the Plan Year and in the respective plan documents or insurance contracts which are incorporated here by reference. CONSTRUCTION If the plan contains contradictory provisions or if there appears to be a conflict between its provisions, the following rules apply: a. The interpretation that favors the Plan as a tax-free plan over any interpretation that might render the Plan taxable. b. Subject to paragraph (a), the rules established by the Supreme Court of California for the construction of like instruments will apply. PLAN PARTICIPATION RIGHTS As a participant in the plan, you are entitled to examine, without charge, at the Plan Administrator's office all plan documents including insurance contracts; obtain copies of all Plan Documents (at a reasonable cost) and other Plan information upon request to the Administrator. PLAN IS NOT AN EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT This plan document is not a contract of employment. Neither the creation of the Plan nor any amendment to it gives any legal or equitable right to any person against the employer. Participation in the Plan does not give any member any right to continued employment. PLAN ADMINISTRATOR The Plan Administrator is the Risk Manager of the Human Resources Department or his/her designees. The address of the Plan Administrator is: 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 Telephone: (619) 691-5096 H:\Home\Personnel~Margadta~2001 Plan Document,doc 6 PLAN AMENDMENT OR TERMINATION The City of Chula Vista reserves the right to amend the Plan from time to time if deemed necessary or appropriate to meet the requirements of the Internal Revenue Code and any similar provision of subsequent revenue or other laws or pursuant to negotiations with the Employee groups; provided that no such modification or amendment shall make it possible for any benefit contributions or payment to be used for, or directed to purposes other than for the exclusive benefit of participating employees and their beneficiaries under the Plan. The City reserves the right to discontinue or terminate the Plan at the end of any Plan Year or in accordance with negotiations with the Employee Groups. Any such amendment, discontinuance or termination shall be effective on January 1 of any given year or such date that is agreed upon by the City and Employee Groups. No amendment, discontinuance or termination shall allow the return of funds to the City nor the use of any funds for any purpose other than for the exclusive benefit or participating employees and their beneficiaries. H:\Home~Personnel\Margarita\2001 Plan Document.doc 7 ~7/,~ ~ RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ADOPTING THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA CAFETERIA BENEFITS PLAN FOR 2001 WHEREAS, the Internal Revenue Code requires that employers offering cafeteria plans under Section 125 have a written plan document and that the employer adopt the plan document annually; and WHEREAS, in June of 1998, Council authorized updates to the City's flexible benefit plan in compliance with Internal Revenue Service guidelines; and WHEREAS, the document attached for formal adoption is the result of the meet and confer process and the 2001 Plan Document has been updated to reflect the 2001 beginning Flex Plan amounts, current health plan options, current IRS accepted changes in family status. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the city Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby adopt the City of Chula Vista Cafeteria Benefits Plan.for 2001 as set forth in Attachment A. Presented by Approved as to form by Candy Emerson, Director of ahen ' ney Human Resources H:\home\attorney~reso\¢afeteria plan 2001 COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT ITEM ~' MEETING DATE [2/5/00 ITEM TITLE: RESOLUTION Declaring specified volunteers to be employees for the purpose of Workers' Compensation SUBMITTED BY: DIRECTOROF HUMAN RESOURCES(~ REVIEWED BY: CITY MANAGER ~P~' (4/5th Vote: Yes_ No.._~X) In order to limit a public agency's liability as it relates to persons who provide voluntary service without pay it is necessary to distinguish between an employee and an independent contractor. The California Labor Code, Section 3363.5 permits public agencies to declare by resolution, for purposes of Workers' Compensation, that all or certain designated volunteem are employees of that agency while performing such services for the agency. This resolution will declare such for volunteers assigned to specific City programs whose names are included in the City-wide Volunteer Database and to members of all City boards and commissions. RECOMMENDATION: That Council adopt the resolution. BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: N/A DISCUSSION: There are currently 1,100 volunteers who contribute over 100,000 hours of service to the City on an annual basis. In addition, all members of City boards and commission are members of the unclassified service pursuant to Charter Section 701 (a)(3). In the course and scope of the duties ~rovided by these individuals, as in any job, there is the potential for injury. Under the current scenano these individuals are considered, in the eyes of the law, to be independent contractors. An independent contractor generally cannot receive Workers' Compensation benefits (Labor Code {}3353), and is thus free to bring a civil suit against the City. Employees are in a different situation. Government Code {}814.2 provides that the Tort Claims Act does not repeal any provision of the Workers' Compensation Act. Therefore, injuries sustained by public employees in the course of employment, which would be actionable if sustained by private persons, may only be compensated by Workers' Compensation and not by civil damages. Liability for injury under Workers' Compensation is not based on any act or omission of an employer, but on the existence of the employer/employee relationship. Does Workers' Compensation apply to volunteers? Labor Code {}3351 (i) excludes from the purview of the ! Workers' Compensation Act the following type of person: Any person performing voluntary service for a public agency or a private, non-profit organization who received no remuneration for the services other than meals, transportation, lodging or reimbursement for incidental expenses. However, Labor Code §3363.5 provides: (a) Notwithstanding Sections 3351, 3352, and 3357, a person who performs voluntary service without pay for a public agency, as designated and authorized by the governing body of the agency or its designee, shall, upon adoption of a resolution of the governing body of the agency so declaring, be deemed to be an employee of the agency for purposes of this division while performing such a service. (b) For purposes of this section "voluntary service without pay" shall include services performed by any person, who receives no remuneration other than meals, transportation, lodging, or reimbursement for incidental expenses. To date, there have been no tort claims filed against the City for injuries sustained by its volunteers. When an injury occurs, the City provides for the necessary medical treatment to the injured volunteer. From 1997 through today the City has spent $35,1~69 towards this end. The City has been fortunate in that in the mid-1990's the County of San Diego, who also did not insure their volunteers under Workers' Compensation, paid a $3M civil liability damages to a volunteer injured during the course of her volunteer duties with the County. A survey of six local agencies showed that virtually all have passed resolutions declaring their volunteers to be employees of their agency for purposes of Workers' Compensation. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City of Chula Vista adopt a resolution as allowed under Labor Code §3363.5, declaring its volunteers and members of its boards and commissions to be employees of the City for purposes of Workers' Compensation. By doing so the City will limit its liability for injuries sustained by volunteers, boards and commission members, in the course of their volunteer duties to those entitlements under California Workers' Compensation Law. This action eliminates the City's exposure to tort liability from these injuries. FISCAL IMPACT Because the City's current practice is to handle volunteer injuries as if they were covered under Workers' Compensation there should be no additional costs associated with this action. It is impossible to estimate the amount of liability that the City will avoid by taking this action, however as evidenced by the County of San Diego's experience it could be substantial. RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA DECLARING SPECIFIED VOLUNTEERS TO BE EMPLOYEES FOR THE PURPOSE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION WHEREAS, in order to limit a public agency's liability as it relates to persons Who provide voluntary service without pay, it is necessary to distinguish between an employee and an independent contractor; and WHEREAS, California Labor Code Section 3363.5 permits public agencies to declare by resolution, for purposes of Workers' Compensation, that all or certain designated volunteers are employees of that agency while performing such services for the agency; and WHEREAS, this resolution will declare such for volunteers assigned to specific City programs whose names are inclqded in the City-wide Volunteer Database and to members of all City boards and commissions who are members of the Unclassified Service pursuant to Section 701(a) (3) of the Charter of the City of Chula Vista. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the City of Chula vista does hereby declare the following to be employees for the purpose of Workers' Compensation and Insurance Law: A. Volunteers who are or may be assigned to specific City of Chula Vista programs whose names are shown or may hereafter be shown on the City-wide Volunteer Database. B. Members of all recognized boards and commissions of the City of Chula Vista. Presented by Approved as to form by Candy Emerson, Director of J~'/~~Kaheny~, ' yM. ci~t' A~/ Human Resources H:~home~attorney~resokworkers comp volunteers COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item Meeting Date ITEM TITLE: Resolution waiving the consultant selection process as impractical,' approving an agreement with Harrell & Company Advisors, LLC for f'mancial advisory services related to financing the Police Headquarters Facility and Civic Center Remodeling capital improvement projects, and authorizing the Mayor to execute said agreement SUBMITTED BY: Deputy City Manager Powell ~/ REVIEWED BY: City Manager ~0~ (4/5tbs Vote: Yes No X ) SUMMARY: The Police Headquarters Facility and Civic Center Remodeling capital improvement projects are multi-million dollar projects that will require long term £mancing. The City has historically utilized the services o£ a financial advisory firm to provide added insurance that the costs of borrowing are minimized. On two other borrowings that were successfully concluded within the last ninety days, the Corporation Yard project and the Redevelopment Agency Financial Plan, two different financial advisory firms were chosen through the normal consultant selection process. Although both firms performed well on those assignments, due to the complex nature of the Agency transaction, Harrell & Co. was required to obtain a much more in-depth understanding of the City, and is therefore recommended for appointment to this assignment without going through another formal selection process. RECOMMENDATION: That Council adopt the resolution waiving the consultant selection process as impractical, approving an agreement with Harrell & Company Advisors, LLC for financial advisory services related to financing the Police Headquarters Facility and Civic Center Remodeling capital improvement projects, and authorizing the Mayor to execute said agreement. DISCUSSION: Site selection and other preliminary work on two major capital projects, a new Police Headquarters Facility and a major remodeling of the Civic Center Complex, has been underway for several months. Although funded in part by development impact fees, these multi-million dollar projects will require some form of long term financing. The City and the vast majority of other municipal borrowers typically utilize a financial advisory firm to perfom~ several tasks related to long term financing in order to insure that costs are minimized to the extent possible. As examples, these tasks would include cash flow projections for prospective sources of debt service payments, Page 2. Item ~? __ Meeting Date 1 recommendations as to the structure of the borrowing, recommendations as to whether any bond sale should be done on a competitive or negotiated basis, preparation of disclosure documents for prospective investors, and coordination with prospective insurance providers and rating agencies. On two recent borrowings that were successfully concluded within the last ninety days, the Corporation Yard project and thc Redevelopment Agency Financial Plan, two different financial advisory firms were chosen through thc normal consultant selection process. Although both firms performed very well on those assignments, due to the complex nature of the Agency transaction, which included the merger of three project areas, complex long-term revenue projections and rating agency coordination, Harrell & Co. was required to obtain a much more in-depth understand'rog of the City and the Agency, and is therefore recommended for appointment to this assignment. Since two similar selection processes have been so recently completed, staff is confident that repeating the selection process would likely result in the same conclusion. For these reasons, staff is asking Council to waive the normal selection process as impractical. Suzaune Harrell, the principal representative of Harrell & Co., has served as financial advisor on over $220 million in general fund obligations and $260 million in tax and revenue anticipation notes since 1990. During the last four years, her clients have included the County of Santa Cruz and the cities of Costa Mesa, Vallejo, Palm Springs, and several others. Two of the transactions during this timefi'ame involved the financing of new police facilities. The fee structure proposed by Harrell & Co. for thc work on these projects is competitive, will be fully funded from the proceeds of any debt issue(s), and is contingent on the completion of the transaction. FISCAL IMPACT: The cost for the services provided under this contract will vary with the size of the debt issue, but as an example, the fee for a bond issue of $50 million would be $60,000, plus reimbursement of out- of-pocket expenses such as express mail, conference calls, etc. RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA WAIVING THE CONSULTAI~T SELECTION PROCESS AS IMPP~ACTICAL, APPROVING ANAGREEMENT WITH HARRELL & COMPANY ADVISORS, LLC FOR FINANCIAL ADVISORY SERVICES RELATED TO FINANCING THE POLICE HEADQUARTERS FACILITY AND CIVIC CENTER REMODELING CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT WHEREAS, the Police Headquarters Facility and Civic Center Remodeling capital improvement projects are multi-million dollar projects that will require long term financing; and WHEREAS, the City has historically utilized the services of a financial advisory firm to provide added insurance that the costs or borrowing are minimized; and WHEREAS, on two other borrowings that were successfully concluded within the last ninety days, the Corporation Yard project and the Redevelopment Agency Financial Plan, two different financial advisory firms were chosen through a competitive consultant selection process; and WHEREAS, although both firms performed well on those assignments, due to the complex nature of the Agency transaction, Harrell & Co. was required to obtain a much more in-depth understanding of the City, and is therefore recommended for appointment to this assignment without going through another formal selection process; and WHEREAS, since two similar selection processes have been so recently completed, 'staff is confident that repeating the selection process would likely result in the same conclusion and for these reasons, staff is asking Council to waive the normal selection process as impractical. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby waive the consultant selection process as impractical, and approve the Agreement with Harrell & Company Advisors, LLC for financial advisory services related to financln§ the Police Headquarters Facility and Civic Center Remodeling capital improvement projects, a copy of which shall be kept on file in the office of the City Clerk. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor is hereby authorized and directed to execute said A§reement on behalf of the City of Chula Vista. Presented by Approved as to form by Robert A. Powell, Deputy City ~ . en~City Attorney Manager ~ H:\home\attorney\reso\harrell agreement AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND HARRELL & COMPANY ADVISORS, LLC For Financial Consulting Services This agreement ("Agreement"), is entered into effective as of December 5, 2000 by and between the City of Chula Vista ("City") and Harrell & Company Advisors, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company "Consultant"), and is made with reference to the following facts: RECITALS Whereas, the City is contemplating the issuance of debt for the purpose of financing certain of its major capital projects ("The Financing"); and, Whereas, the City requires assistance from a financing consultant in the development ora sound and practical financing plan to implement the financing by taking into consideration, program requirements, soumes of capital funds, cash flow requirements, annual costs, the allocation of those costs, statutory requirements and restrictions; and, Whereas, Consultant represents it is a qualified to perform the services under this contract and; Whereas, the City Council, at a regular meeting held on December 5, 2000, waived the consultant selection process as impractical based on Consultant's unique qualifications to perform tha services required hereunder, having recently completed similar services for the City's Redevelopment Agency in an exemplary manner, and authorized the Mayor to enter into this Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, that the City and Consultant do hereby mutually agree as follows: 1.CONSULTANT'S DUTIES A. General Duties Consultant shall perform all of the services described on the attached Exhibit A, Paragraph 7, entitled "General Duties". B. Scope of Work and Schedule In the process of performing and delivering said "General Duties", Consultant shall also perform all of the services described in Exhibit A, Paragraph 8, entitled "Scope of Work and Schedule", not inconsistent with the General Duties, according to, and within the time frames set forth in Exhibit A, Paragraph 8, and deliver to Agency such Deliverables as are identified in Exhibit A, Paragraph 8, within the time frames set forth therein, time being of the essence of this agreement. The General Duties and the work and deliverables required in the Scope of Work and Schedule shall be herein referred to as the "Defined Services". Failure to complete the Defined Services by the times indicated does not, except at the option of the City, operate to terminate this Agreement. C. Reductions in Scope of Work City may independently, or upon request from Consultant, from time to time reduce the Defined Services to be performed by the Consultant under this Agreement. Upon doing so, City and Consultant agree to meet in good faith and confer for the purpose of negotiating a corresponding reduction in the compensation associated with said reduction. Harrell & Company, LLC Financial Consulting Services Agreement Page 1 [Revised 11/28/2000] D. Additional Services In addition to performing tl~e Defined Services herein set forth, City may require Consultant to perform additional consulting services related to the Defined Services ("Additional Services"), and upon doing so in writing, if they are within the scope of services offered by Consultant, Consultant shall perform same on a time and materials basis at the rates set forth in the "Rate Schedule" in Exhibit A, Paragraph 11, unless a separate fixed fee is otherwise agreed upon. All compensation for Additional Services shall be paid monthly as billed. E. Standard of Care Consultant, in performing any Services under this agreement, whether Defined Services or Additional Services, shall perform in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the profession currently practicing under similar conditions and in similar locations. F. Insurance Consultant represents that it and its agents, staff and subconsultants employed by it in connection with the Services required to be rendered, are protected against the risk of loss by the following insurance coverages, in the following categories, and to the limits specified, policies of which are issued by Insurance Companies that have a Best's Rating of "A, Class V" or better, and shall otherwise meet with the approval of the City: Statutory Worker's Compensation Insurance coverage in the amount set forth in the attached Exhibit A, Paragraph 9. Commercial General Liability Insurance including Business Automobile Insurance coverage in the amount set forth in Exhibit A, Paragraph 9, combined single limit applied separately to each project away from premises owned or rented by Consultant, which names City an Additional Insured, and which is primary to any policy which the City may otherwise carry ("Primary Coverage"). Errors and Omissions insurance, in the amount set forth in Exhibit A, Paragraph 9, unless Errors and Omissions coverage is included in the General Liability policy. As required by the City, all insurers shall waive the right of subrogation against City and its elected officials, officers, employees agency and representatives. G. Proof of Insurance Coverage_. (1) Certificates of Insurance. Consultant shall demonstrate proof of coverage herein required, prior to the commencement of services required under this Agreement, by delivery of Certificates of Insurance demonstrating same, and further indicating that the policies may not be canceled without at least thirty (30) days written notice to the Additional Insured. (2) Policy Endorsements Required. In order to demonstrate the Additional Insured Coverage, Primary Coverage required under Consultant's Commercial General Liability Insurance Policy, Consultant shall deliver a policy endorsement to the City demonstrating same, which shall be reviewed and approved by the Risk Manager. H. Security for Performance. (1) Performance Bond Harrell & Company, LLC Financial Consulting Services Agreement Page 2 [Revised 11/28/2000] In the event that Exhibit A, at Paragraph 19, indicates the need fer Consultant to provide a Performance Bond (indicated by a check mark in the parenthetical space immediately preceding the subparagraph entitled "Performance Bond"), then Consultant shall provide to the City a performance bond by a surety and in a form and amount satisfactory to the Risk Manager or City Attorney which amount is indicated in the space adjacent to the term, "Performance Bond", in said Paragraph 19, Exhibit A. (2) Letter of Credit In the event that Exhibit A, at Paragraph 19, indicates the need for Consultant to provide a Letter of Credit (indicated by a check mark in the parenthetical space immediately preceding the subparagraph entitled "Letter of Credit"), then Consultant shall provide to the City an irrevocable letter of credit callable by the City at their unfettered discretion by submitting to the bank a letter, signed by the City Manager, stating that the Consultant is in breach of the terms of this Agreement. The letter of credit shall be issued by a bank, and be in a form and amount satisfactory to the Risk Manager or City Attorney which amount is indicated in the space adjacent to the term, "Letter of Credit", in said Paragraph 19, Exhibit A. (3) Other Security In the event that Exhibit A, at Paragraph 19, indicates the need for Consultant to provide security other than a Performance Bond or a Letter of Credit (indicated by a check mark in the parenthetical space immediately preceding the subparagraph entitled "Other Security"), then Consultant shall provide to the City such other security therein listed in a form and amount satisfactory to the Risk Manager or City Attorney. I. Business License Consultant agrees to obtain a business license from the City and ta otherwise comply with Title 5 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code. 2. DUTIES OF THE CITY A. Consultation and Cooperation City shall regularly consult the Consultant for the purpose of reviewing the progress of the Defined Services and Schedule therein contained, and to provide direction and guidance to achieve the objectives of this agreement. The City shall permit access to its office facilities, files and records by Consultant throughout the term of the agreement. In addition thereto, City agrees to provide the information, data, items and materials set forth on Exhibit A, Paragraph 10, and with the further understanding that delay in the prevision of these materials beyond 30 days after authorization to proceed, shall constitute a basis for the justifiable delay in the Consultant's performance of this agreement. Harrell & Company, LLC Financial Consulting Services Agreement Page 3 [Revised 11/28/2000] B. Compensation Upon receipt of a properly prepared billing from Consultant submitted to the City periodically as indicated in Exhibit A, Paragraph 18, but in no event more frequently than monthly, on the day of the period indicated in Exhibit A, Paragraph 18, City shall compensate Consultant for all services rendered by Consultant according to the terms and conditions set forth in Exhibit A, Paragraph 11, adjacent to the governing compensation relationship indicated by a "checkmark" next to the appropriate arrangement, subject to the requirements for retention set forth in paragraph 19 of Exhibit A, and shall compensate Consultant for out of pocket expenses as provided in Exhibit A, Paragraph 12. All billings submitted by Consultant shall contain sufficient information as to the propriety of the billing to permit the City to evaluate that the amount due and payable thereunder is proper. 3. ADMINISTRATION OF CONTRACT Each party designates the individuals ("Contract Administrators") indicated on Exhibit A, Paragraph 13, as said party's contract administrator who is authorized by said party to represent them in the routine administration of this agreement. 4. TERM This Agreement shall terminate when the Parties have complied with all executory provisions hereof. 5. LIQUIDATED DAMAGES The provisions of this section apply if a Liquidated Damages Rate is provided in Exhibit A, Paragraph 14. It is acknowledged by both parties that time is of the essence in the completion of this Agreement. It is difficult to estimate the amount of damages resulting from delay in performance. The parties have used their judgment to arrive at a reasonable amount to compensate for delay. Failure to complete the Defined Services within the allotted time period specified in this Agreement shall result in the following penalty: For each consecutive calendar day in excess of the time specified for the completion of the respective work assignment or Deliverable, the consultant shall pay to the City, or have withheld from monies due, the sum of Liquidated Damages Rate provided in Exhibit A, Paragraph 14 ("Liquidated Damages Rate"). Time extensions for delays beyond the consultant's control, other than delays caused by the City, shall be requested in writing to the City's Contract Administrator, or designee, prior to the expiration of the specified time. Extensions of time, when granted, will be based upon the effect of delays to the work and will not be granted for delays to minor portions of work unless it can be shown that such delays did or will delay the progress of the work. 6. FINANCIAL INTERESTS OF CONSULTANT A. Consultant is Designated as an FPPC Filer If Consultant is designated on Exhibit A, Paragraph 15, as an "FPPC filer", Consultant is deemed to be a "Consultant" for the purposes of the Political Reform Act conflict of interest and disclosure provisions, and shall report economic interests to the City Clerk on the required Statement of Economic Interests in such reporting categories as are specified in Paragraph 15 of Exhibit A, or if none are specified, then as determined by the City Attorney. B. Decline to Participate Harrell & Company, LLC Financial Consulting Services Agreement Page 4 [Revised 11/28/2000] Regardless of whether Consultant is designated as an FPPC Filer, Consultant shall not make, or participate in making or in any way attempt to use Consultant's position to influence a governmental decision in which Consultant knows or has reason to know Consultant has a financial interest other than the compensation promised by this Agreement. C. Search to Determin~ Economic Interests Regardless of whether Consultant is designated as an FPPC Filer, Consultant warrants and represents that Consultant has diligenfly conducted a search and inventory of Consultant's economic interests, as the term is used in the regulations promulgated by the Fair Political Practices Commission, and has determined that Consultant does not, to the best of Consultant's knowledge, have an economic interest which would conflict with Consultant's duties under this agreement. D~ Premise Not to Acquire Conflicting Interests Regardless of whether Consultant is designated as an FPPC Filer, Consultant further warrants and represents that Consultant will not acquire, obtain, or assume an economic interest dudng the term of this Agreement which would constitute a conflict of interest as prehibited by the Fair Political Practices Act. E. Duty to Advise of Conflicting Interests Regardless of whether Consultant is designated as an FPPC Filer, Consultant further warrants and represents that Consultant will immediately advise the City Attorney of Agency if Consultant learns of an economic interest of Consultant's which may result in a conflict of interest for the purpose of the Fair Political Practices Act, and regulations promulgated thereunder. F. Specific Warranties Against Economic Interests Consultant warrants and represents that neither Consultant, nor Consultant's immediate family members, nor Consultant's employees or agents ("Consultant Associates") presently have any interest, directly or indirectly, whatsoever in any preperty which may be the subject matter of the Defined Services, or in any property within 2 radial miles from the exterior boundaries of any property which may be the subject matter of the Defined Services, ("Prohibited Interest"), other than as listed in Exhibit A, Paragraph 15. Consultant further warrants and represents that no promise of future employment, remuneration, consideration, gratuity or other reward or gain has been made to Consultant or Consultant Associates in connection with Consultant's performance 'of this Agreement. Consultant premises to advise Agency of any such promise that may be made during the Term of this Agreement, or for 12 months thereafter. Consultant agrees that Consultant Associates shall not acquire any such Prohibited Interest within the Term of this Agreement, or for 12 months after the expiration of this Agreement, except with the written permission of City. Consultant may not conduct or solicit any business for any party to this Agreement, or for any third party which may be in conflict with Consultant's responsibilities under this Agreement, except with the written permission of City. 7. HOLD HARMLESS Consultant shall defend, indemnify, protect and hold harmless the City, its elected and appointed officers and employees, from and against all claims for damages, liability, cost and expense (including without limitation attorneys' fees) arising out of the alleged or actual negligent conduct or willful misconduct of the Consultant, or any agent or employee, subcontractors, or others in connection with the execution of the Harrell & Company, LLC Financial Consulting Services Agreement Page 5 [Revised 1 '1/28/2000] work covered by this Agreement, except only for those claims arising from the sole negligence or sole willful misconduct of the City, its officers, or employees, including claims arising from inaccurate or incomplete information provided by the City or third parties upon which the Consultant reasonably relies. Consultant's indemnification shall include any and all costs, expenses, attorneys' fees and liability incurred by the City, its officers, agents, or employees in defending against such claims, whether the same proceed to judgment or not. Further, Consultant at its own expense shall, upon written request by the City, defend any such suit or action brought against the City, its officers, agents, or employees. Consultants' indemnification of City shall_n.ot be limited by any prior or subsequent declaration by the Consultant. 8. TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT FOR CAUSE If, through any cause, Consultant shatl fail to fulfill in a timely and proper manner Consultant's obligations under this Agreement, or if Consultant shall violate any of the covenants, agreements or stipulations of this Agreement, City shall have the right to terminate this Agreement by giving written notice to Consultant of such termination and specifiJing the effective date thereof at least five (5) days before the effective date of such termination. In that event, all finished or unfinished documents, data, studies, surveys, drawings, maps, reports and other materials prepared by Consultant shall, at the option of the City, become the property of the City, and Consultant shall be entitled to receive just and equitable compensation for any work satisfactorily completed on such documents and other materials up to the effective date of Notice of Termination, not to exceed the amounts payable hereunder, and less any damages caused City by Consultant's breach. 9. ERRORS AND OMISSIONS In the event that the City Administrator determines that the Consultants' negligence, errors, or omissions in the performance of work under this Agreement has resulted in expense to City greater than would have resulted if there were no such negligence, errors, omissions, Consultant shall reimburse City for any additional expenses incurred by the City. Nothing herein is intended to limit City's rights under other provisions of this agreement. t0. TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT FOR CONVENIENCE OF CITY City may terminate this Agreement at any time and for any reason, by giving specific written notice to Consultant of such termination and specifying the effective date thereof, at least thirty (30) days before the effective date of such termination. In that event, all finished and unfinished documents and other materials described hereinabove shall, at the option of the City, become City's sole and exclusive property. If the Agreement is terminated by City as provided in this paragraph, Consultant shall be entitled to receive just and equitable compensation for any satisfactory work completed on such documents and other materials to the effective date of such termination. Consultant hereby expressly waives any and all claims for damages or compensation arising under this Agreement except as set forth herein. Harrell & Company, LLC Financial cOn'suiting Services Agreement Page 6 [Revised 1112812000] 11. ASSIGNABILITY The services of Consultant are personal to the City, and Consultant shall not assign any interest in this Agreement, and shall not transfer any interest in the same (whether by assignment or novation), without prior written consent of City. City hereby consents to the assignment of the podions of the Defined Services identified in Exhibit A, Paragraph'17 to the subconsultants identified thereat as "Permitted Subconsultants". 12. OWNERSHIP, PUBLICATION, REPRODUCTION AND USE OF MATERIAL All reports, studies, information., data, statistics, fo~ns, designs, plans, procedures, systems and any other materials or properties produced under this Agreement shall be the sole and exclusive property of City. No such materials or properties p¢oduced in whole or in part under this Agreement shall be subject to private use, copyrights or patent rights by Consultant in the United States or in any other country without the express written consent of City. City shall have unrestricted authority to publish, disclose (except as may be limited by the provisions of the Public Records Act), distribute, and otherwise use, copyright or patent, in whole or in part, any such reports, studies, data, statistics, forms or other materials or properties produced under this Agreement. 13. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR City is interested only in the results obtained and Consultant shall perform as an independent contractor with sole control of the manner and means of performing the services required under this Agreement. City maintains the right only to reject or accept Consultant's work products. Consultant and any of the Consultant's agents, employees or representatives are, for all purposes under this Agreement, an independent contractor and shall not be deemed to be an employee of City, and none of them shall be entitled to any benefits to which City employees are entitled including but not limited to, overtime, retirement benefits, worker's compensation benefits, injury leave or other leave benefits. Therefore, City will not withhold state or federal income tax, social security tax or any other payroll tax, and Consultant shall be solely responsible for the payment of same and shall hold the City harmless with regard thereto. 14. ADMINISTRATIVE CLAIMS REQUIREMENTS AND PROCEDURES No suit or arbitration shall be brought arising out of this agreement, against the City unless a claim has first been presented in writing and filed with the City and acted upon by the City in accordance with the procedures set forth in Chapter 1.34 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, as same may from time to time be amended, the provisions of which are incorporated by this reference as if fully set forth herein, and such policies and procedures used by the City in the implementation of same. Upon request by City, Consultant shall meet and confer in good faith with City for the purpose of resolving any dispute over the terms of this Agreement. 15. ATTORNEY'S FEES Should a dispute arising out of this Agreement result in litigation, it is agreed that the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover all reasonable costs incurred in the defense of the claim, including costs and attorney's fees. 16. STATEMENT OF COSTS In the event that Consultant prepares a report or document, or participates in the preparation of a report or document in performing the Defined Services, Consultant shall include, or cause the inclusion of, in said report or document, a statement of the numbers and cost in dollar amounts of all contracts and subcontracts relating to the preparation of the report or document. Harrell & Company, LLC Financial Consulting Services Agreement Page 7 [Revised 11/28/2000] 17. MISCELLANEOUS A. Consultant not authorized to Represent City Unless specifically authorized in writing by City, Consultant shall have no authority to act as City's agent to bind City to any contractual agreements whatsoever. B. Consultant is Real Estate Broker and/er Salesman If the box on Exhibit A, Paragraph 16 is marked, the Consultant and/or their principals is/are licensed with the State of California or some other state as a licensed real estate broker or salesperson. Otherwise, Consultant represents that neither Consultant, nor their principals are licensed real estate brokers or salespersons. C. Notices All notices, demands or requests provided for or permitted to be given pursuant to this Agreement must be in writing. All notices, demands and requests to be sent to any party shall be deemed to have been properly given or served if personally served or deposited in the United States mail, addressed to such party, postage prepaid, registered or certified, with return receipt requested, at the addresses identified herein as the places of business for each of the designated parties. D. Entire Agreement This Agreement, together with any other written document referred to or contemplated herein, embody the entire Agreement and understanding between the parties relating to the subject matter hereof. Neither this Agreement nor any provision hereof may be amended, modified, waived or discharged except by an instrument in writing executed by the party against which enforcement of such amendment, waiver or discharge is sought. E. Capacity of Parties Each signatory and party hereto hereby warrants and represents to the other party that it has legal authority and capacity and direction from its principal to enter into this Agreement, and that all resolutions or other actions have been taken so as to enable it to enter into this Agreement. F. Governing LawNenue This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California. Any action arising under or relating to this Agreement shall be brought only in the federal or state courts located in San Diego County, State of California, and if applicable, the City of Chula Vista, or as close thereto as possible. Venue for this Agreement, and performance hereunder, shall be the City of Chula Vista. [END OF PAGE. NEXT PAGE IS SIGNATURE PAGE.[ Harrell & Company, LLC Financial Consulting Services Agreement Page 8 [Revised 11/28/2000] NOV-17-2000 FRI 09:22 AM FROM:HARRELL & COMPANY FAX:7149391462 PAGE 1 SIGNATURE PAGE TO AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND HARRELL & COMPANY ADVISORS, LLC FOR FINANCIAL CONSULTING SERVICES IN WITNESS WHEREOF, e.~ of the date first written above, City and Consultant have exee[~ted this Agreement thereby indicating that they have read and understood same, and Indloate their full and oomplete consent to its terms: Attest: C~ of Chuls V{ste By: Susan Blgelow, City Clerk Shirley Herren, Mayor Approved as to form: Harrell & Company Advisers, LLC John M. Kaheny, City Attorney . President Exhibit List to Agreement iX) E×hlblt A. 'Harrell & Company, LLC Financial Consulting Services Agreement ~ Page 9 [Revised 11/16/2000] SIGNATURE PAGE ~ TO AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND HARRELL & COMPANY ADVISORS, LLC FOR FINANCIAL CONSULTING SERVICES IN WITNESS WHEREOF, as of the date first written above, City and Consultant have executed this Agreement thereby indicating that they have read and understood same, and indicate their full and complete consent to its terms: Attest: City of Chula Vista By: Susan Bigelow, City Clerk Shirley Horton, Mayor Approved as to form: Harrell & Company Advisors, LLC By:_ John M, Kaheny, City Attomey Suzanne Q. Harrell President Exhibit List to Agreement (X) Exhibit A. Harrell & Company, LLC Financial Consulting Services Agreement Page 9 [Revised 11/28/2000] EXHIBIT A TO AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND HARRELL & COMPANY ADVISORS, LLC 1. EFFECTIVE DATE OF AGREEMENT: December 5, 2000 2. AGENCY: (X) City of Chula Vista, a municipal chartered corporation of the State of California ("City") 3. PLACE OF BUSINESS FOR CITY: City of Chula Vista, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91910 4. CONSULTANT: HARRELL & COMPANY ADVISORS, LLC 5. BUSINESS FORM OF CONSULTANT: ( ) Sole Proprietorship ( ) Partnership (X) Corporation 6. PLACE OF BUSINESS, TELEPHONE AND FAX NUMBER OF CONSULTANT: Harrell & Company Advisors, LLC The City Tower 333 City Boulevard West, Suite 1430 Orange, CA 92868 (714) 939-1464 (714) 939-1462 (FAX) 7. General Duties: Provide all necessary financial advisory services to assist in the issuance of debt by the City in order to obtain timely and adequate funding for acquisition of property and construction of a new police headquarters facility, as well as remodeling of the existing Civic Center complex. 8. Scope of Work and Schedule: A. Detailed Scope of Work: Consultant will be responsible for performing the following: 1) Revenue Projections. Evaluate the projected cash flow from any revenue soume, such as development impact fees, that may constitute security for the contemplated debt obligation. Analyze the proposed financing in relation to the City's overall debt capacity. Harrell & Company, LLC Financial Consulting Services Agreement Page 10 [Revised 11/28/2000] 2) Bond Structure. Size the bond issue, structure those terms and c.'o~itions which most advantageously meets demands or current market conditions and the objectives of the City. 3) Document Review. Review and comment on all legal docu~nts'l~re, pared by bond counsel to ensure conformance with the proposed financing structure. " 4) Timing of Sale. Advise City of market movements, trends an(~ de~,~1~'pments and offer recommendations as to the timing of the sale of the bonds in relation to market conditions. 5) Official Statement. At the direction of the City, prepare the preliminary and final Official Statement, the notice of sale and bid form to be used in connection with the offering of the bonds. The Official Statement will be prepared in conformance with the adopted guidelines of Government Finance Officers of America. 6) Disclosure Issues. Provide technical support in defining disclosure issues necessary to meet GFOA guidelines, as well as work with the City to fulfill its continuing disclosure responsibilities under Securities and -' Exchange Commission Rule 15c2-12. 7) Rating and Insurance Agencies. Assist in submitting documents, conducting negotiations and attending meetings with rating agencies and bond insurance companies as may be required. Assist the City in preparing for dialogue with the rating analyst. 8) Pricing. Arrange for a public competitive marketing of the'd'~b*.t,.inctuding coordinating the plans of the bid opening, evaluating the bids submitted, checking for-'rhathematical accuracy, advising the City of the most favorable bids, and making a recommenda, tion as to award. Harrell & Company, LLC Financial Consulting Services Agreement Page 11 [Revised 11/28/2000] 9) Bond Closing. Review and coordinate the arrangements for closing and delivery of the bonds paying particular attention to needed certificates and representations of other parties to ensure certification of information relied upon in the financing. '10) Bond Administration. Advise the City in administration of the financing after bond closing, working closely with the Finance department and the City's auditors. B. Date for Commencement of Consultant Services: (X) Same as Effective Date of Agreement C. Deliverables: Task 1 consists of items 1 - 9 Task 2 consists of item 10 D. Date for completion of all Consultant services: Twelve months after closing of any debt issued. 9. Insurance Requirements: (X) Statutory Worker's Compensation Insurance (X) Commercial General Liability Insurance: $1,000,000. (X) Errors and Omissions Insurance: $250,000 (if not included in Commercial General Liability coverage). 10. MATERIALS REQUIRED TO BE SUPPLIED BY CITY AGENCY TO CONSULTANT: As described in Section 8 above. City agrees to make available to Consultant, without cost, sufficient copies of the resolutions, preliminary and final official statements and other relevant material pertaining to the financing, the City, or the bonds, as reasonably may be required from time to time for the prompt and efficient performance by Consultant of its obligations hereunder. 11. Compensation. The fee quoted below includes performing all the tasks listed above. Consultant's fees are contingent and payable out of bond proceeds at bond closing. In the event that the projected bond issue does not occur for any reason, Consultant shall not be entitled to any compensation hereunder. For Task 1, Consultant will be paid a fee proportionate to the par value of debt issued as follows: Par Amount of Issue Fee $5 million to $9 million $35,000 $9 million to $14 million $40,000 $14 million to $21 million $45,000 $21 million to $30 million $50,000 $30 million to $40 million $55,000 $40 million to $55 million $60,000 Above $55 million $60,000 plus $1,250 per each additional $5 million issued Harmll & Company, LLC Financial Consulting Services Agreement Page 12 [Revised '11/28/2000] -/b There is no compensation related to Task 2. 12. Materials Reimbursement Arrangement/Agency Costs. Consultant shall be reimbursed for any and all out-of-pockets expenses reasonably incurred in the performance of services required under the terms of this Agreement, including but not limited to copying, mailing, conference calls, etc., but said reimbursables are to be paid from bond proceeds only. There are several program costs that are required for completion of a financing that shall be the responsibility of the City. These include the cost of issuance of bonds, including the cost of printing and distributing the official statement, notice of sale or other notices, the securities or other legal document, s, accountants, feasibility consultants, rating services, bond insurance premiums, bond counsel, disclosure counsel, or any other expeds retained by the City in connection with a financing. 13. Contract Administrators: City: Robert W. Powell, Deputy City Manager Consultant: Suzanne Q. Harrell, President 14. Liquidated Damages Rate: Not Applicable 15. Statement of Economic Interests, Consultant Reporting Categories, per Conflict of Interest Code: (X) Not Applicable. Not an FPPC Filer. 16. Consultant is Real Estate Broker and/or Salesman Not applicable. 17. Permitted Subconsultants: Not applicable. 18. Bill Processing: Submitted in accordance with payment milestones set forth in Section 11, above. 19. Security for Performance None. M:\data\memos\director~Harrell&co agreement Harrell & Company, LLC Financial Consulting Services Agreement Page 13 [Revised 11/28/2000] COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item: 7 Meeting Date: 12/5/00 ITEM TITLE: Resolution approving the First Amendment to the Agreement with Highland Partnership, Inc., for the programming and preparation of a Master Plan for the new Police Facility and Civic Center Complex, appropriate funds therefore (New Police Facility CIP-PS149), and authorize the Mayor to execute said agreement. Resolution of the City of Council of the City of Chula Vista regarding its intention to issue tax exempt obligations to finance the City's new Police Facility and Civic Center Expansion and directing staff to return with a Financing Plan. (~. SUBMITTED BY: Sid Morris, Assistant City Manager REVIEWED BY: City Manager ~.,~ (4/5tbs Vote: Yes X No ) At its October 23, 2000 workshop, the Chula Vista City Council took action to direct staff to eliminate Friendship Park from further analysis for the citing of a new Police Facility. Council also directed that staff look at the other sites which had been previously considered and which will accommodate the Police Facility and program as described by the consultants. It is staff's intent to re-evaluate the sites using the relevant criteria including proximity to the Civic Center and Third Avenue/Downtown corridor, consolidation of Government Services, facilitation of redevelopment efforts, ease of ingress and egress and cost. The new direction to the consultant necessitates a change in the scope of work approved in the original agreement with the Highland Partnership, Inc. This agenda statement outlines the proposed revision and the associated costs. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the Amendment to the Scope of Work with Highland Partnership, Inc., appropriate funds therefore, and authorize the Mayor to execute said amendment. That the City Council express the City's intention to issue tax exempt obligations to finance the City's new Police Facility and Civic Center Expansion and directing staff to return with a recommended Financing Plan. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable. DISCUSSION: At the August 1, 2000 meeting, the City Council approved Resolution No. 2000-275 approving an agreement with Highland Partnership, Inc., for consulting services to include the master planning of the Civic Center Complex and the planning, programming and conceptual design of a new Police Facility and the expansion of the Civic Center Complex. (See -7-/ Item: Meeting Date: 12/5/00 Attachment 1). The scope of work with Highland Partnership, Inc. includes, but is not limited to, the following major tasks: Master Plan Development Development of a Construction Management Plan and schedule Review all existing plans and studies for the master planning of the Civic Center h~spect and assess all existing facilities · Determine current and long range space needs for each department · Prepare conceptual drawings outlining alternatives Police Facility - Programming · Determination of the current and future space needs through the year 2030 based upon the unique organizational and functional requirements presented by a law enforcement agency and the objectives of the Police Department · Review all existing studies and plans for the master planning of police services/facilities Inspect and assess the existing structure and facilities · Prepare massing studies and conceptual drawings for each of the selected sites Development of budget studies for each of the selected sites · Assist in the preparation of an Initial Environmental Study and documentation on the preferred site To date, Highland Partnership, Inc. has completed the tasks consistent with their scope of work. However, the revised direction requires that the Scope of Work be expanded. Where applicable, staff/Highland will re-use data in evaluating the new sites, however, evaluation of the new site alternatives will require additional work not included in the original scope. The revised scope of services will include, but not be limited to, the following major assignments: Initial Environmental Studies (IS) · Site/Floor Plan sketches · Graphics for site plans and massing studies Monochromatic Models · Schedule and Budget comparison studies · Two Major Architectural Elevations, (to establish the character of the Police facility), and a landscape color overlay will be prepared for one of the options. Highland Partnership, Inc. will develop specific facility criteria (within the design options listed above), which could be incorporated into any of the final sites. Financing Costs It is staff's intention to finance this project with the proceeds from the sale of bonds. Prior to the issuance of the bonds, the City will incur certain expenses which may be reimbursed from a portion of the proceeds of the sale. At this time, a location for the police facility has not been Item: Meeting Date: 12/5/00 selected and the consultants are still in the preliminary phases of the conceptual design of the new police facility and the renovations and improvements which will be required for the Civic Center expansion. As such, staff is estimating that the maximum actual project cost is expected not-to-exceed $80 million. The proposed not-to-exceed estimate will insure that staff retains maximum flexibility for reimbursement of all preliminary expenditures. Based on the information available to date, the total project cost is estimated not to exceed $170 million, which includes $90 million in interest and fees. Approximately 48.5% of this will be paid with DIF funds. FISCAL IMPACT: The original fixed fee to perform the services outlined in the original agreement is $547,646.00. Approval of this resolution would authorize an amendment to the existing agreement for an expanded scope or work in the amount of $128,469, resulting in a new contract total of $676,115. The funds will be appropriated from the unappropriated balance of the General Fund to the New Police Facility CIP-PS 149. Attachments: Attachment 1 - Resolution and Agreement Attachment 2 - Revised Agreement AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND HIGHLAND PARTNERSHIP, INC. FOR POLICE FACILITY AND CIVIC CENTER MASTER PLANNING This agreement ("Agreement")', dated ~~ Zm¢~ for the purposes of reference only, and effectiv~d ~s bf"the date last executed unless another date is otherwise specified in Exhibit A, Paragraph 1 is between the City-related entity as is indicated on Exhibit A, paragraph 2, as such ("City"), whose business form is set forth on Exhibit A, paragraph 3, and the entity indicated on the attached Exhibit A, paragraph 4, as Consultant, whose business form is set forth on Exhibit A, paragraph 5, and whose place of business and telephone numbers are set forth on Exhibit A, paragraph 6 ("Consultant"), and is made with reference to the following facts: RECITALS WHEREAS, City issued a Request for Qualifications ("RFQ") on April 17, 2000 for Construction Management/Constructor Services (~CMC"); and WHEREAS, City conducted interviews and on June 20, 2000 created the CMC Priority List; and WHEREAS, the guidelines established for the use of the CMC Priority List provide the City with the ability to award facility construction projects and facility master planning/programming projects from a list of. pre-qualified construction/ teams; and development/planning WHEREAS, City conducted additional interviews with three of the firms on the CMC Priority List for Police Facility/civic Center master planning; and WHEREAS, Consultant was unanimously selected by staff as the highest rated overall respondent to perform the desired master planning/programming of facilities; and WHEREAS, Consultant is motivated to perform satisfactorily as the City is authorized to award additional projects directly off the Priority List; and WHEREAS, the additional projects may include the construction of facilities called for in the master planning/programming documents Consultant will be preparing pursuant to this Agreement; and WHEREAS, Consultant warrants and represents that they are experienced and staffed in .a manner such that they are and can prepare and deliver the services required of Consultant to City within the time frames herein provided all in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement; (End of Recitals. Next Page starts obligatory Provisions.) Obligatory Provisions Pages NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED ,that the city and Consultant do hereby mutually agree as follows: 1. Consultant's Duties A. General Duties Consultant shall perform all of the services described on the attached Exhibit A, Paragraph 7, entitled "General Duties"; and, B. Scope of Work and Schedule In the process of performing and delivering said "General Duties", Consultant shall also perform all of the services described in Exhibit A, Paragraph 8, entitled" Scope of Work and Schedule", not inconsistent with the General Duties, according to, and within the time frames set forth in Exhibit A, Paragraph 8, and deliver to city such Deliverables as are identified in Exhibit A, Paragraph 8, within the time frames set forth therein, time being of the essence of this agreement. The General Duties and the work and deliverables required in the Scope of Work and Schedule shall be herein referred to as the "Defined Services". Failure to complete the Defined Services by the times indicated does not, except at the option of the City, operate to terminate this Agreement. C. Reductions in Scope of Work City may independently, or upon request from Consultant, from time to time reduce the Defined Services to be performed by the Consultant under this Agreement, Upon doing so, City and Consultant agree to meet in good faith and confer for the purpose of negotiating a corresponding reduction in the compensation associated with said reduction. D. Additional Services In addition to performing the Defined Services herein set forth, City may require Consultant to perform additional consulting services related to the Defined Services ("Additional Services"), and upon doing so in writing, if they are within the scope of services offered by Consultant, Consultant shall perform same on a time and materials basis at the rates set forth in the "Rate Schedule', in Exhibit A, Paragraph 11 (C), unless a separate fixed fee is otherwise agreed upon. All compensation for Additional Services shall be paid monthly as billed. 3 E. Standard of Care Consultant, in performing any Services under this agreement, whether Defined Services or Additional Services, shall perform in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the profession currently practicing under similar conditions and in similar locations. F. ' Insurance Consultant represents that it and its agents, staff and subconsultants employed, by it in connection with the Services required to be rendered, are protected against the risk of loss by the following insurance coverages, in the following categories, and to the limits specified, policies of which are issued by Insurance Companies that have a Best's Rating of "A, Class V" or better, or shall meet with the approval of the City: Statutory Worker's Compensation Insurance and Employer's Liability Insurance coverage in the amount set forth in the attached Exhibit A, Paragraph 9. Commercial General Liability Insurance including Business Automobile Insurance coverage in the amount set forth in Exhibit A, Paragraph 9, combined single limit applied separately to each project away from premises owned or rented by Consultant, which names City as an Additional Insured, and which is primary to any policy which the City may otherwise carry ("Primary Coverage,,), and which treats the employees of the City in the same manner as members of the general public ('Cross-liability Coverage"). Errors and Omissions insurance, in the amount set forth in Exhibit A, Paragraph 9, unless Errors and Omissions coverage is included in the General Liability policy. G. Proof of Insurance Coverage. (1) Certificates of Insurance. Consultant shall demonstrate proof of coverage herein required, prior to the commencement of services required under this Agreement, by delivery of Certificates of Insurance demonstrating same, and further indicating that the policies may not be canceled without at least thirty (30) days written notice to the Additional Insured. (2) Policy Endorsements Required. In order to demonstrate the Additional Insured Coverage, Primary Coverage and Cross-liability Coverage required under Consultant's Commercial General Liability Insurance Policy, Consultant shall deliver a policy endorsement to the City 4 demonstrating same, which shali be reviewed and approved by the Risk Manager.~ H. Security for Performance. (1) Performance Bond. In the event that Exhibit A, at Paragraph 19, indicates the need for Consultant to provide a Performance Bond (indicated by a check mark in the p~renthetical space immediately preceding the subparagraph entitled "Performance Bond"), then Consultant shall provide to the City a performance bond by a surety and in a form and amount satisfactory to the Risk Manager or City Attorney which amount is indicated in the space adjacent to the term, "Performance Bond", in said Paragraph 19, Exhibit A. (2) Letter of Credit. In the event that Exhibit A, at Paragraph 19, indicates the need for Consultant to provide a Letter of Credit (indicated by a check mark in the parenthetical space immediately preceding the subparagraph entitled "Letter of Credit"), then Consultant shall provide to the city an irrevocable letter of credit callable by the City at their unfettered discretion by submitting tc the bank a letter, signed by the City Manager, stating that the Consultant is in breach of the terms of this Agreement. The letter of credit shall be issued by a bank, and be in a form and amount satisfactory to the Risk Manager or City Attorney which amount is indicated in the space adjacent to the term, ,'Letter of Credit", in said Paragraph 19, Exhibit A. (3) Other Security In the event that Exhibit A, at Paragraph 19, indicates the need for Consultant to provide security other than a Performance Bond or a Letter of Credit (indicated by a check mark in the parenthetical space immediately preceding the subparagraph entitled "Other Security"), then Consultant shall provide to the City such other security therein listed in a form and amount satisfactory to the Risk Manager or City Attorney. I. Business License Consultant agrees to obtain a business license from the City and to otherwise comply with Title 5 of the Chula vista Municipal Code. 2. Duties of the City A. Consultation and Cooperation 7-9 city shall regularly consult the Consultant for the purpose of reviewing the progress of the Defined Services and Schedule therein contained, and to provide direction and guidance to achieve the objectives of this agreement. The City shall permit access to its office facilities, files and records by Consultant throughout the term of the agreement. In addition thereto, City agrees to provide the information, data, items and materials set forth on Exhibit A, Paragraph 10, and with the further understanding that delay in the provision of these materials beyond 30 days after authorization to proceed, shall constitute a basis for the justifiable delay in the Consultant's performance of this agreement. B. Compensation Upon receipt of a properly prepared billing from Consultant submitted to the City periodically as indicated in Exhibit A, Paragraph 18, but in no event more frequently than monthly, on the day of the period indicated in Exhibit A, Paragraph 18, City shall compensate Consultant for all services rendered by Consultant according to the terms and conditions set forth in Exhibit A, Paragraph 11, adjacent to the governing compensation relationship indicated by a ,,checkmark" next to the appropriate arrangement, subject to the requirements for retention set forth in paragraph 19 of Exhibit A, and shall compensate Consultant for out of pocket expenses as provided in Exhibit A, Paragraph 12. All billings submitted by Consultant shall contain sufficient information as to the propriety of the billing to permit the City to evaluate that the amount due and payable thereunder is proper, and shall specifically contain the city's account number indicated on Exhibit A, Paragraph 18 (C) to be charged upon making such payment. 3. Administration of Contract Each party designates the individuals ("Contract Administrators") indicated on Exhibit A, Paragraph 13, as said party's contract administrator who is authorized by said party to represent them in the routine administration of this agreement. 4. Term. This Agreement shall terminate when the Parties have complied with all executory provisions hereof. 5. Liquidated Damages The provisions of this section apply if a Liquidated Damages Rate is provided in Exhibit A, Paragraph 14. It is acknowledged by both parties that time is of the essence in the completion of this Agreement. It is difficult to estimate 6 '7-/0 the amount of damages resulting from delay in performance. The parties have used their judgment to arrive at a reasonable amount to compensate for delay. Failure to complete the Defined Services within the allotted time period specified in this Agreement shall result in the following penalty: For each consecutive calendar day in excess of the time specified for the completion of the respective work assignment or Deliverable, the consultant shall pay to the City, or have withheld from monies due, the sum of Liquidated Damages Rate provided in Exhibit A, Paragraph 14 (,'Liquidated Damages Rate"). Time extensions for delays beyond the consultant's control, other than delays caused by the City, shall be requested in writing to the City's Contract Administrator, or designee, prior to the expiration of the specified time. Extensions of time, when granted, will be based upon the effect of delays to the work and will not be granted for delays to minor portions of work unless it can be shown that such delays did or will delay the progress of the work. 6. Financial Interests of Consultant A. Consultant is Designated as an FPPC Filer. If Consultant is designated on Exhibit A, Paragraph 15, as an "FPPC filer", Consultant is deemed to be a "Consultant" for the purposes of the Political Reform Act conflict of interest and disclosure provisions, and shall report economic interests to the City Clerk on the required Statement of Economic Interests in such reporting categories as are specified in Paragraph 15 of Exhibit A, or if none are specified, then as determined by the City Attorney. B. Decline to Participate. Regardless of whether Consultant is designated as an FPPC Filer, Consultant shall not make, or participate in making or in any way attempt to use Consultant's position to influence a §overnmental decision in which Consultant knows or has reason to know Consultant has a financial interest other than the compensation promised by this Agreement. C. Search to Determine Economic Interests. Regardless of whether Consultant is designated as an FPPC Filer, Consultant warrants and represents that Consultant has diligently conducted a search and inventory of Consultant's economic interests, as the term is used in the regulations promulgated by the Fair Political Practices Commission, and has determined that Consultant does not, to the best of Consultant's knowledge, have an economic interest which would conflict with Consultant's duties under this agreement. 7 D. Promise Not to Acquire Conflicting Interests. Regardless of whether Consultant is designated as an FPPC Filer, Consultant further warrants and represents that Consultant will not acquire, obtain, or assume an economic interest during the term of this Agreement which would constitute a conflict of interest as prohibited by the Fair Political Practices Act. E. Duty to Advise of Conflicting Interests. Regardless of whether Consultant is designated as an FPPC Filer, Consultant further warrants and represents that Consultant will immediately advise the City Attorney of City if Consultant learns of an economic interest of Consultant's which may result in a conflict of interest for the purpose of the Fair Political Practices Act, and regulations promulgated thereunder. F. Specific Warranties Against Economic Interests. Consultant warrants and represents that neither Consultant, nor Consultant's immediate family members, nor Consultant's employees or agents (,,Consultant Associates") presently have any interest, directly or indirectly, whatsoever in any property which may be the subject matter of the Defined Services, or in any property within 2 radial miles from the exterior boundaries of any property which may be the subject matter of the Defined Services, ("Prohibited Interest"), other than as listed in Exhibit Paragraph 15. Consultant further warrants and represents that no promise of future employment, remuneration, consideration, gratuity or other reward or gain has been made to Consultant or Consultant Associates in connection with Consultant's performance of this Agreement. Consultant promises to advise city of any such promise that may be made during the Term of this Agreement, or for 12 months thereafter. Consultant agrees that Consultant Associates shall not acquire any such Prohibited Interest within the Term of this Agreement, or for 12 months after the expiration of this Agreement, except with the written permission of City. Consultant may not conduct or solicit any business for any party to this Agreement, or for any third party which may be in conflict with Consultant's responsibilities under this Agreement, except with the written permission of City. 7. Hold Harmless Consultant shall defend, indemnify, protect and hold harmless the City, its elected and appointed officers and employees, from and against all claims for damages, liability, cost and expense 8 (including without limitation attorneys' fees) arising out of the conduct of the Consultant, or any agent or employee, subcontractors, or others in connection with the execution of the work covered by this Agreement, except only for those claims arising from the sole negligence or sole willful misconduct of the City, its officers, or employees. Consultant's indemnification shall include any and all costs, expenses, attorneys' fees and liability incurred by the'City, its officers, agents, or employees in defending against such claims, whether the same proceed to judgment or not. Further, Consultant at its own expense shall, upon written request by'the City, defend any such suit or action brought against the City, its officers, agents, or employees. Consultants' indemnification of City shall not be limited by any prior or subsequent declaration by the Consultant. 8. Termination of Agreement for Cause If, through any cause, Consultant shall fail to fulfill in a timely and proper manner Consultant's obligations under this Agreement, or if Consultant shall violate any of the covenants, agreements or stipulations of this Agreement, City shall have the right to terminate this Agreement by giving written notice to Consultant of such termination and specifying the effective date thereof at least five (5) days before the effective date of such termination. In that event, all finished or unfinished documents, data, studies, surveys, drawings, maps, reports and other materials prepared by Consultant shall, at the option of the City, become the property of the City, and Consultant shall be entitled to receive just and equitable compensation for any work satisfactorily completed on such documents and other materials up to the effective date of Notice of Termination, not to exceed the amounts payable hereunder, and less any damages caused City by Consultant's breach. 9. Errors and Omissions In the event that the City Administrator determines that the Consultants' negligence, errors, or omissions in the performance of work under this Agreement has resulted in expense to City greater than would have resulted if there were no such negligence, errors, omissions, Consultant shall reimburse City for any additional expenses incurred by the city. Nothing herein is intended to limit city,s rights under other provisions of this agreement. 10. Termination of Agreement for Convenience of City City may terminate this Agreement at any time and for any reason, by giving specific written notice to Consultant of such termination and specifying the effective date thereof, at least thirty (30) days before the effective date of such termination. In that event, all finished and unfinished documents and other materials described hereinabove shall, at the option of the City, become City's sole and exclusive property. If the Agreement is 9 terminated by City as provided in this paragraph, Consultaht shall be entitled to receive just and equitable compensation for any satisfactory work completed on such documents and other materials to the effective date of such termination. Consultant hereby expressly waives any and all claims for damages or compensation arising under this Agreement except as set forth herein.. 11. Assignability The services of Consultant are personal to the City, and Consultant shall not assign any interest in this Agreement, and shall not transfer any interest in the same (whether by assignment or novation), without prior written consent of City. City hereby consents to the assignment of the portions of the Defined Services identified in Exhibit A, Paragraph 17 to the subconsultants identified thereat as "Permitted Subconsultants". 12. Ownership, Publication, Reproduction and Use of Material All reports, studies, information, data, statistics, forms, designs, plans, procedures, systems and any other materials or properties produced under this Agreement shall be the sole and exclusive property of City. No such materials or properties produced in whole or in part under this Agreement shall be subject to private use, copyrights or patent rights by Consultant in the United States or in any other country without the express written consent of City. city shall have unrestricted authority to publish, disclose (except as may be limited by the provisions of the Public Records Act), distribute, and otherwise use, copyright or patent, in whole or in part, any such reports, studies, data, statistics, forms or other materials or properties produced under this Agreement. 13. Independent Contractor City is interested only in the results obtained and Consultant shall perform as an independent contractor with sole control of the manner and means of performing the services required under this Agreement. City maintains the right only to reject or accept Consultant's work products. Consultant and any of the Consultant's agents, employees or representatives are, for all purposes under this Agreement, an independent contractor and shall not be deemed to be an employee of City, and none of them shall be entitled to any benefits to which City employees are entitled including but not limited to, overtime, retirement benefits, worker's compensation benefits, injury leave or other leave benefits. Therefore, City will not withhold state or federal income tax, social security tax or any other payroll tax, and Consultant shall be solely responsible for the payment of same and shall hold the City harmless with regard thereto. 10 14. Administrative Claims Requirements and Procedures No suit or arbitration shall be brought arising out of this agreement, against the City unless a claim has first been presented in writing and filed with the City and acted upon by the City in accordance with the procedures set forth in Chapter 1.34 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, as same may from time to time be amended, the provisions of which are incorporated by this reference as if fully set forth herein, and such policies and procedures used by the City in the implementation of same. Upon request by city, Consultant shall meet and confer in good faith with City for the purpose of resolving any dispute over the terms of this Agreement. 15. Attorney's Fees Should a dispute arising out of this Agreement result in litigation, it is agreed that the prevailing party shall be entitled to a judgment against the other for an amount equal to reasonable attorney's fees and court costs incurred. The "prevailing party" shall be deemed to be the party who is awarded substantially the relief sought. 16. Statement of Costs In the event that Consultant prepares a report or document, or participates in the preparation of a report or document in performing the Defined Services, Consultant shall include, or cause the inclusion of, in said report or document, a statement of the numbers and cost in dollar amounts of all~ contracts and subcontracts relating to the preparation of the report or document~ 17. Miscellaneous A. Consultant not authorized to Represent city Unless specifically authorized in writing by City, Consultant shall have no authority to act as City's agent to bind City to any contractual agreements whatsoever. B. Consultant is Real Estate Broker and/or Salesman If the box on Exhibit A, Paragraph 16 is marked, the Consultant and/or their principals is/are licensed with the State of California or some other state as a licensed real estate broker or salesperson. Otherwise, Consultant represents that neither Consultant, nor their principals are licensed real estate brokers or salespersons. C. Notices Ail notices, demands or requests provided for or permitted to be given pursuant to this Agreement must be in writing. All notices, demands and requests to be sent to any party shall be deemed to have been properly given or served if personally served or deposited in the United States mail, addressed to such party, postage prepaid, registered or certified, with return receipt requested, at the addresses identified herein as the places of business for each of the designated parties. D. Entire Agreement This Agreement, together with any other written document referred to or contemplated herein, embody the entire Agreement and understanding between the parties relating to the subject matter hereof. Neither this Agreement nor any provision hereof may be amended, modified, waived or discharged except by an instrument in writing executed by the party against which enforcement of such amendment, waiver or discharge is sought. E. Capacity of Parties Each signatory and party hereto hereby warrants and represents to the other party that it has legal authority and capacity and direction from its principal to enter into this Agreement, and that all resolutions or other actions have been taken so as to enable it to enter into this Agreement. F. Governing Law/Venue This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California. Any action arising under or relating to this Agreement shall be brought only in the federal or state courts located in San Diego County, State of California, and if applicable, the City of Chula Vista, or as close thereto as possible. Venue for this Agreement, and performance hereunder, shall be the city of Chula Vista. [end of page. next page is signature page.] 12 SIGNATURE PAGE TO AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND HIGHLAND PARTNERSHIP, INC. FOR POLICE FACILITY AND CIVIC CENTER MASTER PLANNING IN WITNESS WHEREOF, City and Consultant have executed this Agreement thereby indicating that they have read and understood same, and indicate their full and complete consent to its terms: Dated: ~- /- 2000 City of Chula Vista By: ~ Shirley ~orton, Mayor Attest: Approved as to form: Dated: }tlGHLAND PARTNERSHIP, INC. By: ~..DaY. id Gardner, Sr. %JPrinclpal Exhibit List to Agreement (x) Exhibit A. 13 Exhibit A to Agreement between City of Chula Vista and Highland Partnership, Inc. 1. Effective Date of Agreement: August 1, 2000 2. city-Related Entityi. (X) City of Chula Vista, a municipal chartered corporation of the State of California Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chul~ Vista, a political subdivision of the State of California ) Industrial Development Authority of the City of Chula vista, a ) Other: , a [insert business form] ( "city" ) 3. Place of Business for City: City of Chula Vista, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91910 4. Consultant: J. David Gardner, Sr. Ian Gill 5. Business Form of Consultant: ( ) Sole Proprietorship ( ) Partnership (X) Corporation 6. Place of Business, Telephone and Fax Number of Consultant: Highland Partnership, Inc. 285 Bay Blvd. Chula Vista, CA 91910 Voice Phone (619) 498-2900 Fax Phone (619) 498-2970 7. General Duties: Consultant shall develop a facility master plan for the Civic Center Campus and ancillary facilities with the goal of addressing the short, mid and long-term space planning needs of the City and the siting and programminG of a new police facility. The Civic Center Campus and ancillary facilities include the Mercy Building, City Hall, Public Services Building, E1 Dorado Building, Legislative Services Building, Community Development Building, the existing Public Works Corporation Yard, Police Headquarters, Friendship Park and additional sites as may be purchased or identified by City ("Civic Center"). Consultant's duties on the Police Facility shall include site evaluation, conceptual planning, phasing, and budget development. Upon conclusion of duties, Consultant shall provide master implementation plans for the Civic Center in accordance with industry standards and the Police Facility. These documents shall contain sufficient information and detail to allow the City at its discretion to bid the design and construction of the facilities called for in each plan under either a Design/Construction Manager or Design-Build project delivery system. 8. Scope of Work and Schedule: A. Detailed Scop~ of Work: Attached as Attachment 1 incorporated herein B. Date for Commencement of Consultant Services: (X) Same as Effective Date of AGreement ( ) Other: C. Date for completion of all Consultant services: December 31, 2000 or acceptance of all work product by City, whichever occurs last 9. Insurance Requirements: (X) Statutory Worker's Compensation Insurance ( ) Employer's Liability Insurance coverage: $1,000,000. (X) Commercial General Liability Insurance: $1,000,000. ( ) Errors and Omissions insurance: None Required (included in Commercial General Liability coverage). (X) Errors and Omissions Insurance: $250,000 (not included in Commercial General Liability coverage). 15 10. Materials Required to be Supplied by City to Consultant: All documents referenced in Attachment 1 which City has possession of. 11. Compensation: A. (X) Single Fixed Fee Arrangement. For performance.of all of the Defined Services by Consultant as herein required, City shall pay a single fixed fee in the amounts and at the times or milestones or for the Deliverables set forth in Attachment 2: Single Fixed Fee Amount: $547,646, payable as follows: Milestone or Event or Deliverable Amount or Percent of Fixed Fee (X) 1. Interim Monthly Advances. The City shall make interim monthly advances against the compensation due for each phase on a percentage of completion basis for each given phase such that, at the end of each phase only the compensation for that phase has been paid. Any payments made hereunder shall be considered as interest free loans which must be returned to the City if the Phase is not satisfactorily completed. If the Phase is satisfactorily completed, the City shall receive credit against the compensation due for that phase. The retention amount or percentage set forth in Paragraph 19 is to be applied to each interim payment such that, at the end of the phase, the full retention has been held back from the compensatio~ due for that phase. Percentage of completion of a phase shall be assessed in the sole and unfettered discretion by the Contracts Administrator designated herein by the City, or such other person as the City Manager shall designate, but only upon such proof demanded by the City that has been provided, but in no event shall such interim advance payment be made unless the Contractor shall have represented in writing that said percentage of completion of the phase has been performed by the Contractor. The practice of making interim monthly advances shall not convert this agreement to a time and materials basis of payment. 16 B. ( ) Phased Fixed Fee Arrangement. For the performance of each phase or portion of the Defined Services by Consultant as are separately identified below, City shall pay the fixed fee associated with each pha~ of.Services, in the amounts and at the times or milestones or Deliverables set forth. Consultant shall not commence Services under any Phase, and shall not be entitled to the compensation for a Phase, unless city shall have issued a notice to proceed t~ Consultant as to said Phase. Phase Fee for Said Phase 2. $ 3. $ ) 1. Interim Monthly Advances. The City shall make interim monthly advances against the compensation due for each phase on a percentage of completion basis for each given phase such-'that, aG the end of each phase only the compensation for~that phase has been paid. Any payments made hereunder shall be considered as interest free loans which must be returned to the City if the Phase is not satisfactorily completed, t~ the Phase is satisfactorily completed, the city sh~l% receive_ credit against the compensation 'due for that phase. The retention amount o~ percentage set forth in Paragraph 19 is to be applied to each interim payment such that, at ~h~' end of the phase, the full retention has been held back from the compensation due for that phase. Percentage of completion of a phase shall be assessed in the sole and unfettered discretion ~y~ the Contracts Administrator designated herein b~he. City, or such other person as the city ~h~ger ~hall. designate, but only upon such proof de~nded ~y the city that has been provided, but in no event shall such interim advance payment be made unless the Contractor shall have represent~ _in writin9 that said percentage of completiOn of the phase has been performed by the Contractor. T~e practice of makln~ interim monthly advances shall not convert this agreement to a time and materials basis of payment. C. ( ) Hourly Rate Arrangement For performance of the Defined Services by Consultant as herein required, City shall pay Consultant for the productive hours of time spent by Consultant in the performance of said Services, at the rates or amounts set forth in the Rate Schedule hereinbelow according to the following terms and conditions: (1) ( ) Not-to-Exceed Limitation on Time and Materials Arrangement Notwithstanding the expenditure by Consultant of time and materials in excess of said Maximum Compensation amount, Consultant agrees that Consultant will perform all of the Defined Services herein required of Consultant for $ including all Materials, and other ',reimbursables,, ("Maximum Compensation"). (2) ( ) Limitation without Further Authorization on Time and Materials Arrangement At such time as Consultant shall have incurred time and materials equal to ("Authorization ' i" , Llm t ) Consultant shall not be entitled to any additional compensation without further authorization issued in writin~ and approved by the City. Nothing herein shall preclude Consultant from providing additional Services at Consultant's own cost and expense. Rate Schedule Category of Employee Hourly of Consultant Name Rate ) Hourly rates may increase by 6% for services rendered after [month], 19 ,, if delay in providing services is caused by City. 12. Materials Reimbursement Arrangement 18 For the cost of out of pocke~ expenses incurred by Consultant in the performance of services herein required, City shall pay Consultant at the rates or amounts set forth below: (X) None, the compensation includes all costs. Cost or Rate Reports, not to exceed $ : Copies, not to exceed $ : Travel, not to exceed $ : . Printing, not ko exceed $ : Postage, not to exceed $ : Delivery, not to exceed $ : Long Distance Telephone Charges, not to exceed $ Other Actual Identifiable Direct Costs: not to exceed $ : not to exceed $ : 13 Contract Administrators: City: Sid Morris Assistant City Manager city of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 (619) 691-5031 Consultant: J. David Gardner Principal Highland Partnership, Inc. 285 Bay Blvd. Chula Vista, CA 91910 (619).498-2900 14 Liquidated Damages Rate: N/A ( ) $__ per day. ( ) O~her: 15 Statement of Economic Interests, Consultant Reporting ~Categories, per Conflict of Interest Code: (X) Not Applicable. Not an FPPC Filer. ( ) FPPC Filer ( ) category No. 1. Investments and sources of income. ( ) Category No. 2. Interests in real property. 19 property and sources o~ income subject to the regulatory, permit or licensing authority of the department. Category No. 4. Investments in business entities and sources of income which engage in land development,-construction or the acquisition or sale of real property. Category No. 5. Investments in business entities and sources of income of the type which, within the past two years, have contracted with the City of Chula Vista (Redevelopment Agency) to provide services, supplies, materials, machinery or equipment. Category No. 6. Investments in business entities and sources of income of the type which, within the past two years, have contracted with the designated employee's department to provide services, supplies, materials, machinery or equipment. Category No. 7. Business positions. ( X List "Consultant Associates" interests in real property within 2 radial miles of Project Property, if any: 285 Bay Blvd., Chula vista, CA 91910 16. ( ) Consultant is Real Estate Broker and/or Salesman 17. Permitted Subconsultants RNL Designs Carrier Johnson KMA Architects Manuel Oncina McClaren Wilson and Lawrie Wallace, Roberts and Todd Parterre MNA Consulting Project Design Consultants 18. Bill Processing: A. Consultant's Billing to be submitted for the following period of time: (X) Monthly ( ) Quarterly ATTACHMENT DETAILED SCOPE OF WORK 1. POLICE HEADQUARTERS NEEDS ANALYSIS / PROGRAMMING Consultants work on the Space Needs Study will be divided into three steps: Data Gathering, Data Synthesis, and Documentation and Presentation. All data collected or conveyed during the Space Needs Study shall be communicated to the City through the Contract Administrator. Step 1: Data Gatherin.q: (30 days) During data gathering Consultant will seek to obtain applicable data (from written reports and staff interviews) for analysis during the Data Synthesis step. Tasks 1.1 Consultantshall review existing information provided by the City, including but not limited to the Police Facility Master Plan dated July 1998 and any revisions to that plan, previous studies and reports, existing drawings, annual reports, demographic statistics, Calls-For-Service, crime trends, and other pertinent information.~ 1.2 Consultant shall create and distribute questionnaires for City staff to complete prior to the beginning of on-site interviews. The intent is that these questionnaires will stimulate staffs' thoughts about a new facility (prior to Consultant conducting interviews). Consultant shall prepare and provide to City staff a summary of questionnaire responses. 1.3 Consultant shall begin the on-site interviews with a kick-off meeting. This meeting will have the primary objectives of clarifying lines of communication and decision making, establishing the project schedule, and indentifying the individuals who will be participating in the process. At this meeting, Consultant shall propose a comprehensive set of Space Standards to be used throughout the Study. The Space Standards proposed by Consultant shall be based upon and consistent with or compatible with the existing City Space Standards. Consultant shall also identify key issues to be addressed during the interview process. 1.4 Consultant shall conduct interviews with City as representatives and staff directed by the Contract Administrator. Interviews of approximately 1-2 hours will be held with each of the key people identified by Contract Administrator. 1.5 As part of the interviews, Consultant shall discuss and address the City's current operations and identify areas of particular concern to or needs of staff. These areas shall include, but are not limited to an assessment of feasibility of including the following items at or near the new facility: detention cells, a 10 position indoor firing range, car wash, fuel pump stations and sufficient space to allow the leasing of space to Outside agencies and/or future growth. 1.6 Consultant shall tour existing facility as needed to understand operations, needs, concerns and constraints to be addressed in the next facility. 1.7 Consultant shall develop space needs program for the Police Department which will program the !cng term needs of the Department. The space needs program shall address the needs of the department over the next 50 years. The space needs program will address current and projected staff and support space needs, conferencing needs, public access and visitor requirements, parking requirements, departmental relationships, and building and site planning issues. Deliverables · Kickoff meeting · Questionnaires submitted for City Approval · Questionnaires circulated to City staff · Questionnaires reviewed and summarized · Interviews conducted with designated City personnel Step 2: Data Synthesis: (30 Days) During Data Synthesis Consultant will utilize the data assembled during Data Gathering to prepare an initial set of spread sheets to itemize space and site needs. Tasks 1.8 Consultant shall assemble a series of itemized space and site spread sheets. 1.9 Upon completion of the initial spread sheets, Consultant shall conduct a series of follow-up staff interviews and meetings to review, confirm, and refine this data to the satisfaction of the Contract Administrator. 1.10 Consultant shall submira growth factor to the Contract Administrator for approval and incorporation into the spread sheets. 1.11 Consultant shall work with City Purchasing Agent to develop workstation standards for implementation that shall be consistent with or compatible with those standards adopted and utilized at other City facilities. Consultant shall review the standards with the Contract Administrator for final approval. 2 1.12 Consultant shall, if requested by City, prepare materials for and participate in up to three (3) Public Forums to solicit input from citizens in the Needs Analysis/Programming process of the Police Facility. 1.13 Consultant shall conduct rbview sessions with City. staff to present and seek approval of the space needs program for each department. 1.14 Consultant shall i~egin written documentation for "key" sections of the space needs study. This includes space and site design guidelines and security guidelines. Deliverables · Space and Site needs spreadsheet. · Draft of "Key" Sections · Staff Interviews Step 3:Docu~30 Days) During this step Consultant shall prepare the written documentation of the Space Needs Study resulting in both a draft and final document. Consultant shall develop a (non-site specific) project budget. Tasks 1.15 Consultant shall prepare and submit for review a draft space needs document. At this time it is contem 31ated that this draft document will include the following sections: Preface Goals and Methodology Site Guidelines Designer Guidelines Trends and Influences Adjacency Diagrams Illustrated Space Standards Square Footage Projections 1.16 Consultant shall meet with City to review comments to the draft document. After comments on the draft document have been received from the City, Consultant shall make necessary corrections, add an Executive Summary, _ and prepare the final Space Needs Study. 3 7-g7 1.17 Consultant and Subconsultants shall be available to participate in public meetings as requested by the Contract Administrator which shall include, but are not limited to, Public Forums, the Resource Conservation Committee, Design Review Committee, Planning Commission, and City Council. Deliverables · Consultant shall submit the draft Space Needs Study. · Consultant shall submit the final Space Needs Study. 2. DEVELOPMENT OF A COMPREHENSIVE SITE LOCATION ANALYSIS TO DETERMINE THE APPROPRIATE AREA AND SITE FOR POLICE HEADQUARTERS. (90 DAYS) City Study (30 DAYS) Tasks 2.1 Consultant shall evaluate whether the existing Police Headquarters could remain in its current location and meet the needs of the City. 2.2 Consultant shall evaluate each region of the City, (North, South, East and West) and advise the City as to the best area for the City to locate Police Headquarters. Included in this study shall be an analysis of the impacts on the Downtown/3rd Avenue corridor if the Police Headquarters is moved from that general area. Specific Site Studies (90 DAYS) Tasks 2.3 Consultant shall coordinate with the City in the development of a comprehensive list of criteria to be utilized for the final site selection. 2.4 Consultant shall identify at least four sites within the selected region for further study. 2.5 Consultant shall meet with City to arrive at a consensus of four sites (Selected Potential Sites) to be studied in detail. 2.6 Consultant shall prepare site sketches for the Selected Potential Sites illustrating possible building "footprint" locations coupled with necessary staff and public parking requirements. This will define the extent of structured parking for each site. 2.7 Consultant shall prepare graphics for site plans and massing studies for each of the Selected Potential Sites. These massing studies will be used to see how the bulk of the proposed building will be accommodated on each site. 2.8 Consultant shall prepare budget studies for each of the Selected Potential Sites. 2.9 Consultant shall present site and massing deliverables for each of the Selected Potential Sites to City staff and at additional meetings as requested by Contract Administrator. 2.10 Consultant, in concer[ with City staff, shall determine a Final Selected Site to be recommended to City · 2.11 Consultant shall work with City Staff to prepare an Initial _ Environmental Study and appropriate documentation and attend all necessary public hearings. Consultant shall prepare updates of any underlying studies necessary to analyze the environmental issues. Consultant shall prepare and submit application and pay filing fees. 2.12 Consultant shall conduct up to 3 Public Forums on site selection issues as requested by Contract Administrator. Deliverables o Regional Study Comprehensive list of criteria for final site selection o Selected Potential Sites Meeting with City ·Site sketches for the Selected Potential Sites Massing studies for each of the Selected Potential Sites · Initial Environmental Study · Budget studies for each of the Selected Potential Sites ·Graphics for site plans and massing studies for each of the Selected Potential Sites · Meetings with City to review Selected Potential Sites · Final Selected Site recommendation to City 3, CONCEPTUAL DESIGN FOR POLICE HEADQUARTERS (83 Days) Tasks ? 3.1 Consultant shall conduct design "charrettes" (Workshops) with CITY staff to compare up to three sample Sketched Floor Plan Options 3.2 Consultant, in concert with City staff will determine a Final Floor Plan 3.3 Based on information derived from meetings with City staff, Consultant shall refine the Final Floor Plan and prepare CADD drafting. 3.4 Consultant shall prepare two major exterior architectural elevations of the Final Floor Plan 3.5 Consultant shall provide City with all documents necessary to proceed with a Design/Construction Manager or Design/Build project delivery system for the proposed Police Facility. Deliverables for the Final Selected Site: · Floor Plans · Site/Roof Plan · Two MajorAmhitectural Elevations · Architectural Building Sections - Longitudinal and Latitudinal · 3 Vignettes - Hand Drawn "Architectural Illustrations" Architectural Landscape Overlay (Colored) · Monochromatic Model · Mechanical / Electrical / Plumbing Single Line Drawings · Architectural Illustration / Rendering · Site and Project Specific Development Cost Off-site and on-site improvements Facility Cost - Hard and Soft (Incl. Value Engineering) FF&E Relocation Management Plan Discretionary and Ministerial Permits Development Impact and Permit Fees Site and Project Specific Development Master Schedule Completion December 2002 Separate Funding/Disbursement Schedule Include Negative Declaration / Environmental Plan / CEQA · Construction Management Plan Implementation Plan for Design and Construction 4, CIVIC CENTER RENOVATION AND EXPANSION (100 D.AYS) Consultant shall work close!y with City staff to evaluate the existing status and conditions and develop a Facility Master Plan for the Civic Center Campus and ancillary facilities. This Master Plan for renovation and expansion of the Civic Center will address short and long term space needs and create a phasing and implementation plan including schematic design for the initial phase of improvements. These initial improvements and long term master plan are intended to coordinate with the surrounding community. Objectives · To develop a Facility Master Plan for the Civic Center which will address the short term and long-term space needs of the City's administrative departments. · To develop space plans, concept and schematic designs of Civic Center improvements for the short term needs of the City's administrative departments. · To develop an implementation and phasing plan for the Master Plan. · To develop a project budget and schedule for the Master Plan. · To provide City with all documents necessary to proceed with a Design/Construction Manager or Design/Build project delivery ;ystem for - the expansion of the Civic Center. Needs AssessmentJProqram for Civic Center Tasks 4.1 Consultant shall review existing information provided by the City of Chula Vista, including the 1989 Master Plan and 1997 Update, previous studies and reports, existing drawings and as-built information for each building, site information, lease information, and other pertinent information. 4.2 Consultant shall conduct a kick-off meeting with the City staff. This meeting will have the primary objectives of clarifying lines of communication and decision making, establishing the project schedule, and identifying the individuals who will be participating in the process. 4.3 Consultant shall develop questionnaires to be completed by each department included in the Civic Center Master Plan. Questionnaires shall be distributed prior to the interview process. Consultant shall prepare and provide to City staff a summary of questionnaire responses. 4.4 Consultant shall inventory existing space utilization for each department included in the Civic Center Master Plan. Inventory will include current occupancy by department including staff and support space. Gross square footage and net useable square footage wilt be calculated for all key buildings. 4.5 Consultant shall create a base map indicating the current locations of all key facilities (and departments) to be included in the study. 4.6 Consultant shall c0nd~ct 1-2 hour individual'interviews with department heads and other key staff as identified by Contract Administrator to determine current and projected staff and support space needs. Included in this interview .... will be a discussion of workstation standards and space requirements by job function. Consultant shall propose Space Standards which are consistent with or compatible with existing City Space Standards. Interviews will focus on the short and long terms needs of each group/department. 4.7 Consultant shall conduct walk-through tours of existing spaces with each department and inventory support space needs. 4.8 Consultant shall work with City Purchasing Agent to develop workstation standards for implementation at all City facilities. Review work station and Space Standards with the Contract Administrator for final approval. 4.9 Consultant shall develop space needs program for each department included in the Civic Center Master Plan which will include short and long term needs. The space needs program will address current and projected staff and support space needs, conferencing needs, public access and visitor requirements, parking requirements, affinity relationships, and similar building and site planning issues. 4.10 Consultant shall conduct review session with City Staff to present and approve the space needs program for each department. 4.11 Consultant shall develop final facility program document and make presentations as requested by Contract Administrator. These presentations may include the Resource Conservation Committee, the Design Review Committee, Planning Commission and City Council. Deliverables Kickoff Meeting Programming questionnaires submitted to City for approval · Programming questionnaires circulated to staff · Programming questionaires reviewed and summary prepared for staff. · Base facility, department, and site location map. · Workstation Standards. · Draft Facility Needs AssessmentJProgram. · Final Facility Needs Assessment/Program · Presentation Graphics Facility Assessment Tasks 4.12 Consultant shall conduct a preliminary facility assessment of,the Civic Center buildings to determine the ability of the existing buildings to satisfy the short and long-term needs of the City. Existing civil, structural, mechanical and electrical systems will not be analyzed in detail until the final design phase for each expansion/improVement project. 4.13 Consultant shall conduct a preliminary code and environmental assessment of the existing buildings. 4.14 Consultant shall create CADD background drawings of buildings within the ~ Civic Center. Deliverables o Facility assessment report. · Background CADD drawings of all buildings. Short Term Facility Needs Planninq Tasks 4.15 The short-term needs of various City departments will be addressed through space plans and concept building plans. Based on the space needs detailed in the Final Facility Program, facility inventory and assessments, space plans of various departments will be developed to address the immediate space needs at the Civic Center. Alternative layouts utilizing the workstation standards will be developed for presentation to the City. 4.16 Based on the City comments, Consultant shall develop for each department final space plans/building concept plans, including staff and support space needs. 4.17 Consultant shall develop conceptual building elevations, sections and outline specifications. In addition, a massing model will be prepared for the proposed building expansions. 4.18 Consultant shall develop for the short term plan a phasing and implementation plan, project schedule and budget. The project schedule shall include but not be limited to Completion by Phase, Separate Funding/Disbursement Schedule, and appropriate environmental review. The project budget shall include but not be limited to Off-site and on-site improvements, Facility Cost - Hard and Soft (Incl. Value Engineering), FF&E, Relocation Management Plan, Discretionary and Ministerial Permits, and Development Impact and Agency Fees. Deliverables · Short Term Space Plans/Concept Building Plans · Conceptual Elevations, Sections, Outline Specifications, Massing Model · Phasing/Implementation Plan · Project Schedule/Budget _Long Term Facility Needs Planning Tasks 4.19 Based on the space needs detailed in the Final Facility Program, Consultant shall develop facility inventory and assessments and alternative planning concepts to address the long term space needs of the Civic Center. Multiple concepts (3-4) will be developed for presentation to the City. 4.20 The alternatives shall focus on the facility assets and opportunities of the current Civic Center site and other City properties, as well as the surrounding area, as defined by the City. 4.21 Each master plan alternative shall address the phasing and implementation strategy necessary to accomplish the proposed plan. 4.22 The alternative master plan concepts shall be reviewed with the City. The alternatives shall be refined until the City has approved a final master plan approach. 4.23 Consultant shall document the preferred master plan alternative through site plan(s), building concept plans, landscape concept plan, concept building elevations and sections, renderings, and massing model. 4.24 Consultant shall develop for the long-term plan a phasing and implementation plan, project schedule and budget. The project schedule shall include but not be limited to completion by phase, separate funding/disbursement schedule, and appropriate environmental review. The project budget shall include but not be limited to off-site and on-site improvements, facility cost - Hard and l0 Soft (Incl. Value Engineering), furniture, fixtures and equipment, relocation management plan, discretionary and ministerial permits, and development Impact and Agency Fees. Deliverables · Preliminary master plan alternatives. · Final Civic Center Master Plan. · Executive summary description of the Master Plan. · Site Plan(s), Conceptual Building Plans, Conceptual Building Elevations/Sections, Conceptual Landscape Plan, Massing Model · Phasing/Implementation Plan · Project Schedule/Budget Project Specific Development Budget · Project Specific Development Master Schedule ° Construction Management Plan Environmental Analysis Tasks 4.25 Prior to completion of the Civic Center Master Plan Consultant shall work with City Staff to prepare any appropriate environmental documentation 4.26 Prepare updates of any underlying studies necessary to analyze the environmental issues associated with the proposed sites. 4.27 Prepare and submit process application documentation and pay filing fees 5. PERIODIC REPORTING/GENERAL PROVISIONS Consultant shall work closely with City Staff to define and establish an appropriate Management Information System (MIS) to provide communication and timely reporting for the project. Tasks _ 5.1 Consultant shall meet with City to determine reporting needs 5.2 Consultant shall prepare a detailed Work Plan consistent with the project proposal submitted by Consultant and this Agreement which shall contain deadlines for those deliverables identified within this Agreement. This Work Plan upon approval by staff shall be incorporated into this Agreement and shall be binding upon Consultant. 5.3 Consultant shall establish appropriate software, formats and schedules 5.4 Consultant shall implement Reporting System acceptable to City which provides City with readily accessible information on the progress of this project. 5.5 Numerous tasks within this Agreement require Consultant to meet with the City. Consultant agrees that Consultant shall meet with City as many times as reasonably requested by City without requesting a modification to the agreed upon compensation. Deliverables · Periodic reports to City Staff and others as directed by Contract Administrator. This may include reports or presentations to the Resource Conservation Committee, Design Review Committee, Planning Commission and City Council. · Creation of Report System '] ATTACHMENT 2 ~ City of Chula Vista Police Headquarters and Civic Center PRE-DESIGN (PROGRAMMING) PHASE FIXED FEE - Earned as Listed Deliverables are Completed Highland Partnership, Inc. July 26, 2000 I DESCRIPTION UNIT COST SUBTOTALS I 1. POLICE HEADQUARTERS NEEDS ANALYSIS ! PROGRAMMING Develop Space Needs Study Step 1 Data Gathering (30 Days) 14,990 Step 2 Data Synthesis (30 Days) 25,160 Step 3 Documentation (30 Days) 17,760 Subtotal 57,910 2. DEVELOPMENT OF A COMPREHENSIVE SITE LOCATION ANALYSIS TO DETERMINE THE APPROPRIATE AREA AND SITE FOR POLICE HEADQUARTERS. City Study (30 Days) Review Regional Areas $17,500 Comprehensive list of criteria for final site selection 6,200 Selected Potential Sites Meeting with CITY 3,700 _ Subtotal $27,4 Specific Site Studies (60 Days) Site sketches for the Selected Potential Sites 38,461 Graphics for site plans and Massing studies for each of the Selected Potential Sites 15,443 Initial Environmental Study 43,310 Budget studies for each of the Selected Potential Sites 9,600 Meetings with CITY to review Selected Potential Sites 2,400 Final Selected Site recommendation to CITY 4,800 Subtotal 114,014 3. CONCEPTUAL DESIGN FOR POLICE HEADQUARTERS (83 Days) Floor Plans 47,912 Site/Root Plan 44,394 Two Major Architectural Elevations 26,894 Architectural Building Sections - Longitedinal and Latitudinal 9,831 Three Vignettes - Hand Drawn "Architectural Illustrations" 8,400 Architectural Landscape Color Overlay 8,100 Monochromatic Model 9,231 Mech/Elec/Plumbing Single Line Drawings 9,900 Outline Specifications 11,500 Amhitectural Illustration / Rendering 5,000 Site and Project Specific Development Cost 9,600 Project Specific Master Schedule 2,880 Construction Management and Implementation Plan 2,880 Subtotal 198,52 Highland Padnemhip, Inc. Page 1 of 2 City of Chula Vista Police Headquarters and Civic Center PRE-DESIGN (PROGRAMMING) PHASE FIXED FEE ~ Earned as Listed Deliverables are Completed Highland Partnership, Inc. July 26, 2000 DESCRIPTION UNIT COST SUBTOTALS 4. CIVIC CENTER RENOVATION AND EXPANSION (100 DAYS) Needs Assessment Kickoff Meeting 1,250 Programming questionnaires submitted to City for approval 750 Programming questionaires cimulated to staff 960 Programming questionaires reviewed and summary prepared for staff. 960 Base facility, department, and site location map. 3,600 Workstation Standards. 3,380 Draft Facility Needs Assessment/Program. 4,800 Final Facility Needs Assessment/Program 6,000 Presentation Graphics 2,500 Subtotal 24,200 Facility Assessment Facility Assessment Report 1,500 Background CADD drawings of all buildings 3,500 Subtotal 5,000 Short Term Facility Needs Planning Short Term Space Plans/Concept Building Plans 17,500 Conceptual Elevations, Sections, Outline Specifications, Massing Model 29,800 Phasing/implementation Plan 7,500 Project Schedule/Budget 9,600 Subtotal 64,400 Long Term Facility Needs Planning Preliminary master plan alternatives. 11,800 Final Civic Center Master Plan. 4,500 Executive summary description of the Master Plan. 1,200 Site Plan(s), Conceptual Building Plans, Conceptual Building Elevations/Sections, Conceptual Landscape Plan, Massing Model 13,500 Project Specific Development Budget 4,800 Project Specific Master Schedule 4,800 Construction Management and Implementation Plan 4,800 Subtotal 45,400 5. Periodic Reporting Periodic reports to City Staff and others as directed by Contract Administrator. 10,800 Subtotal 10,800 I TOTAL FIXED FEE $547,6461 Highland Partnership, Inc. Page ~) of 2 RESOLUTION NO. 2000-275 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING AN AGREElV~NT WITH HIGHLAND PARTNERSHIP, INC. FOR THE PROVISION OF CONSULTANT SERVICES FOR THE PROGRAMMING AND PREPARATION OF THE MASTER PLAN FOR THE NEW POLICE DEPARTMENT BUILDING AND EXPANSION OF THE CIVIC CENTer/- COMPLEX, AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR WHEREAS, on July 18, 2000, the City Council appwved its first contract using a new construction managgment tool-Construction Manager/Constructor (CMC); and WHEREAS, HIghland Partnership, Inc. was selected fi.om the CMC list to provide construction management services for the $25 M City Corporation Yard project; and WHEREAS, the second project using the CMC list is now being awarded and three teams with the background necessary to be considered for an interview for thc planning and programming cfa new Police facility and the Civic Center expansion were considered for an interview (Highland Partnership, Inc., Douglas E. Bamhert and Turner Construction Co.); and WHEREAS, Highland Partnership, Inc. was selected unanimously as the highest overall rated respondent; and WHEREAS, City Council has previously appropriated $237,000 from the Civic Center Development Impact Fee fund to cover costs for this project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby approve an agreement with Highland Partnership, Inc. for the provision of Consultant Services in the Progxamming and Preparation of a Master Plan for the New Police Department Building and Expansion of the Civic Center Complex, in substantially the form presented with such minor modifications as may be required or approved by the City Attorney, a copy of which shall be kept on file in the office of the City Clerk. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor of the City of Chula Vista is hereby authorized to execute said agreement on behalf of the City of Chula Vista. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the amount of $366,000.00 is hereby appropriated from the Civic Center Development Impact Fee fund to the Civic Center Expansion ClIP Project (GG139). Presented by Approved as to form by Jo~ P. Lippitt '' Jo. ht~.2fl. Kaheny ~ Ptlblic Works Director ~j~ Attorney Resolution 2000-275 Page 2 PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista, California, this 1~ day of August, 2000, by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers: Davis, Moot, Padilla, Salas, and Herren NAYS: Coancilmembers: None ABSENT: Councilmembers: None Shirley Horton,/Mayor ATTEST: Susan Bigelow, City Clerk"" STATE OF'CALIFORNIA ) -- COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO ) CITY OF CHULA VISTA ) , I, Susan Bigelow, City Clerk of Chun Vista, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2000-275 was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council at a regular meeting of the Chula Vista City Council held on the pt day of August, 2000. · Executed thxs 1 day of August, 2000. Susan Bigelow, City Clerk FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND HIGHLARD PARTNERSHIP, INC., FOR POLICE FACILITY AND CIVIC CENTER MASTER PLANNING Recitals This First Amendment is entered into effective as of 2000, by and between the City of Chula Vista ("City") and Highland Partnership, Inc. ("Consultant"} with reference to the following facts: WHEREAS, City and Consultant previously entered into an agreement ("Original Agreement") whereby Consultant provides civic Center and Police Facility master planning/programming; and WHEREAS, at its October 23, 2000 workshop, the City Council took action to direct staff to eliminate Friendship Park from further analysis for siting of the Police Facility; and WHEREAS, Council also directed staff to work with Consultant to analyze other sites which could accommodate the program; and WHEREAS, the parties now desire to amend the Agreement to provide for Consultant to prepare an expanded analysis of up to three additional sites for the location of a future Police Facility. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the recitals and the mutual obligation of the parties set forth herein, City and Consultant agree as follows: 1. Section 8A of Exhibit A of the Original Agreement, entitled Detail Scope of Work, is hereby amended as follows: Attached as Attachment 1, Amended and Restated Scope of Work and is incorporated herein. 2. Section llA of Exhibit A of the Original Agreement is hereby amended as follows: Single Fixed Fee Amount: $676,115 3. Attachments 1 an 2 of Exhibit A of the original Agreement shall be deleted and replaced with Attachments 1 and 2 to this First Amendment to the Original Agreement. 4. Except as expressly provided herein, all other provisions of the Original Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. (NEXT PAGE IS SIGNATURE PAGE) Nev-30-ZO00 Il:Z? ~rom-~IGHLAHD PARTNERSHIP IHt, 61949~ZQ70 T-DZ2 P.001/001 F-S?7 SIGNATURE PAGE TO FIRST A~ENDMENTTO THE AGREEMENT BETWEE~ THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND HIGHLAND PARTNERSHIP, INC., FOR POLICE FACILITY AND CIVIC CENTER MASTER PLANNING City of Chula Vista ~ighland Partnership, Inc. Shirley Horton, Mayor ~David Gardner, Sr. ATTEST; Susan Bigelow, city Clerk Approved in form by: John M. Kaheny, City Attorney ~: \Home\A~torn~y%~ll \~{ighland, lstAmend 3 AMENDED AND RESTATED DETAILED SCOPE OF WORK 1. POLICE HEADQUARTERS NEEDS ANALYSIS / PROGRAMMING Consultants work on the Space Needs Study will be divided into three steps: Data Gathering, Data Synthesis, and Documentation and Presentation. All data collected or conveyed during the Space Needs Study shall be communicated to the City through the Contract Administrator. Step 1: Data Gathering: (30 days) During data gathering Consultant will seek to obtain applicable data (from written reports and staff interviews) for analysis during the Data Synthesis step. Tasks 1.1 Consultant shall review existing information provided by the City, including but not limited to the Police Facility Master Plan dated July 1998 and any revisions to that plan, previous studies and reports, existing drawings, annual reports, demographic statistics, Calls-For-Service, crime trends, and other pertinent information. 1.2 Consultant shall create and distribute questionnaires for City staff to complete prior to the beginning of on-site interviews. The intent is that these questionnaires will stimulate staffs' thoughts about a new facility (prior to Consultant conducting interviews). Consultant shall prepare and provide to City staff a summary of questionnaire responses. 1.3 Consultant shall begin the on-site interviews with a kick-off meeting. This meeting will have the primary objectives of clarifying lines of communication and decision making, establishing the project schedule, and indentifying the individuals who will be participating in the process. At this meeting, Consultant shall propose a comprehensive set of Space Standards to be used throughout the Study. The Space Standards proposed by Consultant shall be based upon and consistent with or compatible with the existing City Space Standards. Consultant shall also identify key issues to be addressed during the interview process. 1.4 Consultant shall conduct interviews with City as representatives and staff directed by the Contract Administrator. Interviews of approximately 1-2 hours will be held with each of the key people identified by Contract Administrator. 1.5 As part of the interviews, Consultant shall discuss and address the City's current operations and identify areas of particular concern to or needs of staff. These areas shall include, but are not limited to an assessment of feasibility of including the following items at or near the new facility: detention cells, a 10 position indoor firing range, car wash, fuel pump stations and sufficient space to allow the leasing of space to Outside agencies and/or future growth. 1.6 Consultant shall tour existing facility as needed to understand operations, needs, concerns and constraints to be addressed in the next facility, 1.7 Consultant shall develop space needs program for the Police Department - · which will program the long term needs of the Department. The space needs program shall address the needs of the department over the next 50 years. The space needs program will address current and projected staff and support space needs, conferencing needs, public access and visitor requirements, parking requirements, departmental relationships, and building and site planning issues. Deliverables Kickoff meeting · Questionnaires submitted for City Approval Questionnaires circulated to City staff Questionnaires reviewed and summarized o Interviews conducted with designated City personnel Step 2: Data Synthesis: (30 Days~ During Data Synthesis Consultant will utilize the data assembled during Data Gathering to prepare an initial set of spread sheets to itemize space and site needs. Tasks 1.8 Consultant shall assemble a series of itemized space and site spread sheets. 1.9 Upon completion of the initial spread sheets, Consultant shall conduct a series of follow-up staff interviews and meetings to review, confirm, and refine this data to the satisfaction of the Contract Administrator. 1.10 Consultant shall submit a growth factor to the Contract Administrator for approval and incorporation into the spread sheets. 1.11 Consultant shall work with City Purchasing Agent to develop workstation standards for implementation that shall be consistent with or compatible with those standards adopted and utilized at other City facilities. Consultant shall review the standards with the Contract Administrator for final approval. 2 1.12 Consultant shall, if requested by City, prepare materials for and participate in up to three (3) Public Forums to solicit input from citizens in the Needs Analysis/Programming process of the Police Facility. 1.13 Consultant shall conduct review sessions with City staff to present and seek approval of the space needs program for each department. 1.14 Consultant shall begin written documentation for "key" sections of the space needs study. This includes space and site design guidelines and security guidelines. Deliverables . Space and Site needs spreadsheet. . Draft of "Key" Sections . Staff Interviews Step 3: Documentation:(30 D~ During this step Consultant shall prepare the written documentation of the Space Needs Study resulting in both a draft and final document. Consultant shall develop a (non-site specific) project budget. Tasks 1.15 Consultant shall prepare and submit for review a draft space needs document. At this time it is contemplated that this draft document will include the following sections: . Preface . Goals and Methodology . Site Guidelines . Designer Guidelines . Trends and Influences . Adjacency Diagrams . Illustrated Space Standards . Square Footage Projections 1.16 Consultant shall meet with City to review comments to the draft document. After comments on the draft document have been received from the City, Consultant shall make necessary corrections, add an Executive Summary, and prepare the final Space Needs Study. 3 1.17 Consultant and Subconsultants shall be available to participate in public meetings as requested by the Contract Administrator which shall include, but are not limited to, Public Forums, the Resource Conservation Committee, Design Review Committee, Planning Commission, and City Council. Deliverables . Consultant shall submit the draft Space Needs Study. . Consultant shall submit the final Space Needs Study. 2. DEVELOPMENT OF A COMPREHENSIVE SITE LOCATION ANALYSIS TO DETERMINE THE APPROPRIATE AREA AND SITE FOR POLICE HEADQUARTERS. (90 DAYS) City Study (30 DAYS) Tasks 2.1 Consultant shall evaluate whether the existing Police Headquarters could remain in its current location and meet the needs of the City. 2.2 Consultant shall evaluate each region of the City, (North, South, East and West) and advise the, City as to the best area for the City to locate Police Headquarters. Included in this study shall be an analysis of the impacts on the Downtown/3rd Avenue corridor if the Police Headquarters is moved from that general area. Specific Site Studies (90 DAYS) Tasks 2.3 Consultant shall coordinate with the City in the development of a comprehensive list of criteria to be utilized for the final site selection. 2.4 Consultant shall identify at least four sites within the selected region for further study. 2.5 Consultant shall meet with City to arrive at a consensus of four sites (Selected Potential Sites) to be studied in detail. 4 2.6 Consultant shall prepare site sketches for the Selected Potential Sites illustrating possible bbilding '¥ootprint" locations coupled with necessary staff and public parking requirements. This will define the extent of structured parking for each site. 2.7 Consultant shall prepare graphics for site plans and massing studies for each of the Selected Potential Sites (up to four). These massing studies will be used to see how the bulk of the proposed building will be accommodated on each site. 2.8 Consultant shall prepare budget studies for each of the Selected Potential Sites. 2.9 Consultant shall present site and massing deliverables for each of the Selected Potential Sites to City staff and at additional meetings as requested by Contract Administrator. 2.10 Consultant, in concert with City staff, shall determine a Final Selected Site to be recommended to City 2.11 Consultant shall work with City Staff to prepare an Initial Environmental Study and appropriate documentation (for up to four sites) and attend all necessary public hearings. Consultant shall prepare updates of any underlying studies necessary to analyze the environmental issues. Consultant shall prepare and submit application and pay filing fees. 2.12 Consultant shall conduct up to 3 Public Forums on site selection issues as requested by Contract Administrator. Deliverables Regional Study Comprehensive list of criteria for final site selection Selected Potential Sites Meeting with City · Site sketches for the Selected Potential Sites o Massing studies for each of the Selected Potential Sites Initial Environmental Study Budget studies for each of the Selected Potential Sites ,, Graphics for site plans and massing studies for each of the Selected Potential Sites o Meetings with City to review Selected Potential Sites · Final Selected Site recommendation to City ~ 3. CONCEPTUAL DESIGN FOR POLICE HEADQUARTERS (83 Days) Tasks 3.0 Consultant shall prepare detailed analysis of up to four sites as identified by City staff. 3.1 Consultant shall conduct design "charrettes" (Workshops) with CITY staff to compare up to three sample Sketched Floor Plan Options for each site, 3.2 Consultant, in concert with City staff will determine a Final Floor Plan 3.3 Based on information derived from meetings with City staff, Consultant shall refine the Final Floor Plan and prepare CADD drafting for up to four sites. 3.4 Consultant shall prepare two major exterior amhitectural e!evafions of the Final Floor Plan for up to four sites. 3.5 Consultant shall provide City with all documents necessary to proceed with a Design/Construction Manager or Design/Build project delivery system for the proposed Police Facility. Deliverables for the Final Selected Sites (up to four): ·Floor Plans Site/Roof Plan · Two Major Architectural Elevations (1 set) · Architectural Building Sections - Longitudinal and Latitudinal (1 set) 3 Vignettes - Hand Drawn "Architectural Illustrations" (1 set) Architectural Landscape Overlay (Colored) (1 set) · Monochromatic Modet (4 options) Mechanical / Electrical / Plumbing Single Line Drawings (1 set) Architectural Illustration / Rendering (1 only) Site and Project Specific Development Cost (4 options) Off-site and on-site improvements Facility Cost - Hard and Soft (Incl. Value Engineering) FF&E Relocation Management Plan Discretionary and Ministerial Permits Development Impact and Permit Fees o Site and Project Specific Development Master Schedule (1 master) Completion December 2002 Separate Funding/Disbursement Schedule InClude Negative Declaration / Environmental Plan / CEQA (4) · Construction Management Plan (1 set) Implementation Plan for Design and Construction 4. CiViC CENTER RENOVATION AND EXPANSION (100 DAYS) Consultant shall work closely with City staff to evaluate the existing status and conditions and develop a Facility Master Plan for the Civic Center Campus and ancillary facilities. This Master Plan for renovation and expansion of the Civic Center will address short and long term space needs and create a phasing and implementation plan including schematic design for the initial phase of improvements. These initial improvements and long term master plan are intended to coordinate with the surrounding community. ~ectives To develop a Facility Master Plan for the Civic Center which will address the short term and long-term space needs of the City's administrative departments. o To develop space plans, concept and schematic designs of Civic Center improvements for the shod term needs of the City's administrative departments. o To develop an implementation and phasing plan for the Master Plan. To develop a project budget and schedule for the Master Plan. To provide City with all documents necessary to proceed with a Design/Construction Manager or Design/Build project delivery system for the expansion of the Civic Center. Needs Assessment/Proqram for Civic Center Tasks_ 4.1 Consultant shall review existing information provided by the City of Chula Vista, including the 1989 Master Plan and 1997 Update, previous studies and reports, existing drawings and as-built information for each building, site information, lease information, and other pertinent information. 4.2 Consultant shall conduct a kick-off meeting with the City staff. This meeting will have the primary objectives of clarifying lines of communication and decision making, establishing the project schedule, and identifying the individuals who will be participating in the process. 4.3 Consultant shall develop questionnaires to be completed by each department included in the Civic Center Master Plan. Questionnaires shall be distributed prior to the interview process. Consultant shall prepare and provide to City staff a summary of questionnaire responses. 4.4 Consultant shall inventory existing space utilization for each department included in the Civic Center Master Plan. Inventory will include current occupancy by department including staff and support space. Gross square footage and net useabl~ square footage will be calculated for all key buildings. 4.5 Consultant shall create a base map indicating the current locations of all key facilities (and departments) to be included in the study. 4.6 Consultant shall conduct 1-2 hour individual interviews with department heads and other key staff as identified by Contract Administrator to determine current and projected staff and support space needs. Included in this interview will be a discussion of workstation standards and space requirements by job function. Consultant shall propose Space Standards which are consistent with or compatible with existing City Space Standards. Interviews will focus on the short and long terms needs of each group/department. 4.7 Consultant shall conduct walk-through tours of existing spaces with each department and inventory support space needs. 4.8 Consultant shall work with City Purchasing Agent to develop workstation standards for implementation at all City facilities. Review work station and Space Standards with the Contract Administrator for final approval. 4.9 Consultant shall develop space needs program for each department included in the Civic Center Master Plan which will include short and long term needs. The space needs program will address current and projected staff and support space needs, conferencing needs, public access and visitor requirements, parking requirements, affinity relationships, and similar building and site planning issues. 4.10 Consultant shall conduct review session with City Staff to present and approve the space needs program for each department. 4.11 Consultant shall develop final facility program document and make presentations as requested by Contract Administrator. These presentations may include the Resource Conservation Committee, the Design Review Committee, Planning Commission and City Council. 7 -5/ Deliverables ' · Kickoff Meeting · Programming questionnaires submitted to City for approval · Programming questionnaires circulated to staff · Programming questionnaires reviewed and summai'y prepared for staff. · Base facility, department, and site location map. · Workstation Standards. · Draft Facility Needs Assessment/Program. Final Facility Needs Assessment/Program · Presentation Graphics Facility Assessment Tasks 4.12 Consultant shall conduct a preliminary facility assessment of the Civic Center buildings to determine the ability of the existing buildings to satisfy the shod and long-term needs of the City. Existing civil, structural, mechanical and electrical systems will not be analyzed in detail until the final design phase for each expansion/improvement project. 4.13 Consultant shall conduct a preliminary code and environmental assessment of the existing buildings. 4.14 Consultant shall create CADD background drawings of buildings within the Civic Center. Deliverables ® Facility assessment report. ~ Background CADD drawings of all buildings, Short Term Facility Needs Planning Tasks 4.15 The short-term needs of various City departments will be addressed through space plans and concept building plans. Based on the space needs detailed in the Final Facility Program, facility inventory and assessments, space plans of various departments will be developed to address the immediate space needs at the Civic Center. Alternative layouts utilizing the workstation standards will be developed for presentation to the City. 4.16 Based on the City comments, Consultant shall develop for each department final space plans/building concept plans, including staff and support space needs. 4.17 Consultant shall develop conceptual building elevations, sections and outline specifications. In addition, a massing model will be prepared for the proposed building expansions. 4.18 Consultant shall develop for the short term plan a phasing and implementation plan, project schedule and budget. The project schedule shall include but not be limited to Completion by Phase, Separate Funding/Disbursement Schedule, and appropriate environmental review. The project budget shall include but not be limited to Off-site and on-site improvements, Facility Cost - Hard and Soft (Incl. Value Engineering), FF&E, Relocation Management Plan, Discretionary and Ministerial Permits, and Development Impact and Agency Fees. Deliverables Short Term Space Plans/Concept Building Plans Conceptual Elevations, Sections, Outline Specifications, Massing Model Phasing/Implementation Plan Project Schedule/Budget Long Term Facility Needs Planninq Tasks 4.19 Based on the space needs detailed in the Final Facility Program, Consultant shall develop facility inventory and assessments and alternative planning concepts to address the long term space needs of the Civic Center. Multiple concepts (3-4) will be developed for presentation to the City. 4.20 The alternatives shall focus on the facility assets and opportunities of the current Civic Center site and other City properties, as well as the surrounding area, as defined by the City. 4.21 Each master plan alternative shall address the phasing and implementation strategy necessary to accomplish the proposed plan. 4.22 The alternative master plan concepts shall be reviewed with the City. The alternatives shall be refined until the City has approved a final master plan approach. l0 4.23 Consultant shall document the preferred master plan alternative through site plan(s), building concept plans,' landscape concept plan, concept building elevations and sections, renderings, and massing model. 4.24 Consultant shall develop for the long-term plan a phasing and implementation plan, project schedule and budget. The project schedule shall include but not be limited to completion by phase, separate funding/disbursement schedule, and appropriate environmental review. The project budget shall include but not be limited to off-site and on-site improvements, facility cost - Hard and Soft (Incl. Value Engineering), furniture, fixtures and equipment, relocation management plan, discretionary and ministerial permits, and development Impact and Agency Fees. 4.24.1 Consultant shall prepare an analysis of adjacencies between the Civic Center and up to four sites as directed by staff. Deliverables Preliminary master plan alternatives. · Final Civic Center Master Plan. Executive summary description of the Master Plan. Site Plan(s), Conceptual Building Plans, Conceptual Building Elevations/Sections, Conceptual Landscape Plan, Massing Model o Phasing/Implementation Plan o Project Schedule/Budget - Project Specific Development Budget ,, Project Specific Development Master Schedule · Construction Management Plan Environmental Analysis Tasks 4.25 Prior to completion of the Civic Center Master Plan Consultant shall work with City Staff to prepare any appropriate environmental documentation 4.26 Prepare updates of any underlying studies necessary to analyze the environmental issues associated with the proposed sites. 4.27 Prepare and submit process application documentation and pay filing fees 11 5. PERIODIC REPORTING/GENERAL PROVISIONS Consultant shall work closely with City Staff to define and establish an appropriate Management Information System (MIS)to provide communication and timely reporting for the project. Tasks 5.1 Consultant shall meet with City to determine reporting needs 5.2 Consultant shall prepare a detailed Work Plan consistent with the project proposal submitted by Consultant and this Agreement which shall contain deadlines for those deliverables identified within this Agreement. This Work Plan upon approvat by staff shall be incorporated into this Agreement and shall be binding upon Consultant. 5.3 Consultant shall establish appropriate software, formats and schedules 5.4 Consultant shall implement Reporting System acceptable to City which provides City with readily accessible information on the progress of this project. 5.5 Numerous tasks within this Agreement require Consultant to meet with the City. Consultant agrees that Consultant shall meet with City as many times as reasonably requested by City without requesting a modification to the agreed upon compensation. Deliverables o Periodic reports to City Staff and others as directed by Contract Administrator. This may include reports or presentations to the Resource Conservation Committee, Design Review Committee, Planning Commission and City Council. o Creation of Report System H :\Ho me~Atiorney~Ag ree\CivicCenter 1 .pd.doc 12 City of Chula Vista Police Headquarters and Civic Center PRE-DESIGN (PROGRAMMING) PHASE - RESTATED AND AMENDED CONTRACT Highland Parlaership, Inc. Now~lber 211 2.1~0 ..... 1. POLJCE HEADQUAF~'ERS NEEDS ANALYSIS / PROGRAMMING Highland Partnemhip, Inc. Chula Vista Police Headqu ar~er~',~3illing$'~C H EDU LE OF VALUES - RESTATED AND AMENDED CONTRACT lb,123 City of Chula Vista Police Headquarters and Civic Center PRE-DESIGN (PROG~I~J~MING) PHASE RESTATED AND AMENDED CONTRACT · H gh and Partnership, Inc. Novea~ber 21r 2000 .... DESCRIPTION POUCE POUCE HEADQUARTERS CIVIC CENTER 5. Periodic Reporting SUBTOTALS - FIXED FEE ALLOCATIONS 403,246 128,469 144,400 TOTAL -REVISED FIXED FEE $676,115 Highland Partnemhip, Inc, Chula Vi$1~ Police Headqu arlem~Biitings\SCH EDUL E OF VALUES - RESTATED AND AMENDED CONTRACT 1b,123 City of Chula Vista Police Headquarters and Civic Center PRE-DESIGN (PROGRAMMING) PHASE RESTATED AND AMENDED CONTRACT H~ghland Partnership, Inc- November 21. 2000 1. POUCE HEADQUARTERS NEEDS ANALYSIS ! PROGRAMMING Highland Partnership. Inc. Chula Vista Police Heedqua~tam~illings~SCHEDULE OF VALUES - RESTATED AND AMENDED CONTRACT Jb.123 City of Chula Vista Police Headquarters and Civic Center PRE-DESIGN (PROGR~I~MING) PHASE RESTATED AND AMENDED CONTRACT Highland partnership Inc. 5. Periodic Reporting SUBTOTALS- FIXED FEE ALLOCATIONS 403,246 128,469 144,400 TOTAL - REVISED FIXED FEE $676,115 Highland Partnership, Inc. Chula Vista Police Readquart els'~BiJlings\SCH EDU LE OF VALUES - RESTATED AND AMENDED CONTRACT ! b. f 23 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE AGREEMENT WITH HIGHLAND PARTNERSHIP, INC., FOR THE PROGRAMMING AND PREPARATION OF A MASTER PLAN FOR THE NEW POLICE FACILITY AND CIVIC CENTER COMPLEX, APPROPRIATING FIISIDS THEREFOR, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT WHEREAS, at its October 23, 2000 workshop, the Chula Vista City Council took action to direct staff to eliminate Friendship Park from further analysis for the siting of a new Police Facility; and WHEREAS, Council also directed that staff look at the other sites which had been previously considered and which will accommodate the Police Facility and program as described by the consultants; and WHEREAS, it is staff's intent to re-evaluate the sites using the relevant criteria including proximity to the Civic Center and Third Avenue/Downtown corridor, consolidation of government services, facilitation of redevelopment efforts, ease of ingress and egress and cost; and WHEREAS, the new direction to the consultant necessitates a change in the scope of work approved in the original agreement with the Highland Partnership, Inc. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the City of Chula vista does hereby approve the First Amendment to the Agreement with Highland Partnership, Inc. for the programming and preparation of a Master Plan for the new Police Facility and civic Center Complex. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor is authorized to execute said First Amendment to the Agreement on behalf of the city of Chula Vista. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the amount of $128,469 is hereby appropriated from the unappropriated balance of the General Fund for the expanded scope of work. Presented by Approved as to form by Sid Morris Jo~ M. Kahe~ ~ Assistant City Manager City Attornel~ ~ RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CiTY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA REGARDING ITS INTENTION TO ISSUE TAX EXEMPT OBLIGATIONS TO FINANCE THE CITY'S NEW POLICE FACILITY AND CIVIC CENTER EXPANSION AND DIRECTING STAFF TO RETURN WITH A FINANCING PLAN WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Chula (the "Issuer") desires to finance the costs of acquiring certain public facilities and improvements, as provided in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein (the "Project"); and WHEREAS, the Issuer intends to finance the acquisition of the Project or portions .of the Project with the proceeds of the sale of obligations the interest upon which is excluded from gross income for federal income tax purposes (the "Obligations"); and WHEREAS, prior to the issuance of the Obligations the Issuer desires to incur certain expenditures with respect to the Project from available monies of the Issuer which expenditures are desired to be reimbursed by the Issuer from a portion of the proceeds of the sale of the Obligations. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, ORDER AND DETERMINE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The Issuer hereby states its intention and reasonably expects to reimburse Project costs incurred prior to the issuance of the Obligations with proceeds of the Obligations. Exhibit A describes either the general character, type, purpose, and function of the Project, or the fund or account from which Project costs are to be paid and the general functional purpose of the fund or account. SECTION 2. The reasonably expected maximum principal amount of the Obligations is $80 million. The total Project cost is estimated to be approximately 9170 million, including approximately 990 million in financing costs (interest and fees). SECTION 3. This resolution is being adopted on or prior to the date (the "Expenditures Date or Dates") that the Issuer will expend monies for the portion of the Project cots to be reimbursed from proceeds of the Obligations. SECTION 4. Except as described below, the expected date of issue of the Obligations will be within eighteen months of the later of the Expenditure Date or Dates and the date the Project is placed in service; provided, the reimbursement may not be made more than three years after the original expenditure is paid. For Obligations subject to the small issuer exception of Section 148(f)(4)(D) of the Internal Revenue Code, the "eighteen-month limit" of the previous sentence is changed to "three years" and the limitation of the previous sentence beginning with ";provided ..... "is not applicable. SECTION 5. Proceeds of the Obligations to be used to reimburse for Project costs are not expected to be used, within one year of reimbursement, directly or indirectly to pay debt service with respect to any obligation (other than to pay current debt service coming due within the next succeeding one year period on any tax-exempt obligation of the Issuer (other than the Obligations)) or to be held as a reasonably required reserve or replacement fund with respect to an obligation of the Issuer or any entity related in any manner to the Issuer, or to reimburse any expenditure that was originally paid with the proceeds of any obligation, or to replace funds that are or will be used in such manner. SECTION 6. This resolution is consistent with the budgetary and financial circumstances of the Issuer, as of the date hereof. No monies from. sources other than the obligation issue are, or are reasonably expected to be reserved, or otherwise set aside by the Issuer (or any related party) pursuant to their budget or financial policies with respect to the Project costs on a long-term basis. To the best of our knowledge, this City Council is not aware of the previous adoption of official intents by the Issuer that have been made as a matter of course for the purpose of reimbursing expenditures and for which tax-exempt obligations have not been issued. SECTION 7. The lih~itation~'~S~ed in Section 3 and Section 4 do not apply to (a) costs of issuance of the Obligations, (b) an amount not in excess of the lesser of $100,000 or five percent (5%) of the proceeds of the Obligations, or (c) any preliminary expenditures, such as architectural, engineering, surveying, soil testing, and similar costs other than land acquisition, site preparation, and similar costs incident to commencement of construction, not in excess of twenty percent (20%) of the aggregate issue price of the Obligations that finances the Project for which the preliminary expenditures were incurred. SECTION 8. This resolution is adopted as official action of the Issuer in order to comply with Treasury Regulations § 1.150-2 and any other regulations of the Internal Revenue Service relating to the qualification for reimbursement of Issuer expenditures incurred prior to the date of issue of the Obligations, is part of the Issuer's official proceedings, and will be available for inspection by the general public at the main administrative office of the Issuer. SECTION 9. Staff is further directed to return with a detailed financing plan with respect to the Obligations and the Project. SECTION 10. AIl~;d~'e recitals in this Resolution are true and correct and this City Council so finds, determines and represents. Presented by Approved as to form by Sid Morris John . Kaheny Assistant City Manager Ci~A~orney ~t/HOME\LORRAINE/RS\CORPyARD.FIN INovember 30, 2000 18:21am)l EXHIBIT A DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT The proposed new Police Facility and Civic Center Expan§ion project is necessary to provide current and future administrative office space, equipment and materials storage, vehicle storage and .maintenance facilities, and related facilities to serve the Chula Vista community. The current facilities have been determined to be inadequate. Significant renovations and improvements will be required to complete the project. Final facility design and corresponding construction costs have not been determined. The facility is expected to be planned for the Chula Vista population at "build-out" which is estimated to be 277,000 by the year 2030. The maximum estimated total cost of such facility is expected not-to-exceed $170 million. Approximately $90 million of that is expected to be financing costs. The City is currently in the process of preparing a Civic Center Master Plan and a Police Facility Master Plan and Program. At this time it is estimated that the expansion of the Civic Center will include the addition of 20,000 square feet to, and substantial remodeling of, the existing buildings located at ;?76 Fourth Avenue. The program for the Police Facility estimates that-approximately 135,000 square feet will be necessary to accommodate the Police Department. Although a project site has not been identified, conceptual designs are being prepared which may be used at a number of potential locations. These potential locations may involve the acquisition of property. FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND HIGHLAND' PARTNERSHIP, INC., FOR POLICE FACILITY AND CIVIC CENTER MASTER PLANNING Recitals This First Amendment is entered into effective 2000, by and between the city of Chula and Highland Partnership, Inc. ("Consultant" ) to the following facts: as of Vista with ("City" ) reference WHEREAS, city and Consultant previously entered into an agreement ("Original Agreement") whereby Consultant provides civic Center and Police Facility master planning/programming; and WHEREAS, at its October 23, 2000 workshop, the City Council took action to direct staff to eliminate Friendship Park from further analysis for siting of the Police Facility; and WHEREAS, Council also directed staff to work with Consultant to analyze other sites which could accommodate the program; and WHEREAS, the parties now desire to amend the Agreement to provide for Consultant to prepare an expanded analysis of up to three additional sites for the location of a future Police Facility. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration mutual obligation of the parties set Consultant agree as follows: of the forth recitals and herein, City the and 1. Section SA of Exhibit A of the Original Agreement, entitled Detail Scope of Work, is hereby amended as follows: Attached as Attachment 1, Amended and Restated Scope of Work and is incorporated herein. 2. section 11A of Exhibit A of the Original Agreement is hereby amended as follows: 1 Single Fixed Fee Amount: $676,115 3. Attachments 1 an 2 of Exhibit A of the original Agreement shall be deleted and replaced with Attachments 1 and 2 to this First Amendment to the Original Agreement. 4. Except as expressly provided herein, all other provisions of the Original Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. (NEXT PAGE IS SIGNATURE PAGE) 2 Nov-30-Z000 11 :Z7 From-HIGHLAND PARTNERSHIP INC, 619498Z970 T-gzz P 001/001 F-577 SIGNATURE PAGE TO FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND HIGHLAND PARTNERSHIP, INC., FOR POLICE FACILITY AND CIVIC CENTER MASTER PLANNING City of Chula Vista Highland Partnership, Inc. By Shirley Horton, Mayor ATTEST; Susan Bigelow, City Clerk Approved in form by: John M. Kaheny, City Attorney H'\Home\Aeto~neY\EHull\Hi~hland.l.tAmend 3 Sir AMENDED AND RESTATED DETAILED SCOPE OF WORK 1. POLICE HEADQUARTERS NEEDS ANALYSIS I PROGRAMMING Consultants work on the Space Needs Study will be divided into three steps; Data Gathering, Data Synthesis, and Documentation and Presentation. All data collected or conveyed during the Space Needs Study shall be communicated to the City through the Contract Administrator. Step 1: Data Gatherinq: (30 days) During data gathering Consultant will seek to obtain applicable data (from written reports and staff interviews) for analysis during the Data Synthesis step. Tasks 1.1 Consultant shall review existing information provided by the City, including but not limited to the Police Facility Master Plan dated July 1998 and any revisions to that plan, previous studies and reports, existing drawings, annual reports, demographic statistics, Calls-For-Service, crime trends, and other pertinent information. 1.2 Consultant shall create and distribute questionnaires for City staff to complete prior to the beginning of on-site interviews. The intent is that these questionnaires will stimulate staffs' thoughts about a new facility (prior to Consultant conducting interviews). Consultant shall prepare and provide to City staff a summary of questionnaire responses. 1.3 Consultant shall begin the on-site interviews with a kick-off meeting. This meeting will have the primary objectives of clarifying lines of communication and decision making, establishing the project schedule, and indentifying the individuals who will be participating in the process. At this meeting, Consultant shall propose a comprehensive set of Space Standards to be used throughout the Study. The Space Standards proposed by Consultant shall be based upon and consistent with or compatible with the existing City Space Standards. Consultant shall also identify key issues to be addressed during the interview process. 1.4 Consultant shall conduct interviews with City as representatives and staff directed by the Contract Administrator. Interviews of approximately 1-2 hours will be held with each of the key people identified by Contract Administrator. 1.5 As part of the interviews, Consultant shall discuss and address the City's current operations and identify areas of particular concern to or needs of staff. These areas shall include, but are not limited to an assessment of feasibility of including the following items at or near the new facility: detention cells, a 10 position indoor firing range, car wash, fuel pump stations and sufficient space to allow the leasing of space to outside agencies and/or future growth. 1.6 Consultant shall tour existing facility as needed to understand operations, needs, concerns and constraints to be addressed in the next facility. 1.7 Consultant shall develop space needs program for the Police Department which will program the long term needs of the Department. The space needs program shall address the needs of the department over the next 50 years. The space needs program will address current and projected staff and support space needs, conferencing needs, public access and visitor requirements, parking requirements, departmental relationships, and building and site planning issues. Deliverables . Kickoff meeting . Questionnaires submitted for City Approval . Questionnaires circulated to City staff . Questionnaires reviewed and summarized . Interviews conducted with designated City personnel Step 2: Data Synthesis: (30 Days) During Data Synthesis Consultant will utilize the data assembled during Data Gathering to prepare an initial set of spread sheets to itemize space and site needs. Tasks 1.8 Consultant shall assemble a series of itemized space and site spread sheets. 1.9 Upon completion of the initial spread sheets, Consultant shall conduct a series of follow-up staff interviews and meetings to review, confirm, and refine this data to the satisfaction of the Contract Administrator. 1.10 Consultant shall submit a growth factor to the Contract Administrator for approval and incorporation into the spread sheets. 1.11 Consultant shall work with City Purchasing Agent to develop workstation standards for implementation that shall be consistent with or compatible with those standards adopted and utilized at other City facilities. Consultant shall review the standards with the Contract Administrator for final approval. 2 1.12 Consultant shall, if requested by City, prepare materials for and participate in up to three (3) Public Forums to solicit input from citizens in the Needs Analysis/Programming process of the Police Facility. 1.13 Consultant shall conduct review sessions with City staff to present and seek approval of the space needs program for each department. 1.14 Consultant shall begin written documentation for "key" sections of the space needs study. This includes space and site design guidelines and security guidelines. Deliverables . Space and Site needs spreadsheet. . Draft of "Key" Sections . Staff Interviews Step 3: Documentation:(30 Days) During this step Consultant shall prepare the written documentation of the Space Needs Study resulting in both a draft and final document. Consultant shall develop a (non-site specific) project budget. Tasks 1.15 Consultant shall prepare and submit for review a draft space needs document. At this time it is contemplated that this draft document will include the following sections: . Preface . Goals and Methodology . Site Guidelines . Designer Guidelines . Trends and Influences . Adjacency Diagrams . Illustrated Space Standards . Square Footage Projections 1.16 Consultant shall meet with City to review comments to the draft document. After comments on the draft document have been received from the City, Consultant shall make necessary corrections, add an Executive Summary, and prepare the final Space Needs Study. 3 1.17 Consultant and Subconsultants shall be available to participate in public meetings as requested by the Contract Administrator which shall include, but are not limited to, Public Forums, the Resource Conservation Committee, Design Review Committee, Planning Commission, and City Council. Deliverables . Consultant shall submit the draft Space Needs Study. . Consultant shall submit the final Space Needs Study. 2. DEVELOPMENT OF A COMPREHENSIVE SITE LOCATION ANALYSIS TO DETERMINE THE APPROPRIATE AREA AND SITE FOR POLICE HEADQUARTERS. (90 DAYS) City Study (30 DAYS) Tasks 2.1 Consultant shall evaluate whether the existing Police Headquarters could remain in its current location and meet the needs of the City. 2.2 Consultant shall evaluate each region of the City, (North, South, East and West) and advise the City as to the best area for the City to locate Police Headquarters. Included in this study shall be an analysis of the impacts on the Downtown/3rd Avenue corridor if the Police Headquarters is moved from that general area. Specific Site Studies (90 DAYS) Tasks 2.3 Consultant shall coordinate with the City in the development of a comprehensive list of criteria to be utilized for the final site selection. 2.4 Consultant shall identify at least four sites within the selected region for further study. 2.5 Consultant shall meet with City to arrive at a consensus of four sites (Selected Potential Sites) to be studied in detail. 4 2.6 Consultant shall prepare site sketches for the Selected Potential Sites illustrating possible building "footprint" locations coupled with necessary staff and public parking requirements. This will define the extent of structured parking for each site. 2.7 Consultant shall prepare graphics for site plans and massing studies for each of the Selected Potential Sites (up to four). These massing studies will be used to see how the bulk of the proposed building will be accommodated on each site. 2.8 Consultant shall prepare budget studies for each of the Selected Potential Sites. 2.9 Consultant shall present site and massing deliverables for each of the Selected Potential Sites to City staff and at additional meetings as requested by Contract Administrator. 2.10 Consultant, in concert with City staff, shall determine a Final Selected Site to be recommended to City 2.11 Consultant shall work with City Staff to prepare an Initial Environmental Study and appropriate documentation (for up to four sites) and attend all necessary public hearings. Consultant shall prepare updates of any underlying studies necessary to analyze the environmental issues. Consultant shall prepare and submit application and pay filing fees. 2.12 Consultant shall conduct up to 3 Public Forums on site selection issues as requested by Contract Administrator. Oeliverables . Regional Study . Comprehensive list of criteria for final site selection . Selected Potential Sites Meeting with City . Site sketches for the Selected Potential Sites . Massing studies for each of the Selected Potential Sites . Initial Environmental Study . Budget studies for each of the Selected Potential Sites . Graphics for site plans and massing studies for each of the Selected Potential Sites . Meetings with City to review Selected Potential Sites . Final Selected Site recommendation to City 5 3. CONCEPTUAL DESIGN FOR POLICE HEADQUARTERS (83 Days) Tasks 3.0 Consultant shall prepare detailed analysis of up to four sites as identified by City staff. 3.1 Consultant shall conduct design "charrettes" (Workshops) with CITY staff to compare up to three sample Sketched Floor Plan Options for each site. 3.2 Consultant, in concert with City staff will determine a Final Floor Plan 3.3 Based on information derived from meetings with City staff, Consultant shall refine the Final Floor Plan and prepare CADD drafting for up to four sites. 3.4 Consultant shall prepare two major exterior architectural elevations of the Final Floor Plan for up to four sites. 3.5 Consultant shall provide City with all documents necessary to proceed with a Design/Construction Manager or Design/Build project delivery system for the proposed Police Facility. Deliverables for the Final Selected Sites (up to four): . Floor Plans . Site/Roof Plan . Two Major Architectural Elevations (1 set) . Architectural Building Sections - Longitudinal and Latitudinal (1 set) . 3 Vignettes - Hand Drawn "Architectural Illustrations" (1 set) . Architectural Landscape Overlay (Colored) (1 set) . Monochromatic Model (4 options) . Mechanical/Electrical/Plumbing Single Line Drawings (1 set) . Architectural Illustration / Rendering (1 only) . Site and Project Specific Development Cost (4 options) Off-site and on-site improvements Facility Cost - Hard and Soft (Inc!. Value Engineering) FF&E Relocation Management Plan Discretionary and Ministerial Permits Development Impact and Permit Fees . Site and Project Specific Development Master Schedule (1 master) Completion December 2002 Separate Funding/Disbursement Schedule 6 Include Negative Declaration / Environmental Plan / CEQA (4) . Construction Management Plan (1 set) Implementation Plan for Design and Construction 4. CIVIC CENTER RENOVATION AND EXPANSION (100 DAYS) Consultant shall work closely with City staff to evaluate the existing status and conditions and develop a Facility Master Plan for the Civic Center Campus and ancillary facilities. This Master Plan for renovation and expansion of the Civic Center will address short and long term space needs and create a phasing and implementation plan including schematic design for the initial phase of improvements. These initial improvements and long term master plan are intended to coordinate with the surrounding community. Obiectives . To develop a Facility Master Plan for the Civic Center which will address the short term and long-term space needs of the City's administrative depa rtments. . To develop space plans, concept and schematic designs of Civic Center improvements for the short term needs of the City's administrative departments. . To develop an implementation and phasing plan for the Master Plan. . To develop a project budget and schedule for the Master Plan. . To provide City with all documents necessary to proceed with a Design/Construction Manager or Design/Build project delivery system for the expansion of the Civic Center. Needs Assessment/ProQram for Civic Center Tasks 4.1 Consultant shall review existing information provided by the City of Chula Vista, including the 1989 Master Plan and 1997 Update, previous studies and reports, existing drawings and as-built information for each building, site information, lease information, and other pertinent information. . 4.2 Consultant shall conduct a kick-off meeting with the City staff. This meeting will have the primary objectives of clarifying lines of communication and decision making, establishing the project schedule, and identifying the individuals who will be participating in the process. 7 4.3 Consultant shall develop questionnaires to be completed by each department included in the Civic Center Master Plan. Questionnaires shall be distributed prior to the interview process. Consultant shall prepare and provide to City staff a summary of questionnaire responses. 4.4 Consultant shall inventory existing space utilization for each department included in the Civic Center Master Plan. Inventory will include current occupancy by department including staff and support space. Gross square footage and net useable square footage will be calculated for all key buildings. 4.5 Consultant shall create a base map indicating the current locations of all key facilities (and departments) to be included in the study. 4.6 Consultant shall conduct 1-2 hour individual interviews with department heads and other key staff as identified by Contract Administrator to determine current and projected staff and support space needs. Included in this interview will be a discussion of workstation standards and space requirements by job function. Consultant shall propose Space Standards which are consistent with or compatible with existing City Space Standards. Interviews will focus on the short and long terms needs of each group/department. 4.7 Consultant shall conduct walk-through tours of existing spaces with each department and inventory support space needs. 4.8 Consultant shall work with City Purchasing Agent to develop workstation standards for implementation at all City facilities. Review work station and Space Standards with the Contract Administrator for final approval. 4.9 Consultant shall develop space needs program for each department included in the Civic Center Master Plan which will include short and long term needs. The space needs program will address current and projected staff and support space needs, conferencing needs, public access and visitor requirements, parking requirements, affinity relationships, and similar building and site planning issues. 4.10 Consultant shall conduct review session with City Staff to present and approve the space needs program for each department. 4.11 Consultant shall develop final facility program document and make presentations as requested by Contract Administrator. These presentations may include the Resource Conservation Committee, the Design Review Committee, Planning Commission and City Council. 8 Deliverables . Kickoff Meeting . Programming questionnaires submitted to City for approval . Programming questionnaires circulated to staff . Programming questionnaires reviewed and summary prepared for staff. . Base facility, department, and site location map. . Workstation Standards. . Draft Facility Needs Assessment/Program. . Final Facility Needs Assessment/Program . Presentation Graphics Facilitv Assessment Tasks 4.12 Consultant shall conduct a preliminary facility assessment of the Civic Center buildings to determine the ability of the existing buildings to satisfy the short and long-term needs of the City. Existing civil, structural, mechanical and electrical systems will not be analyzed in detail until the final design phase for each expansion/improvement project. 4.13 Consultant shall conduct a preliminary code and environmental assessment of the existing buildings. 4.14 Consultant shall create CADD background drawings of buildings within the Civic Center. Deliverables . Facility assessment report. . Background CADD drawings of all buildings. Short Term Facilitv Needs Planninq Tasks 4.15 The short-term needs of various City departments will be addressed through space plans and concept building plans. Based on the space needs detailed in the Final Facility Program, facility inventory and assessments, space 9 plans of various departments will be developed to address the immediate space needs at the Civic Center. Alternative layouts utilizing the workstation standards will be developed for presentation to the City. 4.16 Based on the City comments, Consultant shall develop for each department final space plans/building concept plans, including staff and support space needs. 4.17 Consultant shall develop conceptual building elevations, sections and outline specifications. In addition, a massing model will be prepared for the proposed building expansions. 4.18 Consultant shall develop for the short term plan a phasing and implementation plan, project schedule and budget. The project schedule shall include but not be limited to Completion by Phase, Separate Funding/Disbursement Schedule, and appropriate environmental review. The project budget shall include but not be limited to Off-site and on-site improvements, Facility Cost - Hard and Soft (lncl. Value Engineering), FF&E, Relocation Management Plan, Discretionary and Ministerial Permits, and Development Impact and Agency Fees. Deliverables . Short Term Space Plans/Concept Building Plans . Conceptual Elevations, Sections, Outline Specifications, Massing Model . Phasing/lmplementation Plan . Project Schedule/Budget Lonq Term Facility Needs Planninq Tasks 4.19 Based on the space needs detailed in the Final Facility Program, Consultant shall develop facility inventory and assessments and alternative planning concepts to address the long term space needs of the Civic Center. Multiple concepts (3-4) will be developed for presentation to the City. 4.20 The alternatives shall focus on the facility assets and opportunities of the current Civic Center site and other City properties, as well as the surrounding area, as defined by the City. 4.21 Each master plan alternative shall address the phasing and implementation strategy necessary to accomplish the proposed plan. 4.22 The alternative master plan concepts shall be reviewed with the City. The alternatives shall be refined until the City has approved a final master plan approach. 10 4.23 Consultant shall document the preferred master plan alternative through site plan(s), building concept plans, landscape concept plan, concept building elevations and sections, renderings, and massing model. 4.24 Consultant shall develop for the long-term plan a phasing and implementation plan, project schedule and budget. The project schedule shall include but not be limited to completion by phase, separate funding/disbursement schedule, and appropriate environmental review. The project budget shall include but not be limited to off-site and on-site improvements, facility cost - Hard and Soft (Incl. Value Engineering), furniture, fixtures and equipment, relocation management plan, discretionary and ministerial permits, and development Impact and Agency Fees. 4.24.1 Consultant shall prepare an analysis of adjacencies between the Civic Center and up to four sites as directed by staff. Deliverables . Preliminary master plan alternatives. . Final Civic Center Master Plan. . Executive summary description of the Master Plan. . Site Plan(s), Conceptual Building Plans, Conceptual Building Elevations/Sections, Conceptual Landscape Plan, Massing Model . Phasing/lmplementation Plan . Project Schedule/Budget . Project Specific Development Budget . Project Specific Development Master Schedule . Construction Management Plan Environmental Analysis Tasks 4.25 Prior to completion of the Civic Center Master Plan Consultant shall work with City Staff to prepare any appropriate environmental documentation 4.26 Prepare updates of any underlying studies necessary to analyze the environmental issues associated with the proposed sites. 4.27 Prepare and submit process application documentation and pay filing fees 11 5. PERIODIC REPORTING/GENERAL PROVISIONS Consultant shall work closely with City Staff to define and establish an appropriate Management Information System (MIS) to provide communication and timely reporting for the project. Tasks 5.1 Consultant shall meet with City to determine reporting needs 5.2 Consultant shall prepare a detailed Work Plan consistent with the project proposal submitted by Consultant and this Agreement which shall contain deadlines for those deliverables identified within this Agreement. This Work Plan upon approval by staff shall be incorporated into this Agreement and shall be binding upon Consultant. 5.3 Consultant shall establish appropriate software. formats and schedules 5.4 Consultant shall implement Reporting System acceptable to City which provides City with readily accessible information on the progress of this project. 5.5 Numerous tasks within this Agreement require Consultant to meet with the City. Consultant agrees that Consultant shall meet with City as many times as reasonably requested by City without requesting a modification to the agreed upon compensation. Deliverables . Periodic reports to City Staff and others as directed by Contract Administrator. This may include reports or presentations to the Resource Conservation Committee, Design Review Committee, Planning Commission and City Council. . Creation of Report System H :\HomelAtto rneylAg ree\CivicCenter1 . pd. doc 12 City of Chula Vista Police Headquarters and Civic Center PRE-DESIGN (PROGRAMMING) PHASE RESTATED AND AMENDED CONTRACT Highland Partnership, Inc. November 21 2000 DESCRIPTION CIVIC CENTER POUCE HEADQUARTERS POUCE HEADQUARTERS "RESTATED AND AMENDED SCOPE" 1. POLICE HEADQUARTERS NEEDS ANALYSIS I PROGRAMMING Develop Space Needs Study Step 1 Data Gathering (30 Days) Step 2 Data Synthesis (30 Days) Slap 3 Documentation (30 Days) Subtotal 2. DEVELOPMENT OF A COMPREHENSIVE SITE LOCATION ANALYSIS TO DETERMINE THE APPROPRIATE AREA AND SITE FOR POLICE HEADQUARTERS. City Study (30 Days) Review Regional Areas Comprehensive list of Cliteria for final site sel6ction Selected Potential Sites Meeting with CITY Subtotal Specific Site Studies (60 Days) Site sketches for the Selecled Potential Siles Graphics for site plans and Massing studies for each of the Selected Potential Siles Initial Environmental Study Budget studies for each of the Selected Potential Sites Meetings with CITY to review Selected Potential Sites Final Selected Site recommendation to CITY Subtotal 3. CONCEPTUAL DESIGN FOR POLICE HEADQUARTERS (83 Days) Roor Plans Site/Root Plan Two Major Architectural Elevations Architectural Building Sections - Longitudinal and Latitudinal Three Vignettes. Hand Drawn 'ArchitecturallUustratioos" Architectural Landscape Color Overlay Monochromatic Model Mect\lEIec/Plumbing Single Una Drawings Outline Specifications Architectural Illustration / Rendering Site and Project Specific Development Cost Project Specific Master Schedule Construction Management and Implementation Plan Subtotal 4. CIVIC CENTER RENOVATION AND EXPANSION (100 DAYS) Needs Assessment Kickoff Meeling Programming questionnaires submitted to City for approval Programming questionaires circulated to staft Programming questionaires reviewed and summary prepared for staft. Base facility, department, and site location map. Workstation Standards, Draft Facility Needs Assessment/Program, Final Facility Needs Assessment/Program Presentation Graphics Subtotal Facility Assessment Facility Assessment Report Background CADD drawings of all buildings Subtotal Short Term Facility Needs Planning Short Term Space PlanslCOIlCtlpt Building Plans Conceptual Elevations, Sections, Outline Specifications, Massing Model Phasing/Implementation Plan Project Schedule/Budget Subtotal Long Term Faclllty Needs Planning Preliminary master plan alternatives. Final Civic Center Master Plan. $14,990 25,160 17,760 57,910 $0 o o o $0 17,500 0 6,200 0 3,700 0 27,400 0 38,461 18,625 15,443 6,588 43,310 10,740 9,600 4,500 2,400 3,650 4,800 114,014 44,102 47,912 33,937 44,394 27,850 28,894 4,334 9,831 1,475 8,400 2,772 8,100 3,645 9,231 3,046 9,900 11,500 5,000 9,600 3,168 2,880 1,440 2,880 198,522 81,667 o o o o o 1,250 750 960 'SO 3,600 3,360 4,800 6,000 2,500 24,200 o o 1,500 3,500 5,000 o o 17,500 29,800 7,500 9,600 ~~,~ 11,80'0 4,500 Highland Partnership, Inc. Chula Vista Police HeadQUarters\8illings\SCHEDULE OF VALUES - RESTATED AND AMENDED CONTRACT 1b.123 DESCRIPTION POUCE POUCE HEADQUARTERS CIVIC CENTER HEADQUARTERS "RESTATED AND AMENDED SCOPE" Executive summary description of the Master Plan. 1,200 Sile Plants), Conceptual Building Plans, Conceptual Building Elevations! Sections, Conceptual landscape Plan, Massing Model 13,500 Project Specific Development Budget 4,800 PrOject Specific Master Schedule 4,800 Construction Management and Implementation Plan 4,800 Subtotal 0 0 45,400 5. Periodic Reporting Periodic reports to City Staff and others as directed by Contract Administrator. 5,400 2,700 5,400 Subtotal 5,400 2,700 5,400 SUBTOTALS - FIXED FEE ALLOCATIONS 403,246 128,469 144,400 TOTAL - REVISED FIXED FEE $676,115 City of Chula Vista Police Headquarters and Civic Center PRE-DESIGN (PROGRAMMING) PHASE RESTATED AND AMENDED CONTRACT Highland Partnership, Inc. November 21 2000 Highland Partnership, Inc. Chuta Vista Police Headquarters\Billings\SCHEOULE OF VALUES - RESTATED AND AMENDED CONTRACT 1 b.123 City of Chula Vista Police Headquarters and Civic Center PRE-DESIGN (PROGRAMMING) PHASE RESTATED AND AMENDED CONTRACT Highland Partnership, Inc. November 21. 2000 DESCRIPTION CIVIC CENTER POUCE HEADQUARTERS POUCE HEADQUARTERS "RESTATED AND AMENDED SCOPE" 1. POLICE HEAOQUARTERS NEEDS ANALYSIS I PROGRAMMING Develop Space Needs Study Slep 1 Data Gathering (30 Days) Slep 2 Data Synthesis (30 Days) Slep 3 Documentation (30 Days) Subtotal 2, DEVELOPMENT OF A COMPREHENSIVE SITE LOCATION ANALYSIS TO DETERMINE THE APPROPRIATE AREA AND SITE FOR POLlCE HEADQUARTERS, City Study (30 Days) Review Regional Areas Comprehensive list of criteria for final sile selection Selected Potential Siles Meeting with CITY Subtotal SpecifiC Site Studies (SO Days) Site sketches for the Selected Potential Siles Graphics for site plans and Massing studies for each of the Selected Potential Sites Initial Environmental Study Budget studies for each of the Selecled Potential Sites Meetings 'Nith CITY to review Selected Potential Sites Final Selected Site recommendation to CITY Subtotal 3, CONCEPTUAL DESIGN FOR POLICE HEADQUARTERS (83 Days) Roor Plans Site/Roof Plan Two Major Architectural Elevations Architectural Building Sections - longitudinal and latitudinal Three Vignet1es - Hand Drawn oArct'titecturallUuslralions' Architectural landscape Color Overlay Monochromatic Model MechlEIec/Plumbing Single Una Drawings Outline Specifications Architectural Illustration I Rendering Site and Project Specific Development Cost Project Specific Master Schedule Construction Management and Implementation Plan Subtotal 4, CIVIC CENTER RENOVATION AND EXPANSION (100 DAYS) Needs Assessment Kickoff Meeting Programming questionnaires submitted to City tor approval . Programming questionaires circulated 10 staff Programming questionaires reviewed and summary prepared for staff. Base facility, department, and site location map. WOlkslation Standards. Draft Facility Needs Assessment/Program. Final Facility Needs AssessmenVProgram Presentation Graphics Subtotal Facility Assessment Facility Assessment Report Background CADD drawings of all buildings Subtotal Short Term Facility Needs Planning Short Term Space Plans/Concept Building Plans Conceptual Elevations, Sections, Outline Specifications, Massing Model Phasing/Implementation Plan Project ScheduleIBudget Subtotal Long Term Facility Needs Planning Preliminary master plan alternatives. Final Civic Center Master Plan. $14,990 25,160 17,760 57,910 $0 o o D $0 17,500 0 6.200 0 3,700 0 27,400 0 38,461 18,625 15,443 6,588 43,310 10.740 9,600 4,500 2,400 3,650 4,800 114,014 44,102 47,912 33,937 44,394 27,850 28,894 4,334 9.831 1,475 8,400 2,772 8,100 3,645 9,231 3,046 9,900 11,500 5,000 9,600 3,168 2,880 1,440 2,880 198,522 81,667 o o o o D 1,250 750 960 960 3,600 3,380 4,800 6,000 2,500 24,200 D D 1,500 3,500 5,000 o D 17,500 29,800 7,500 9,600 _64,400 11,80'0 4,500 Highland Partnership, Inc. Chuta Vista Police Headquartern\8illings\SCHEDUlE DF VALUES. RESTATED AND AMENDED CONTRACT 1b,123 DESCRIPTION POUCE POUCE HEAOQUARTERS CIVIC CENTER HEADQUARTERS "RESTATED AND AMENDED SCOPE" Executive summary description of the Master Plan. 1,200 Site Plan(Sj, Conceptual Building Plans, Conceptual Building Elevations! Sections, Conceptual Landscape Plan, Massing Model 13,500 Project Specific Development Budget 4,800 Project Specific Master Schedule 4,800 Construction Management and Implementation Plan 4,800 Subtotal 0 0 45,400 5. Periodic Reporting Periodic reports to City Staff and others as directed by Contract Administrator. 5,400 2,700 5,400 Subtotal 5,400 2,700 5,400 SUBTOTALS - FIXED FEE ALLOCATIONS 403,246 128,469 144,400 TOTAL - REVISED FIXED FEE $676,115 City of Chura Vista Police Headquarters and Civic Center PRE-DESIGN (PROGRAMMING) PHASE RESTATED AND AMENDED CONTRACT Highland Partnership, Inc. November 21 2000 Highland Partnership, Inc. Chula Vista Police Headquarters\Billings\SCHEOUlE OF VALUES. RESTATED AND AMENDED CONTRACT 1b.123 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT ITEM NO.: ,~ MEETING DATE: 12/05/00 ITEM TITLE: REPORT REGARDING EXTENDING THE TEMPORARY CLOSURE OF CENTER~ STREET AND A PORTION OF CHURCH AVENUE FOR THE DOWNTOWN FARMERS' MARKET ON THURSDAY AFTERNOONS FOR A TWO-YEAR PERIOD SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AND REQUESTING PERMISSION TO PROVIDE A RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE SITE IN FEBRUARY, 2001 SUBMITTED BY: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR l~--~ REVIEWED BY: CITY MANAGER 4/STHS VOTE: YES BACKGROUND On October 3, 1995, the City Council approved the closure of Center Street between Third Avenue and Church Avenue on Thursday afternoons for the Downtown Farmers' Market. The Market area was expanded on June 24, 1997 to include a portion of Church Avenue to accommodate an increased number of vendors and add a section for craft booths. In accordance with the adopted conditions of approval, the street closure needed to be extended by the City Council before December 31, 2000. The Farmers' Market has grown in popularity and again needs to expand. On November 14, staff recommended to the City Council an extension of the Center Street closure to include the southern- most lane of Center Street from Church Avenue to Del Mar Street. The City Council adopted the measure, however based on concerns about accessibility, directed staff to search for alternative sites for the Farmers' Market and to report back at a December Council meeting. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that City Council accept this report and permit staff to return with a recommended alternative Farmers' Market site in February, allowing time for appropriate departmental and citizen reviews. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION Not applicable. PAGE 2, ITEM NO.: MEETING DATE: 12/05/00 DISCUSSION The Downtown Farmers' Market has become a very successful promotional activity within the Third Avenue Downtown area. Due to the increasing number of patrons, the narrow lay-out of the Center Street location is causing difficultie? in accessibilih~. To facilitate a more open lay-out, staff has identified three alternative sites for review (see attachments). These include Park Way adjacent to Memorial Park, the parking lot south of Davidson on Landis Avenue, and the parking lot north of Davidson on Landis Avenue. In addition, staff will analyze management techniques that might allow the operation to continue in its current location. To fully analyze the newly considered sites, environmental, traffic, safety, financial and citizen reviews must be conducted. Further, the Downtown Business Association and Town Center I Project Area Committee must endorse a site. In order to complete these reviews and meet the deadlines required internally for City Council Agenda Items, staff is requesting until February, 2001 to return with recommendations. The result of accepting this recommendation wilt be that the Farmers' Market will remain open on Center Street and a portion of Church Avenue for the next several months. The existing popularity and congestion at the event, although somewhat mitigated by the extension of the street closure to Del Mar Avenue, will continue in the near term. It is anticipated that the City Council would provide a transition period after adopting an alternative site or endorsing new management techniques to allow the Farmers' Market to notify vendors and prepare for a move or changes in operations. Additionally, staff may recommend the purchase of temporary signage to assist the Downtown Business Association in publicizing a new location to the public. FISCAL IMPACT ATTACHMENTS · Site map of three proposed alternatives and existing Market location H :\HOME\COMMDEV~STAFF.REI~ 12-05-00\frn-altsites.doc FARMER'S MARKET 300~0 300 600 Feet CITY COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT ITEM NO.: ~ MEETING DATE: 12/05/00 ITEM TITLE: RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA SUPPORTING THE EXPANSION OF THE SAN YSIDRO/OTAY MESA ENTERPRISE ZONE AND TARGETED EMPLOYMENT AREA TO INCLUDE CERTAIN AREAS IN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA; APPROVING AGREEMENTS WITH THE CALIFORNIA TRADE AND COMMERCE AGENCY, THE CITY OF SAN DIEGO AND THE PORT OF SAN DIEGO REGARDING ZONE EXPANSION AND IMPLEMENTATION; AND APPROPRIATING $29,500 FROM THE GENERAL FUND TO SUPPORT THE EXPANDED ENTERPRISE ZONE PROGRAM SUBMITTED BY: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR I~"~ REVIEWED BY: CITY MANAGER (~'~0~ 4/5THS VOTE: .S BACKGROUND The City of San Diego has Ho existing Enterprise Zones designated by the California Trade and Commerce Agency: the Southeast/Barrio Logan (or Metro) Zone, established in 1986, and the San Ysidro/Otay Mesa Zone, designated on January 27, 1992. The existing San Ysidro/Otay Mesa Zone is located adiacent to the southwestern corner of the City of Chula Vista. The Zone provides businesses located or locating within its boundaries with state tax credits and other benefits for purchasing new equipment and hiring employees qualified through a vouchering process. The purpose of the Zone is to stimulate private investment and create job opportunities for Iow-income and other community residents. State legislation does not currently allow for any new Enterprise Zone designations. However, existing zones are allowed to expand by up to 20% of the originally designated area, if they are less than 13 square miles at the time of designation. The San Ysidro/Otay Mesa Zone has a current expansion capacity of 827 acres based on the 20% allowance under state legislation. City staff is proposing an expansion of the existing San Ysidro/Otay Mesa Enterprise Zone to include certain areas in the City of Chula Vista. The City of San Diego has previously expanded the Enterprise Zone several times over the last eight years. The City of San Diego, as lead agency, advised City staff that this Zone expansion is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15061, Subsection (B} (3) of the State CEQA guidelines. City staff is abo proposing an expansion of San Diego's Targeted Employment Area (TEA) to include Iow- and moderate-income 1990 Census tracts in the City of Chula Vista. A map of the PAGE 2, ITEM NO.: MEETING DATE: 12/05/00 proposed TEA expansion in included as Exhibit B to A~tachment 1. The TEA is one method for qualifying employees that businesses can hire to receive Enterprise Zone benefits. On November 20, 2000, the Cih/ Council of the City of San Diego approved a resolution authorizing San Diego city staff to submit a request to the California Trade and Commerce Agency for an expansion of the San Ysidro/Otay Mesa Enterprise Zone and Targeted Employment Area to include certain areas in the City of Chub Vista. The City Council of the City of Chula Vista is being asked to consider a resolution supporting San Diego's Zone expansion request to the state and authorizing city staff to execute the necessary agreements with the California Trade and Commerce Agency, the City of San Diego and the Port of San Diego to implement, administer and provide funding support for the proposed Enterprise Zone expansion. RECOMMENDATION That the City Council adopt the resolution of the City Council of the City of Chula Vista supporting the expansion of the San Ysidro/Otay Mesa Enterprise Zone and Torgeted Employment Area to include certain areas in the City of Chula Vista; approving agreements with the California Trade and Commerce Agency, the City of San Diego and the Port of San Diego regarding Zone expansion and implementation; and appropriating $29,500 from the General Fund to support the expanded Enterprise Zone Program. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION DISCUSSION PROPOSED ZONE EXPANSION AREA The San Ysidro/Otay Mesa Enterprise Zone has a current expansion capacity of 827 acres. The City of San Diego may seek to expand the Zone by 250 acres, which leaves a surplus expansion capacity of 577 acres. To be eligible for Zone designation under state legislation, land must be zoned commercial or industrial and must be served by basic infrastructure. Expansion areas must also be contingent to the existing Zone boundaries or connected by right-of-way. The proposed Zone Expansion Area, as indicated on Exhibit A of Altachment 1, would utilize the 577 acres of expansion capacity by including the following properly located in the Cities of Chula Vista and San Diego (acreages are based on the most current GIS and assessor's data available): PAGE 3, ITEM NO.: MEETING DATE: 12/05/00 IBF Goodrich campus 75.6 acres Port Distrid of San Diego tidelands 161.2 acres Port District properly leased to Duke Energy 140.9 acres Chula Vista Capital 20.0 acres Fairfield/Fenton (Partially located in San Diego) 56.4 acres Raytheon 9.8 acres Port District of San Diego ("Pond 20" in San Diego) 100.0 acres Planned PG&E peak load power plant site 9.8 acres Right-of-way connedions to existing Zone 3.3 acres TOTAL 577.0 ACRES Approximately 440 acres of the proposed expansion area are located within the City of Chula Vista and approximately 135 acres of the proposed expansion area are located within the City of San Diego (including the 100-acre Port District site and 35.7 acres of the Fenton site). The Port of San Diego owns approximately 400 acres located in both cities. ZONE EXPANSION PROCESS AND AGREEMENTS In order for an expansion of the Enterprise Zone to occur, the City of San Diego would need to submit an expansion request to the California Trade and Commerce Agency. Because the expansion would involve an additional jurisdiction under the Zone, the City of Chula Vista would be required to execute a Memorandum of Understanding .(MOU) with the California Trade end Commerce Agency indicating how the city will support the expanded Zone. The MOU will describe existing and planned activities in the areas of marketing, business outreach, and other business assistance programs that will be used to promote and enhance the benefits of the Enterprise Zone to businesses. Staff is currently developing this MOU in cooperation with staff at the City of San Diego and the California Trade and Commerce Agency as there are no specific requirements for an MOU to address this kind of inter-jurisdictional Zone expansion. The City of San Diego, as the primary agency responsible for administration of the Enterprise Zone Program, would need additional staff support to meet state requirements for data collection and reporting, marketing and business outreach, and employee vouchering for businesses in the Zone expansion area. Staff is proposing that the City of Chula Vista and the Port of San Diego consider a cost-sharing agreement to fund the necessary increase in staff support for the expanded Enterprise Zone Program. Under the proposed agreement, the City of Chula Vista and the Port of San Diego would each fund 50% of the expanded Enterprise Zone Program budget as described in Exhibit C of Attachment 1. The Board of Port Commissioners is anticipated to consider a resolution of suppo~ for the Enterprise Zone expansion at its regular meeting on December 5, 2000. CONDITIONS OF THE MOU WITH SAN DIEGO The draft MOU between the City of Chub Vista and the City of San Diego, included as Attachment 1, addresses issues of administration, resources and other collaborative efforts for implementation of the expanded Enterprise Zone program. Under the terms of the proposed MOU, the City of San Diego will administer the entire Enterprise Zone Program and coordinate workforce development services for businesses in the expanded Enterprise Zone. A designated PAGE 4, ITEM NO.: MEETING DATE: 12/05/00 employee at the City of San Diego will be responsible for providing employee certification and vouchering and technical assistance to Chula Vista businesses in the expanded Enterprise Zone. The Business Retention Specialist for the City of Chula Vista will provide business outreach and marketing of the Enterprise Zone to Chula Vista businesses in conjunction with other business assistance programs currently promoted by the city. The draft MOU also proposes that the hvo cities work collaboratively to establish goals and objectives for the expanded Zone, and to develop and implement marketing strategies and materials to promote the expanded Zone. In addition, staff from both cities will meet on a quarterly basis to review progress toward goals and objectives, issues and policy changes affecting the Zone, administrative issues and annual state reporting requirements. Each city will be responsible for colleding and maintaining pertinent data for its respective jurisdiction to fulfill these reporting requirements. BENEFITS OF THE ENTERPRISE ZONE EXPANSION By utilizing a portion of San Diego's existing Enterprise Zone expansion capacity, the City of Chula Vista would be able to offer significant tax incentives to businesses located or locating in the Zone expansion area. These tax benefits would encourage existing companies to expand, invest in additional machinery and equipment, and create new job opportunities for Iow-income and other community residents. The City of Chula Vista would also use the Enterprise Zone designation as a marketing tool to attrad new businesses to the city. Benefits of the Zone would also enhance efforts of the city and the Port of San Diego to redevelop the bay front and attract quality businesses to that area. The proposed Enterprise Zone expansion offers a unique oppodunity for regional collaboration and an unprecedented economic development partnership between the Cities of San Diego and Chula Vista and the Port District of San Diego. FISCAL IMPACT Under the conditions of the draft MOU with the City of San Diego, city staff is proposing that the City of Chub Vista fund 50 percent of the annual budget for administration of the Enterprise Zone Expansion Area. For fiscal year 2001, the annualized amount for administration of the expanded Zone Program is $59,000 and the City of Chula Vista would need to appropriate $29,500 from the General Fund to cover its 50 percent contribution. The City Council will also need to appropriate funds on an annual basis for the life of the Enterprise Zone, through January 27, 2007, to cover the City's annual funding commitment for the life of the Zone. The annual fiscal impact of providing funding support for the expanded Enterprise Zone Program is as follows: Fiscal Year I 2001 2002 2003 I 2004 2005 2006 2007 Projected AnnualI $29,500 $45,925 $47,700I $47,050 $49,000 $48,500 $24,750 Fiscal Impact PAGE 5, ITEM NO.: MEETING DATE: 12/05/00 ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1 - Draft Memorandum of Understanding between the City of San Diego and the City of Chula Vista Exhibit A - Map of the San Ysidro/Otay Mesa Enterprise Zone Proposed 2000 Expansion Exhibit B - Map of the Targeted Employment Area Proposed Expansion Exhibit C - Expanded Enterprise Zone Program Budget, Fiscal Years 2001-2007 H:\HOME\COMMDEV~STAFF.REP~I 2-05-O0\EZ COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT.DOC RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA SUPPORTING THE EXPANSION OF THE SAN YSIDRO/OTAY MESA ENTERPRISE ZONE AND TARGETED EMPLOYMENT AREA TO INCLUDE CERTAIN AREAS IN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA; APPROVING AGREEMENTS WITH THE CALIFORNIA TRADE AND COMMERCE AGENCY, THE CITY OF SAN DIEGO AND THE PORT OF SAN DIEGO REGARDING ZONE EXPANSION AND IMPLEMENTATION; AND APPROPRIATING $29,500 FROM THE GENERAL FUND TO SUPPORT THE EXPANDED ENTERPRISE ZONE PROGRAM. WHEREAS, the City of San Diego received designation from the California Trade and Commerce Agency for the San'Ysi~ro/Otay Mesa Enterprise Zone on January 27, 1992, as a 15- year state designated area within which businesses may claim certain state tax benefits, primarily for hiring qualified new employees and/or purchasing equipment to stimulate investment in economically distressed areas; and WHEREAS, the existing San Ysidro/Otay Mesa Enterprise Zone has 827 acres available for expansion based on California state law that permits the expansion of Enterprise Zones by up to 20% of the originally designated area, if less than 13 square miles at the time of designation; and WHEREAS, the City of San Diego will seek to expand the boundaries of the San Ysidro/Otay Mesa Enterprise Zone by no more than 250 acres, leaving a surplus of 577 acres; and WHEREAS, the City of Chula Vista is currently unable to obtain an Enterprise Zone designation from the California Trade and Commerce Agency due to the legislative limitation of 39 Zone designations, all of which have already been established within the state; and WHEREAS, it is recommended that an expansion of the San Ysidro/Otay Mesa Enterprise Zone to include an additional 577 acres, particularly described in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference and from hereon referred to as the "Zone Expansion Area", would promote private business investment and the creation of new job opportunities to benefit Iow- income and other disadvantaged community residents; and WHEREAS, the Port of San Diego owns approximately 400 acres of property located in the cities of Chula Vista and San Diego adjacent to the existing boundaries of the San Ysidro/Otay Mesa Enterprise Zone, which is included in the proposed expansion request; and WHEREAS, the City of San Diego received designation in November 1998 from the California Trade and Commerce Agency for a Targeted Employment Area (TEA) comprised of Iow- and moderate-income 1990 Census tracts in conjunction with the San Ysidro/Otay Mesa Enterprise Zone to encourage Enterprise Zone businesses to hire TEA residents in order to receive state tax credits on wages paid to these employees; and WHEREAS, an expansion of the TEA to include Iow- and moderate-income 1990 Census tracts in the City of Chula Vista, particularly described in Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, would promote workforce development and employment opportunities created by businesses located within the Enterprise Zone to benefit Iow-income and other residents of Chula Vista; and WHEREAS, a request to expand the San Ysidro/Otay Mesa Enterprise Zone to include certain areas within the City of Chula Vista requires a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the California Trade and Commerce Agency and the City of Chula Vista, as an additional jurisdiction included in the Enterprise Zone; and WHEREAS, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the City of Chula Vista and the City of San Diego is necessary to address program administration, compensation and resources to support the Enterprise Zone Expansion Area; and WHEREAS, the proposed Enterprise Zone expansion would involve a regional partnership between the City of Chula Vista, the City of San Diego and the Port of San Diego with each organization providing funding and/or programmatic support. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA does hereby find, determine and resolve that: 1. An expansion of the San Ysidro/Otay Mesa Enterprise Zone to include certain areas in the City of Chula Vista, as described in Exhibit A, will provide businesses located or locating in the designated area with certain state tax benefits, primarily for hiring qualified new employees and/or purchasing new equipment, resulting in pdvate investment, the creation of new job opportunities and significant economic benefits for South Bay communities; 2. An expansion of the City of San Diego's Targeted Employment Area (TEA) to include Iow- and moderate-income 1990 Census tracts in the City of Chula Vista, as described in Exhibit B, would assist employers located or locating in the Enterprise Zone and provide employment opportunities for Iow-income and other community residents; 3. The City Manager or his designee is authorized and directed to assist the City of San Diego by providing the necessary documentation in support of a request to the California Trade and Commerce Agency for expansion of the San Ysidro/Otay Mesa Enterprise Zone to include the proposed Zone Expansion Area described in Exhibit A; 4. The City Manager or his designee is authorized and directed to execute afl MOU with the California Trade and Commerce Agency to include the City of Chula Vista as an additional jurisdiction within the expanded Enterprise Zone; 5. The City Manager or his designee is authorized to execute an MOU with the City of San Diego to address program administration, compensation and resources to support the Zone Expansion Area; 6. The City Manager or his designee is authorized to execute a cost-sharing agreement with the Port of San Diego to address funding support for the Zone Expansion Area; 7. All of the agreements shall be entered into on the terms presented and in final form approved by the City Attorney; 8.$29,500 is appropriated from the General Fund to support the expanded Enterprise Zone for fiscal year 2001. 9.The Zone expansion is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15061, Subsection (B) (3) of the State CEQA Guidelines. Presented by Approved as to form by H:\HOM E\COMMDEV~RESOS\EZ Resolution.doc A'I-I'ACHMENT DRAFI MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE CITY OF SAN DIEGO AND THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA THIS MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ("MOU") is made by and between the CITY OF SAN DIEGO ("SAN DIEGO"), a California municipal corporation, and the CITY OF CHULA VISTA ("CHULA vISTA"), a California municipal corporation. WHEREAS, in 1990, the San Diego City Council directed the City Manager to submit a preliminary application to the State of California Trade & Commerce Agency to compete for a state Enterprise Zone designation to include the communities of San Ysidro, Otay Mesa, and Otay Mesa/Nestor; WHEREAS, the State of California Legislature established Enterprise Zones for the purpose of creating jobs and stimulating private investment in economically distressed areas/jurisdictions; WHEREAS, in 1992, SAN DIEGO was awarded a 15 year designation for the San Ysidro/Otay Mesa Enterprise Zone; WHEREAS, in 1995, California legislation was approved increasing Enterprise Zones acreage expansion capacity from 15% to 20% increasing the expansion opportunities from 907.5 acres to 1205 acres for the San Ysidro/Otay Mesa Zone; WHEREAS, SAN DIEGO has already expanded the San Ysidro/Otay Mesa Enterprise Zone by 342.75 acres and may seek to further expand the boundaries of the Zone by no more than 250 acres, which leaves surplus expansion capacity of 577.25 acres; WHEREAS; CHULA VISTA is currently unable to obtain an Enterprise Zone designation from the California Trade & Commerce Agency due to the legislative limitations on Zone designations limiting California Enterprise Zones to 39; WHEREAS; the Unified Port District of San Diego owns approximately 400 acres of property located in the cities of San Diego and Chula Vista adjacent to the existing boundaries of the San Ysidro/Otay Mesa Enterprise Zone, which is included in the proposed expansion area; WHEREAS; the proposed Enterprise Zone expansion would involve a regional partnership between SAN DIEGO, CHULA VISTA and the Port of San Diego with each providing funding and/or programmatic support; WHEREAS; B.F. Goodrich owns property located in the City of Chula Vista and has requested that specific properties located west of Interstate 5 and north of the existing boundaries of the San Ysidro/Otay Mesa Enterprise Zone be included in the proposed expansion area; WHEREAS; Duke Energy, Pacific Gas & Electric, H.G. Fenton and other business and property owners located in the City of Chula Vista would like to expand their facilities and/or redevelop property in an expanded San Ysidro/Otay Mesa Enterprise Zone; WHEREAS; the City of San Diego, Economic Development Division, having administrative and reporting responsibilities to the California Trade & Commerce Agency for two California Enterprise Zones, 14 years of technical experience with the Enterprise Zone program, and a successful Enterprise Zone Job Referral/Placement Service issuing over 7,000 hiring vouchers to Enterprise Zone companies through a collaboration with the California Employment Development Department and the San Diego Workforce Partnership, is willing and capable of sharing this expertise with CHULA VISTA and Chula Vista businesses; WHEREAS; SAN DIEGO has an approved Targeted Employment Area (TEA) incorporating all of the Iow- and moderate-income 1990 Census tracts within its jurisdiction as designated areas approved by the Trade & Commerce Agency to encourage Enterprise Zone businesses to hire TEA residents and therefore receive state tax credits on wages paid to these employees. WHEREAS; An expansion of the existing TEA to include Iow- and moderate-income 1990 Census tracts in Chula Vista would benefit businesses in the Zone and residents of San Diego and Chula Vista; and WHEREAS; SAN DIEGO and CHULA VISTA support regional economic development that benefits all citizens and businesses of South County; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the recitals and mutual obligations of the parties as herein expressed, SAN DIEGO and CHULA VISTA agree as follows: Section I: San YsidrolOtay Mesa Enterprise Zone Expansion SAN DIEGO shall request from the California Trade & Commerce Agency an expansion of the boundaries of the San Ysidro/Otay Mesa Enterprise Zone (Zone). The expansion request shall include certain properties in the City of Chula Vista as described in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference and from hereon referred to as the "ZONE EXPANSION AREA". The Zone Expansion Area is limited to 577 acres and shall include the following sites and acreages based on the most current GIS and Assessor's data available: 3 1) B.F. Goodrich/Rohr, 75.6 acres; 2) Port of San Diego, 402.1 acres (including 302.1 acres in the City of Chula Vista and 100.0 acres in the City of San Diego); 3) Raytheon, 9.8 acres; 4) H.G. Fenton, 56.4 acres (including 20.7 in the City of Chula Vista and 35.7 in the City of San Diego); 5) Chula Vista Capital, 20.0 acres; 6) Pacific Gas & Electric, 9.8 acres; and 7) Approximately 3.3 acres of right-of-way for contiguity with existing Zone boundaries. SAN DIEGO shall further request from the California Trade & Commerce Agency an expansion of the boundaries of the San Diego Targeted Employment Area (TEA). The TEA expansion request shall include Iow- and moderate-income 1990 Census tracts in the City of Chula Vista as described in Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. SAN DIEGO and CHULA VISTA will collaborate to comply with the requirements of the California Trade & Commerce Agency for Zone and TEA expansions as follows: SAN DIEGO: 1) The SAN DIEGO City Manager will request from SAN DIEGO City Council a resolution authorizing him to submit a request to the State of California Trade & Commerce Agency to expand the San Ysidro/Otay Mesa Enterprise Zone to include the ZONE EXPANSION AREA contiguous to the existing Zone boundaries. 2) The SAN DIEGO City Manager will initiate a request for another SAN DIEGO City Council resolution authorizing the expansion of SAN DIEGO's TEA to include Iow- and moderate-income 1990 Census tracts in the City of Chula Vista. 3) SAN DIEGO staff will coordinate and provide technical assistance to Chula Vista in preparing documentation required for the Zone and TEA expansion requests. 4) SAN DIEGO staff will submit a request with all pertinent documentation to the California Trade & Commerce Agency requesting the expansion of SAN DIEGO's existing Zone and TEA. CHULA VISTA: 1) The CHULA VISTA City Manager will request from City Council a resolution supporting SAN DIEGO's Zone and TEA expansion requests to the California Trade & Commerce Agency. 2) CHULA VISTA staff will prepare all documentation required by the California Trade & Commerce Agency for the Enterprise Zone and TEA expansions including, but not limited to, the following: a) CHULA VISTA City Council resolution supporting SAN DIEGO's Enterprise Zone expansion request to the California Trade & Commerce Agency to include property in the City of Chula Vista. b) Map/s illustrating the proposed ZONE EXPANSION AREA limited to 577 acres with commercial or industrial zoning and contiguous to the existing Zone's most northerly boundary line. c) Modification to the Zone's boundary description document to include the Zone Expansion Area. d) Modification to the Zone's street range document to include the Zone Expansion Area. e) Modification of SAN DIEGO's TEA street range document to include Chula Vista's Iow- and moderate-income 1990 Census tracts. f) Initiate an MOU with the California Trade & Commerce Agency identifying Chula Vista's goals and objectives for implementing the Enterprise Zone Program in collaboration with the existing San Diego Enterprise Zone Program. Section Ih Zone Administration As the grantee of the Zone designation, SAN DIEGO will continue to assume responsibility for the administration of the Zone which includes coordinating and submitting all annual reports to the California Trade & Commerce Agency, overseeing the employee certification and vouchering process, and administering the job placement/referral service. SAN DIEGO and CHULA VISTA will collaborate on the following: 1) Establishing goals and objectives for the Zone, as expanded. 2) Developing and implementing marketing strategies including, but not limited to workshops, press releases, marketing materials, trade shows and business outreach. 3) SAN DIEGO and CHULA VISTA staff shall meet quarterly to discuss such issues as policy changes affecting this MOU, existing and new work plans, progress and tracking of goals and objectives, joint administrative issues, and annual reporting requirements 4) Enterprise Zone business attraction activities and responses to Enterprise Zone site selection requests from economic development organizations and/or businesses whenever possible. SAN DIEGO and CHULA VISTA further agree that all San Ysidro/Otay Mesa Enterprise Zone promotional materials designed for distribution to the public, businesses and economic development organizations shall include information on both jurisdictions whenever possible and shall be reviewed and mutually agreed to by designated employees 5 from both SAN DIEGO and CHULA VISTA whenever both jurisdictions are referenced. Each city will collect and maintain pertinent data for the respective jurisdiction as required by the Trade and Commerce Agency for annual reports and state audits, and as required by their respective City Managers and City Councils. This information includes, but is not limited to the following: 1 ) List of existing .businesses within the Zone 2) New businesses locating in the Zone $) Number of companies receiving vouchers 4) Number of vouchers issued 5) Number of jobs created and/or retained within the Zone 6) Number of residential and commercial building permits issued and valuation of structures for which building permits are issued 7) Value and nature of incentives provided to companies within the Zone, and 8) Number of business inquiries requesting information on Zone incentives. Each jurisdiction shall have an assigned employee responsible for responding to inquiries regarding the Enterprise Zone Program benefits, collecting and updating data for reporting purposes, and for additional support to the Zone Program as required. These assigned positions, upon execution of this MOU, shall be the San Ysidro/Otay Mesa Enterprise Zone Program Manager for SAN DIEGO and the Business Retention Specialist for CHULA VISTA. SAN DIEGO will also have a designated employee responsible for assisting Zone businesses located in both jurisdictions with employee certification and vouchering in a timely manner. Section IIh Compensation and Resources In consideration of SAN DIEGO's agreement to administer the entire Enterprise Zone Program and to coordinate workforce development services for businesses located in the Enterprise Zone and ZONE EXPANSION AREA, CHULA VISTA shall be responsible for full compensation of the annualized amount of program funding to SAN DIEGO to provide additional administrative support for the Enterprise Zone expansion for fiscal years 2001- 2008 as described in Exhibit C ("City of San Diego Enterprise Zone Program: City of Chula Vista Budget Contribution in Support of the San Ysidro/Otay Mesa Enterprise Zone Expansion, Fiscal Years 2001-2008") attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. CHULA VISTA shall reimburse the aforementioned annualized amount of program funding to SAN DIEGO through January 2007. The compensation and budget may be adjusted by no more than 5% per year and such adjustment must be approved in writing by the contract administrators for SAN DIEGO and CHULA VISTA. In order to facilitate the aforementioned compensation agreement for the term of this MOU, CHULA VISTA shall reimburse SAN DIEGO for time and materials within 15 days of receipt of a quarterly invoice detailing San Diego's expenditures and upon satisfactory performance of this MOU. Chula Vista may not unreasonably withhold payment unless expenditures have not been properly accounted for. Section IV: Hold Harmless CHULA VISTA and SAN DIEGO agree to defend, indemnify, protect, and hold harmless each other's agents, officers and employees from and against any and all claims asserted of liability established for damages or injuries to any person or property, including injury to CHULA VISTA and SAN DIEGO employees, agents or officers which arise from or are connected with or caused or claimed to be caused by the acts or omission of the other or the other's agents, officers or employees, in performing the work or services herein, and all expenses of investigating and defending against same; PROVIDED, however, that CHULA VISTA and SAN DIEGO's duty to indemnify and hold harmless the other shall not include any claims or liability arising from the established sole negligence or willful misconduct of the other, its agents, officers or employees. Section V: General Provisions 1) The contract administrator for this MOU for SAN DIEGO shall be the Economic Development Division Deputy Director, and for CHULA VISTA shall be the Community Development Department Director. 2) All Exhibits referred to in this MOU are incorporated by reference and, by this reference, made a part of this MOU as though fully set forth herein. In the event of any discrepancy between the terms of this MOU and any Exhibit, the terms of this MOU shall control. 3) This MOU does not create any agency or partnership relationship. 4) This MOU is not assignable by either party. 5) This MOU is the sole and entire MOU between the parties relating to the subject matter hereof, and supersedes all prior understandings, agreements and documentation relating to such subject matter. Any modifications to this MOU must be in writing and signed by both parties. Section VI: TERM This MOU is effective upon approval by both cities and shall terminate upon expiration of the state designated Zone on January 27, 2007. The effectiveness of this MOU is also contingent upon the approval of a funding contribution to the expanded Enterprise Zone 7 Program by the Board of Port Commissioners of the Unified Port District of San Diego. The Board of Port Commissioners reserves the right to approve a proposed 50% funding contribution at its sole discretion. CHULA VISTA agrees to exercise its best efforts to obtain Port approval of this funding reimbursement by no later than December 15, 2000. Should state legislation allow for extension of the Zone, the terms of this MOU are renewable based upon written agreement by SAN DIEGO and CHULA VISTA. IN WITNESS THEREOF, this Memorandum of Understanding is executed by the City of San Diego, acting by and through its Economic Development and Community Services Director, and the City of Chula Vista, acting by and through its City Manager, on this day of ,2000. THE CITY OF SAN DIEGO by HANK CUNNINGHAM Economic Development and Community Services Director THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA by DAVID D. ROWLANDS, JR. City Manager I HEREBY APPROVE the form and legality of the foregoing Memorandum of Understanding this __ day of ,2000. THE CITY OF SAN DIEGO CASEY GWINN, City Attorney by LISA A. FOSTER Deputy City Attorney THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA JOHN M. KAHENY, City Attorney by_ GLEN GOOGINS Assistant City Attorney sdwpmou.wpd/mdj/Ivm .,- _~ ~-. .......... _~ ........... ~__JL X I San Ysidro / O~y Mesa Enterprise Zone chu~a 2000 Exp~nsio~ Po~ TIUem~nds EXHIBIT B ~/ \ (:3 ', \ ~ 0 EXHIBIT City of San Diego Enterprise Zone Program City of Chula Vista Budget Contribution In Support of the Enterprise Zone Program Expansion Fiscal Years 2001-2008 Fiscal Year 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 CDS II (I) $ 39,000 (2) $ 70,350 $ 73,900 $ 77,600 $ 81,500 $85,500 $45,000 (3) Marl~eting and $ 20,000 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 $ 15,000 $15,000 $I0,000 $ 3,000 Promotional Materials (4) Training $ 0 $ 1,500 $ 1,500 $ 1,500 $ 1,500 $ 1,500 $ 1,500 Total $59,000 $91,850 $95,400 $94,100 $98,000 $97,000 $49,500 Total Budget Allocation: $584,850 Notes: (I) The Community Development Specialist II will be a City of San Diego employee whose activities shall be directed in support of the City's Enterprise Zone Program by the City's Enterprise Zone Manager. The Community Development Specialist II position will provide certification and vouchering to businesses, other related employment related services and maintain data for City of San Diego and City of Chula Vista. Data collection and systematic recordkeeping will include but is not limited to: 1) all vouchers issued; 2) wages paid; 3) employers receiving vouchers; 4) area resident placements (including TEA residents); 5) number of job orders received and completed; and 6) number of jobs created and/or retained. (2) Reflects 7 month allocation from date of expansion approval by Trade & Commerce Agency. (3) Reflects half year allocation due to expiration of Enterprise Zone in January 2007. (4) Includes: Maintaining EZ/TEA maps, participation in Trade Shows, advertising campaign, marketing brochures, workshops, and mailing campaigns. All materials shall be made available to the City of San Diego, City of Chula Vista, Port of San Diego, local Chambers, business associations, South County EDC, and San Diego Regional EDC. Cost would be shared by the City of Chula Vista, Port of San Diego, and the City of San Diego. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT ITm NO.: /0 MEETING DATE: 12/05/00 ITEM TITLE: COUNCIL RESOLUTION WAIVING THE BIDDING PROCESS AS IMPRACTICAL, APPROVING AN AGREEMENT WITH ESTRADA LAND PLANNING, INC., FOR PLANNING AND DESIGN CONSULTANT SERVICES FOR PHASE I OF THE CHULA VISTA ENTRYWAY BEAUTIFICATION PROJECT, AND APPROPRIATING $58,000 FROM THE UNAPPROPRIATED FUND BALANCE OF THE GENERAL FUND TO IMPLEMENT THE PROJECT SUBMITTED BY: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR !~ REVIEWED BY: CITY J~HAGER 4,. TNS VOTE: .S NO BACKGROUND for the Chula ¥ista Entrywa¥ Beautification Proie~t. The purpose of the project is to create a nature in other iurisdidions. Estrada will oversee the implementation of Phase I of the Chula Vista Entryway Beautification Projed. Phase I includes preparing concept plans for plant materials, paving, sidewalks, signage, adwork, street furniture, lighting, and entryway monuments for the three entryways and corridors. Additionally, Estrada will be responsible for community outreach, stakeholder interaction, and PAGE 2, ITEM NO.: / 0 MEETING DATE: 12/05/00 working with an internal committee staffed with representatives from the City's Communifl/ Development, Planning, and Engineering Departments. The work on the "H" Street segment will be initiated first to coincide with already planned landscape and hardscape improvements to the 'H" Street Trolley Station, which are slated to commence in February 2001. Phase 2 of the Chub Vista Entryway Beautification Project, which includes completing draft and final construction plans, will be set fodh in a separate contract. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that Council adopt a resolution waiving the bidding process as impractical and approving an agreement with Estrada Land Planning, Inc. for planning and design consultant services for Phase I of the Chub Vista Entryway Beautification Project, and appropriating $58,000 from the unappropriated fund balance of the General Fund to implement the project. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION _ Not applicable. DISCUSSION The Chula Vista Entryway Beautification Proiect entails revitalizing and providing entry statements to three of the City's primary entryways and corridors - 'E' and "H" Street segments behveen Interstate 5 and Broadway, and the Palomar segment between Interstate 5 and Industrial Boulevard. The work on the "H" Street segment will be initiated first to coincide with already planned landscape and hardscape improvements to the "H" Street Trolley Station, which will be coordinated by MTDB and the City. Improvements to the 'H' Street Trolley Station are slated to commence in February 2001. In September 2000, the Community Development Department issued to prospedive planning and design consultants a Request for Response to the draft scope of work, which initially only included the "E' and 'H" Street segments. The Request for Response was not advertised as the City originally estimated the "E' and 'H' Street segments to cost less than $50,000. The City's Purchasing Guidelines specifies that City requested consultant services costing less than $50,000 requires only three proposals. In order to remain consistent with consultant selection procedures, the City solicited responses from an established list of pre-qualified consultants for As-Needed Planning and Engineering Services that was comprised after an appropriate consultant seledion process. The list of consultants included Estrada Land Planning, Inc., Latitude 33, Lettieri~Mclntyre, and Projed Design Consultants. Due to heavy workloads, an organizational merger between planning firms, and the short time frame to complete work on the H Street segment, Estrada Land Planning was the only respondent to the draft scope of work. Despite that fact, representatives from the Planning and Community PAGE 3, ITEM NO.: /~ MEETING DATE: 12/05/00 Development Departments feel comfortable with the selection of Estrada as the consultant due to their response to the scope of work, their extensive planning and design experience, their cost to do the work, ,and their satisfactory work on other projects of similar nature in other jurisdictions. Estrada is also the consultant for the already planned 'H" Street Trolley Station Improvement Project. Estrada's cost to prepare concept plans/design guidelines for the 'E" and "H" Street segments was $37,000. After Estrada's selection, the scope of work was expanded to include the Palomar segment between Interstate 5 and Industrial Boulevard. The scope of work was expanded, because it was acknowledged that the Palomar segment was also a primary entryway into the City in need of revitalization. Estrada's revised proposal to include the Palomar segment increased the cost to $58,000, which was more than the City's $50,000 requirement to advertise for consultant services. Since the revised scope of work was over $50,000, the City is normally required to conduct a formal bidding process. As previously mentioned, heavy workloads, a merger between planning firms, and the short time frame to complete the H Street segment made it difficult for other consultants to respond to the Request for Response. As a result, Estrada was the only qualified respondent to the Request for Response. However, the City is requesting waiving the bidding process as impractical because the City made a good faith effod to solicit responses from the established list of pre- qualified consultants. It is staff's opinion that even with the additional work, Estrada would have been the only respondent due to the aforementioned factors. Estrada will oversee preparing a thematic approach to the three entryways and corridors emphasizing the City's unique character and providing an enticing front door into some of the most frequented retail establishments in the South Bay, the City's downtown, and the waterfront redevelopment zones. The following provides an overview of the tasks Estrada will undertake to implement Phase I of the Chula Vista Entryway Beautification Project. Phase 2, which includes completing draft and final construction plans, will be set fodh in a separate contract. C:oncept Plan: An analysis of the entryways and corridors will be performed, consisting of field reconnaissance, photo survey and research. Preliminary plans will be created for the entire project at an appropriate scale, indicating locations, size and materials for all proposed construction features. A final concept plan including color graphics depicting the design in site plan and elevation views, signage and banner elements, landscape and hardscape features, recommendations, and a discussion of any opportunities and constraints issues associated with the implementation of the concept plan will be submitted. Design Guidelines: Recommendations will be provided for beautifying private property frontages within the corridors, including possible consolidation of driveways and elimination of curb cuts, consistent with the entryway and corridor design themes. Coordination: The consultant will review and coordinate with MTDB and the City on already planned landscape and hardscape improvements to the 'H' Street Trolley Station. Recommendations will be made to the City within the context of concept plan development. PAGE 4, ITEM NO.: /0 MEETING DATE: ! 2/05/00 Public Meetings: Up to Four communify meetings will be conduded to elicit design ideas and to review entryway and corridor design concept plans. Additionally, the consultant will assist staff and attend up to three meetings at the Design Review Commi,ee, Planning Commission and City Council. FISCAL IMPACT The total cost to implement Phase I of the Chula Vista Entryway Beautification Projed is $58,000; and will be appropriated from the unappropriated fund balance of the General Fund to implement the project. This represents a not-to-exceed contract amount. ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1 - Consultant Agreement H:\HOME\COMMDEV~STAFF.REP\I 2-05 00\AGENDASTATEMENT.Beautification.doc COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA WAIVING THE BIDDING PROCESS AS IMPRACTICAL, APPROVING AN AGREEMENT WITH ESTRADA LAND PLANNING, INC., FOR PLANNING AND DESIGN CONSULTANT SERVICES FOR PHASE I OF THE CHULA VISTA ENTRYWAY BEAUTIFICATION PROJECT, AND APPROPRIATING $58,000 FROM THE UNAPPROPRIATED FUND BALANCE OF THE GENERAL FUND TO IMPLEMENT THE PROJECT WHEREAS, the "E" and "H" Street segments between Interstate 5 and Broadway, and the Palomar segment between Interstate 5 and Industrial Boulevard have long been considered primary entryways into the City in need of revitalization; and WHEREAS, recognizing the importance of revitalizing these critical entryways, the City has developed a scope of work for the Chula Vista Entryway Beautification Project; and WHEREAS, the purpose of the Chula Vista Entryway Beautification Project is to create a thematic approach to these entryways and corridors emphasizing the City's unique character and providing an enticing door to the City's downtown and waterfront areas; and WHEREAS, in September 2000, the Community Development Department issued to prospective planning and design consultants a Request for Response to the draft scope of work for the Chula Vista Entryway Beautification Project, which initially only included the "E" and "H" Street segments; and WHEREAS, the Request for Response was not advertised as the City originally estimated the "E" and "H" Street segments to cost less than $50,000; and WHEREAS, the City's Purchasing Guidelines specifies that City requested consultant services costing less than $50,000 requires only three proposals; and WHEREAS, in order to remain consistent with consultant selection procedures, the City solicited responses from an established list of pre-qualified consultants for As-Needed Planning and Engineering Services; and WHEREAS, Estrada Land Planning, Inc. was selected as the consultant due to their response to the scope of work, their extensive planning and design experience, and the satisfactory work they've performed on other projects of similar nature in other jurisdictions; and WHEREAS, Estrada's scope of work was expanded to include the Palomar segment between Interstate 5 and Industrial Boulevard, because it was acknowledged that the Palomar segment was also a primary entryway into the City in need of revitalization; and WHEREAS, Estrada's revised proposal to include the Palomar segment increased the cost over the City's $50,000 requirement to advertise for consultant services; and WHEREAS, the City is waiving the bidding process as impractical because the City made a good faith effort to solicit responses from the established list of pre-qualified consultants; and WHEREAS, heavy workloads, a merger between planning firms, and the short time frame to complete the H Street segment made it difficult for other consultants to respond to the Request for Response; and WHEREAS, Estrada Land Planning, Inc. warrants and represents that they are experienced and staffed in a matter such that they are and can prepare and deliver the services required to the City Council of the City of Chula Vista within the time frames provided in the Agreement in accordance with all terms and conditions of the Agreement; and WHEREAS, Estrada Land Planning, Inc shall oversee the implementation of Phase I of the Chula Vista Entryway Beautification Project, which includes preparing concept plans for plant materials, paving, sidewalks, signage, artwork, street furniture, lighting, and entryway monuments for the "E" and "H" Street segments between Interstate 5 and Broadway, and the Palomar segment between Interstate 5 and Industrial Boulevard; and WHEREAS, Estrada Land Planning, Inc shall be responsible for community outreach, stakeholder interaction, and working with an internal committee staffed with representatives from the City's Community Development, Planning, and Engineering Departments; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Chula Vista waive the bidding process as impractical and approve an Agreement with Estrada Land Planning, Inc., for planning and design consultant services for Phase I of the Chula Vista Entryway Beautification Project, and appropriate $58,000 from the Unappropriated Fund Balance of the General Fund to implement the project. PRESENTED BY APPROVED AS TO FORM BY Chris Salomone Director of Community Development Cit~ Attorney H:\HOME\COMMDE~ARESOS\Resolution. Beautification,doc Estrada Land Planning Urban Design I~ndscape An:hitec~re ~ -'~'~ Computer tmaging E~rada~ndPlan.cem 619.236.0143 Suite 300 California 92101-6161 619236.0578 F~ R~ 1685 October 11, 2000 Byron Estes Ci~ of Chula Vista 276 FouHh Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 Re: E and H Street Beaufificafion ~roject ELP ~364-02 Dear Byron, We had our insurance broker review the draft contract for which you sent us. We am requesting a few modifications since there are some items which are uninsurable. Following are the modifications we are requesting: · Page 3, Item 1 would not be able to name the City as an AdditJonaJ insured or incJude them as "primal". Page3, JtemlG, Proof of lnsurance: Our insurance company will onJy give l 0 days notice of cancellation due to non-payment of premium. Page 6, Item 2B5, Paragraph 3, Liquidated Damages: In paragraph 3, we request the last sentence be deleted (see a~ached markup). · Page 7, Item 7, Hold Harmless: Please see our revisions on attached markup. The paragraph is uninsurable as is. Page 9, Item 12, Ownership: We would like to add a paragraph to this section (see attached markup). The mason for this is to make sure the plans am not used for another site which they may not be appropriate for. The "Attachment A" which is referred to throughout the document did not have the required items check marked. Please elaborate on what will be ~ncluded in Attachment A. Ptease ceil ~e at G19-236-0143 if you have any questions. Sincerely, President Attachment DRAFT E. Standard of Care Consultant, in performing any Services under this agreement, whether Defined Services or Additional Services, shall perform in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the profession currently practicing under similar conditions and in similar locations. F. Insurance Consultant represents ihat it and its agents, staff and subconsultants employed by it in connection with the SerVices required to be rendered, are protected against the risk of loss by the following insurance coverages, in the following categories, and to the limits specified, policies of which are issued by Insurance Companies that have a Best's Rating of "A, Class V" or better, or shall meet with the approval of the City,: Statutory Worker's Compensation Insurance and Employer's Liability Insurance coverage in the amount set forth in the attached Exhibit A, Paragraph 9. Commercial General Liability Insurance including Business Automobile Insurance coverage in the amount set forth in Exhibit A, Paragraph 9, combined single limit applied separately to each project away from premises owned or rented by Consultant, which names City as an Additional Insured, and which is primary to any policy which the City may otherwise carry ("Primary Coverage"), and which treats the employees of the City in the same manner as members of the general public ("Cross-liability Coverage"). Errors and Omissions insurance, in the amount set forth in Exhibit A, Paragraph 9, unless Errors and Omissions coverage is included in the General Liability policy. G. Proof of Insurance Coverage. (1) Certificates of Insurance. Consultant shall demonstrate proof of coverage herein required, prior to the commencement of services required under this Agreement, by delivery of Certificates of Insurance demonstrating same, and further indicating that the policies may not be canceled without at least thirty (30) days written notice to the Additional (2) Policy Endorsements Required. In order to demonstrate the Additionel Insured Coverage, Primary Coverage and Cross-liability Coverage required under Consultant's Commercial General Liability Insurance Policy, Consultant shall deliver a policy endorsement to the City demonstrating same, which shall be reviewed and approved by the Risk Manager. 2pty13.wp Standard Form Two Party Agreement (Thirteenth Revision) May 25, 1999 Page 3 D AFT , Failure to complete the Defined Services within the allotted time period specified in this Agreement shall result in the following penalty: ~ve ' specified for the r. nmplefier~of-l, he ~espectlve workassignment ~e.ecns alta.-.t~ hatFpay-te-theCity,~e r-have-wi~hheld-fromd~enies~ ae, ~__..,o, ,'~ of Liquidated~)amages Rate-provided ~n-Exhibit AFPai'agraph~14'("Liquidated- Damages R~t~") _~ Time extensions for delays beyond the consultant's control, other than delays caused by the City, shall be requested in ~riting to the City's Contract Administrator, or designee, prior to the expiration ofthe specified time. Extensions of time, when granted, will be based upon the effect of delays to the work and will not be granted for delays to minor portions of work unless it can be shown that such delays did or will delay the progress of the work. 6. Financial Interests of Consultant A. Consultant is Designated as an FPPC Filer· If Consultant is designated on Exhibit A, Paragraph 15, as an "FPPC filer", Consultant is deemed to be a "Consultant" for the purposes of the Political Reform Act conflict of interest and disclosure provisions, and shall report economic interests to the City Clerk on the required Statement of Economic Interests in such reporting categories as are specified in Paragraph 15 of Exhibit A, or if none are specified, then as determined by the City Attorney. B. Decline to Participate. Regardless of whether Consultant is designated as an FPPC Filer, Consultant shall not make, or participate in making or in any way attempt to use Consultant's position to influence a governmental decision in which Consultant knows or has reason to know Consultant has a financial interest other than the compensation promised by this Agreement. C. Search to Determine Economic Interests· Regardless of whether Consultant is designated as an FPPC Filer, Consultant warrants and represents that Consultant has diligently conducted a search and inventory of Consultant's economic interests, as the term is used in the regulations promulgated by the Fair Political Practices Commission, and has determined that Consultant does not, to the best of Consultant's knowledge, have an economic interest which would conflict with Consultant's duties under this agreement. 2pty13.wp Standard Form Two Party Agreement (Thirteenth Revision) May 25, 1999 Page 6 D. Promise Not to Acquire Conflicting Interests. Regardless of whether Consultant is designated as an FPPC Filer, Consultant further warrants and represents that Consultant will not acquire, obtain, or assume an economic interest during the term of this Agreement which would constitute a conflict of interest as prohibited by the Fair Political Practices Act. E. Duty to Advise of Conflicting Interests. Regardless of whether Consultant is designated as an FPPC Filer, Consultant further warrants and represents that Consultant will immediately advise the City Attorney of City if Consultant learns of an economic interest of Consultant's which may result in a conflict of interest for the purpose of the Fair Political Practices Act, and regulations promulgated thereunder. F. Specific Warranties Against Economic Interests. Consultant warrants and represents that neither Consultant, nor Consultant's immediate family members, nor Consultant's employees or agents ("Consultant Associates") presently have any interest, directly or indirectly, whatsoever in any property which may be the subject matter of the Defined Services, or in any property within 2 radial miles from the exterior boundaries of any property which may be the subject matter of the Defined Services, ("Prohibited Interest"), other than as listed in Exhibit A, Paragraph 15. Consultant further warrants and represents that no premise of future employment, remuneration, consideration, gratuity or other reward or gain has been made to Consultant or Consultant Associates in connection with Consultant's performance of this Agreement. Consultant promises to advise City of any such promise that may be made during the Term of this Agreement, or for 12 months thereafter. Consultant agrees that Consultant Associates shall not acquire any such Prohibited Interest within the Term of this Agreement, or for 12 months after the expiration of this Agreement, except with the written permission of City. Consultant may not conduct or solicit any business for any party to this Agreement, or for any third party which may be in conflict with Consultant's responsibilities under this Agreement, except with the written permission of City. 7. Hold Harmless Consultant shall d~nd, indemnify, pr~and hold harmless the City, its elected and appointed officers and employees, from and against all claims for damages, 2pty13.wp Standard Form Two Party Agreement (Thirteenth Revision) May 25, 1999 Page 7 liabiliw, cost and expense (including without limitation ~2oroe~s' ~) ads~n~ ouI oI the .~ of the Consultant, or any agent or employee, subcontractors, or others in connection with the execution~o~ the work covered ~y this Agreement, ex.pt only for those claims arising from the s~e negligence or s~ willful misconduct of the Ci~, its o~cers, or employees. Ccn~n~ ' ~ ' ~ny ~II ccs~ ~ys~~e~heC~s~ge~s~. ~~ainst-s ~h~ ~s~h~~~~gme nt~r- ~ .... a~ at ~pense-shallCuponwn~en-request-by4he ch '~~ht~gainst4h~i~cits officers~gentsCr- ~.._~. Consultants' ind~mn~tion of CiW shall not be limited by any prior or subsequent declaration by the Consultant. 8. Termination of Agreement for Cause If, through any cause, Consultant shall fail to fulfill in a timely and proper manner Consultant's obligations under this Agreement, or if Consultant shall violate any of the covenants, agreements or stipulations of this Agreement, Ci~ shall have the right to terminate this Agreement by giving wriffen notice to Consultant of such termination and. speci~ing the effective date thereof at least five (5) days before the effective date of such termination. In that event, all finished or unfinished documents, data, studies, su~eys, drawings, maps, repo~s and other materials prepared by Consultant shall, at the option of the City, become the prope~ of the Ci~, and Consultant shall be entitled to receive just and equitable compensation for any work satisfactorily completed on such documents and other materials up to the effective date of Notice of Termination, not to exceed the amounts payable hereunder, and less any damages caused Ci~ by Consultant's breach. 9. Errors and Omissions In the event that the City Administrator determines that the Consultants' negligence, errors, or omissions in the pedormance of work under this Agreement has resulted in expense to City greater than would have resulted if there were no such negligence, errors, omissions, Consultant shall reimburse City for any additional expenses incurred by the Ci~. Nothing herein is intended to limit Ciys rights under other provisions of this agreement. 10. Termination of Agreement for Convenience of Ci~ Ci~ may terminate this Agreement at any time and for any reason, by giving specific wriEen notice to Consultant of such termination and speciyng the effective date thereof, at least thi~ (30) days before the effective date of such termination. In that event, all finished and unfinished documents and other materials described hereinabove shall, at the option of the Ci~, become Ciys sole and exclusive prope~. If the Agreement is terminated by City as provided in this paragraph, Consultant shall be 2p~13.wp Standard Form Two Pa~ Agreement (Thi~eenth Revision) May 25, 1999 Page 8 entitled to receive just and equitable compensation for any satisfactory work completed on such documents and other materials to the effective date of such termination. Consultant hereby expressly waives any and all claims for damages or compensation arising under this Agreement except as set forth herein. 11. Assignability The services of Consultant are personal to the City, and Consultant shall not assign any interest in this Agreement, and shall not transfer any interest in the same (whether by assignment or novation), without prior written consent of City. City hereby consents to the assignment of the portions of the'.D~ll~qed Services identified in Exhibit A, Paragraph 17 to the subconsultan[s identified thereat as "Permitted Subconsultants". 12. Ownership, Publication, Reproduction and Use of Material All reports, studies, information, data, statistics, forms, designs, plans, procedures, systems and any other materials or properties produced under this Agreement shall be the sole and exclusive property of City. No such materials or properties produced in whole or in part under this Agreement shall be subject to private use, copyrights or patent rights by Consultant in the United States or in any other country without the express written consent of City. City shall have unrestricted authority to publish, disclose (except as may be limited by the provisions of the Public Records Act), distribute, and otherwise use, copyright or patent, in whole or in part, any such reports, studies, data, statistics, forms or other materials or properties produced under this Agreement...~( 13. Independent Contractor City is interested only in the results obtained and Consultant shall perform as an independent contractor with sole control of the manner and means of performing the services required under this Agreement. City maintains the right only to reject or accept Consultant's work products. Consultant and any of the Consultant's agents, employees or representatives are, for all purposes under this Agreement, an independent contractor and shall not be deemed to be an employee of City, and none of them shall be entitled to any benefits to which City employees are entitled including but not limited to, overtime, retirement benefits, worker's compensation benefits, injury leave or other leave benefits. Therefore, City will not withhold state or federal income tax, social security tax or any other payroll tax, and Consultant shall be solely responsible for the payment of same and shall hold the City harmless with regard thereto. 14. Administrative Claims Requirements and Procedures No suit or arbitration shall be brought arising out of this agreement, against the City unless a claim has first been presented in writing and filed with the City and acted 2pty13.wp Standard Form Two Party Agreement (Thirteenth Revision) May 25, 1999 Page 9 The Client acknowledges the Consultant's plans and specifications as instruments of professional services. Nevertheless, the plans and specifications prepared under this agreement shall become the property of the Client upon completion of the services. The owner agrees to hold harmless and indemnify the Consultant against all damages, claims, and losses, including defense costs, arising out of any rouse or modification of the plans and specifications without the written authorization of the Consultant. PROPOSAL FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES DATE: November 13, 2000 TO: Mr. Xavier A. Del Valle, Community Development Specialist City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 PROJECT: CHULA VISTA ENTRYWAY BEAUTIFICATION PROJECT PROJECT#: 36402 Between ESTRADA LAND PLANNING, INC. (hereinafter referred to as Consultant), and the CITY Of CHULA VISTA, CA. (hereinafter referred to as Client). A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project consists of conceptual design services for streetscape improvements on E Street, between I-5 and Broadway; H Street, between I-5 and Broadway; and Palomar Street, between I-5 and Industrial Boulevard. The design will include concepts for plant materials, paving, sidewalks, signage, artwork, street furniture, lighting and entry monuments. B. SCOPE OF SERVICES Task '1 - Concept Plan Prepare entryway statement and corridor design concept plan, including entryway monuments announcing entry into the City of Chula Vista, landscape and hardscape features, banners and other ancillary features. The design will consider the following: · Assess opportunities for landscape, hardscape and public art within the two defined entry corridors, including the potential for installation of landscaped medians. · Prepare a consistent design theme with monument signs, landscape, hardscape, signage and banners. 364-02 Proposal November 13, 2000 Page 2 Reconnaissance and Survey An analysis of the site will be performed, consisting of field reconnaissance, photo survey and research. The design team will review the existing conditions, examine possible design constraints, and prepare a site analysis plan. Photographic documentation will be prepared for use and reference during the design phases. The project team will define and prioritize proposed planting zones within the corridor in conformance with the construction funding available. The consultant team will utilize existing data from municipal records and local utility company records to document existing conditions on the site. The reconnaissance and field survey team will obtain available records from the City of Chula Vista, SDG&E, cable T.V., telephone and other agencies. The agencies will be contacted to determine plans for future improvements that may affect the project areas. Using research data and the information provided by the City in Autocad format, computer base sheets will be prepared at an appropriate scale showing location and elevation of all existing paving, curbs, utilities and structures. D~ Concepts Based on the input provided from the City of Chula Vista, the field investigations, the input from any public participation workshops and the program definition, the design team will prepare concepts indicating the recommended design ideas. The conceptual design concept may be depicted through the use of colored presentation plans, elevations, sections, sketches, drawings, diagrams, etc. Two simulated computer images of each street will be prepared (total of six) for use in public information meetings and presentations. A preliminary estimate of probable cost will be prepared. Preliminary Plans The preliminary plans will be created for the entire project at an appropriate scale, indicating locations, size and materials for all proposed construction features, including hardscape, street improvements, plant materials, grading, street furnishings, artwork and entry monuments. During the Course of design, a maximum of four (4) design development meetings may be held with City staff and design committees. Revisions resulting from the meetings will be incorporated in the preliminary plans prior to submittal for City for review. The preliminary plans will include the following: 364-02 Proposal November 13, 2000 Page 3 A final concept plan (8 copies), including color graphics depicting the design in site plan and elevation views, signage elements, banner elements, landscape and hardscape features, recommendations, and a discussion of any opportunities and constraints issues associated with the implementation of th9 concept plan will be submitted. Specifically, the concept plan will include: § Site photographs and videotape of the study area § Project goals, priorities, and significant issues § Opportunities and constraints analysis § Discussion of alternative schemes based on public input § Develop cross-sections of key areas to illustrate concepts § Two computer simulations per street of the proposed concepts (6 total) § Review ADA requirements for project with City Staff § Preliminary cost estimates for construction of improvements § Project management, including key staff responsibilities Task 2 - Design Guidelines Create recommendations for beautification of private property frontages within the corridors, including possible consolidation of driveways and elimination of curb cuts, consistent with the entry way and corridor design themes. (A separate contract to create specific design guidelines for private properties may be necessary). This will include assessing long-term funding and grant opportunities for beautification of private property frontages and making recommendations. Task 3 - Community Meetings Plan and conduct up to 4 public meetings to elicit design ideas and to review entryway and corridor design concept plans. Work with internal committee consisting of members of the Community Development, Planning and Engineering Departments. Task 4 - Coordination Review and coordinate with MTDB and the City on already planned landscape and hardscape improvements to the "H" Street Trolley Station and the Chula Vista Entryway Beautification Project and report. Recommendations should be made to the City on this report within the context of concept plan development. Task 5 ~ Signage Plan Directional features from the Chula Vista Shopping Center, the Bayfront (Nature Centre, Marina), and the Third Avenue Downtown District. Include sketches of signs in the Final Concept Plan will be included. Task 6 - Approval Meetings Assist staff and attend up to three meetings at the Design Review Committee, Planning Commission and City Council, including three public meetings. The Design Review 364-02 Proposal November 13, 2000 Page 4 Committee meeting will include a full presentation. The City Council meeting may be in the form of a workshop to present the consultant's concept plans. C. FEES The following fee proposal corresponds to the preceding scope of services section of this proposal. Phase I - Conceptual Design/Design Guidelines $58,000 TOTAL $58,000 D. _ASSUMPTIONS: 1. Plans will be drawn at 1" = 20' scale, using base information in Autocad format provided by the City. 2. The City will provide ELP with base maps and aerial photographs. 3. The fee does not include construction documents. 4. Blueprinting and reproduction charges will be billed separately as reimbursable expenses dudng the construction phase. If the City desires to include these items in our scope, the fee can be adjusted accordingly. E. HOURLY FEE SCHEDULE The following hourly rates apply for each consultant based on current hourly rates, Rates exclude reimbursable expenses, including reproduction, photographic, printing and delivery costs. Principal Land Planner/Landscape Architect $150.00 Associate Land Planner/Landscape Architect 105.00 Land PlannedLandscape Architect 85.00 Draftspereon 65.00 Cledcal 45.00 F. EXCLUSIONS The following items are specifically excluded from the scope of services: ~ Construction drawings o Reimbursable expenses other than those listed within scope of services above. G. REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES Reimbursable expenses other than those listed above in the scope of services will be charged at cost plus 15% if issued from the Consultant's office for the following: /o -/'7 364-02 Proposal November 13, 2000 Page 5 Reproduction/Plotting/Photographic printing costs. Delivery services. Client authorized consultants. Mailing or shipping costs outside the County of San Diego. Travel and telephone expenses outside the County of San Diego. Maps and other document acquisition costs pertaining to the project site. H. PAYMENT Fees, including reimbursable expenses, are due and payable within 30 days of receipt. The Consultant reserves the right to charge the current maximum legal interest rate on overdue accounts. Consultant's invoices shall be based on procress of completion. Compensation shall not be withheld from the Consultant due to suspension or abandonment of the project. The prevailing party in a payment dispute shall be entitled to reasonable attorney and collection expenses. In an effort to resolve any conflicts that arise, the Client and Consultant agree that all disputes between them arising out of or relating to this Agreement shall be submitted to non-binding mediation unless the parties mutually agree otherwise. I. TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT This Agreement may be terminated by either party upon receipt of written notice by the other party. In this event, the Consultant shall be compensated for services performed and reimbursable expenses due up to the day of the receipt of the written notice. J. STATE BOARD OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS Landscape Architects are regulated by the State of California. Any questions concerning a Landscape Architect may be referred to the Landscape Architect's Technical Committee at: Landscape Architects Technical Committee 400 R Street, Suite 4000 Sacramento, CA 95814 (9'16) 445~4954 ~ OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS All reports, plans, specifications, field data and notes and other documents, including all documents on electronic media, prepared by the Consultant as instruments of professional service shall remain the property of the Consultant. The Client shall not reuse or make any modifications to the plans and specifications without the prior written authorization of the Consultant. The Client agrees, to the fullest extent permitted by law, to indemnify and hold the Consultant harmless from any claim, liability or cost (including reasonable attorneys' fees and defense costs) arising or allegedly arising out of any 364-02 Proposa/ November 13, 2000 Page 6 unauthorized reuse or modification of the plans and specifications by the Client or any person or entity that acquires or obtains the plans and specifications from or through the Client without the wdtten authorization of the Consultant. The Consultant shall furnish the Client with reproductions upon request. b INDEMNIFICATION The Client and Consultant mutually agree, to the fullest extent permitted by law, to indemnify and hold each other harmless from any and all damage, liability or cost (including reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of defense) arising from their own negligent acts, errors or omissions in the performance of their services under this Agreement and those of his or her subconsultants, contractors or anyone for whom the Client or Consultant is legally liable, to the extent that each party is responsible for such damages and losses on a comparative basis of fault. EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT Please sign below to indicate your approval. Consultant: Date: STEVE ESTRADA California Licensed Landscape Architect #~ 685 ESTRADA LAND PLANNING, INC. A California Corporation 755 Broadway Circle, Suite 300 San Diego, CA 92101 Client: Date: MR. XAVIER A. DEL VALLE Community Development Specialist CITY OF CHULA VISTA 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 Agreement between City of Chula Vista and ' Estrada Land Planning, Inc. for Planning and Design Consulting Services This agreement ("Agreement"), dated December 5, 2000 for the purposes of reference only, and effective as of the date last executed unless another date is otherwise specified in Exhibit A, Paragraph 1 is between the City-related entity as is indicated on Exhibit A, paragraph 2, as such ("City"), whose business form is set forth on Exhibit A, paragraph 3, and the entity indicated on the attached Exhibit A, paragraph 4, as Consultant, whose business form is set forth on Exhibit A, paragraph 5, and whose place of business and telephone numbers are set forth on Exhibit A, paragraph 6 ("Consultant"), and is made with reference to the following facts: Recitals Whereas, the City desires to plan and design entryway monuments, signage, landscape, and hardscape features for three of the City's primary entry points - "E" Street and "H" Street segments between Interstate 5 and Broadway, and Palomar segment between Interstate 5 and Broadway; and, Whereas, Estrada Land Planning, Inc. was selected as the consultant due to their response to the Scope of Work, their extensive planning and design experience, and the satisfactory work they've performed on other projects of similar nature in other jurisdictions; and Whereas, Consultant warrants and represents that they are experienced and staffed in a manner such that they are and can prepare and deliver the services required of Consultant to City within the time frames herein provided all in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement; Page 1 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City and Consultant do hereby mutually agree as follows: 1. Consultant's Duties A. General Duties Consultant shall perform all of the services described on the attached Exhibit A, Paragraph 7, entitled "General Duties"; and, B. Scope of ~]or.k and Schedule In the process of performing and delivering said "General Duties", Consultant shall also perform all of the services described in Exhibit A, Paragraph 8, entitled" Scope of Work and Schedule", not inconsistent with the General Duties, according to, and within the time frames set forth in Exhibit A, Paragraph 8, and deliver to City such Deliverables as are identified in Exhibit A, Paragraph 8, within the time frames set forth therein, time being of the essence of this agreement. The General Duties and the work and deliverables required in the Scope of Work and Schedule shall be herein referred to as the "Defined Services". Failure to complete the Defined Services by the times indicated does not, except at the option of the City, operate to terminate this Agreement. C. Reductions in Scope of Work City may independently, or upon request from Consultant, from time to time reduce the Defined Services to be performed by the Consultant under this Agreement. Upon doing so, City and Consultant agree to meet in good faith and confer for the purpose of negotiating a corresponding reduction in the compensation associated with said reduction. D. Additional Services In addition to performing the Defined Services herein set forth, City may require Consultant to perform additional consulting services related to the Defined Services ("Additional Services"), and upon doing so in writing, if they are within the scope of services offered by Consultant, Consultant shall perform same on a time and materials basis at the rates set forth in the "Rate Schedule" in Exhibit A, Paragraph 11 (C), unless a separate fixed fee is otherwise agreed upon. All compensation for Additional Services shall be paid monthly as billed. E. Standard of Care Consultant, in performing any Services under this agreement, whether Defined Services or Additional Services, shall perform in a manner consistent with that level of Page 2 /0 care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the profession currently practicing under similar conditions and in similar locations. F. Insurance Consultant represents that it and its agents, staff and subconsultants employed by it in connection with the Services required to be rendered, are protected against the risk of loss by the following insurance coverages, in the following categories, and to the limits specified, policies~ of which are issued by Insurance Companies that have a Best's Rating of "A, Class V" or better, or shall meet with the approval of the City: Statutory Worker's Compensation Insurance and Employer's Liability Insurance coverage in the amount set forth in the attached Exhibit A, Paragraph 9. Commercial General Liability Insurance including Business Automobile Insurance coverage in the amount set forth in Exhibit A, Paragraph 9, combined single limit applied separately to each project away from premises owned or rented by Consultant, which names City as an Additisnal Insured, and which is primary to any policy which the City may otherwise carry ("Primary Coverage"), and which treats the employees of the City in the same manner as members of the general public ("Cross-liability Coverage"). Errors and Omissions insurance, in the amount set forth in Exhibit A, Paragraph 9, unless Errors and Omissions coverage is included in the General Liability policy. G. Proof of Insurance Coverage. (1) Certificates of Insurance. Consultant shall demonstrate proof of coverage herein required, prior to the commencement of services required under this Agreement, by delivery of Certificates of Insurance demonstrating same, and further indicating that the policies may not be canceled without at least thirty (30) days written notice to the Additional Insured. (2) Policy Endorsements Required. In order to demonstrate the Additional Insured Coverage, Primary Coverage and Cross-liability Coverage required under Consultant's Commercial General Liability Insurance Policy, Consultant shall deliver a policy endorsement to the City demonstrating same, which shall be reviewed and approved by the Risk Manager. H. Security for Performance. (1) Performance Bond. Page 3 In the event that Exhibit A, at Paragraph 19, indicates the need for Consultant to provide a Performance Bond (indicated by a check mark in the parenthetical space immediately preceding the subparagraph entitled "Performance Bond"), then Consultant shall provide to the City a performance bond by a surety and in a form and amount satisfactory to the Risk Manager or City Attorney which amount is indicated in the space adjacent to the term, "Performance Bond", in said Paragraph 19, Exhibit A. (2) Letter of Credit. In the event that Exhibit A, at Paragraph 19, indicates the need for Consultant to provide a Letter of Credit (indicated by a check mark in the parenthetical space immediately preceding the subparagraph entitled "Letter of Credit"), then Consultant shall provide to the City an irrevocable letter of credit callable by the City at their unfettered discretion by submitting to the bank a letter, signed by the City Manager, stating that the Consultant is in breach of the terms of this Agreement. The letter of credit shall be issued by a bank, and be in a form and amount satisfactory to the Risk Ma..nager or City Attorney which amount is indicated in the space adjacent to the term, "Lettei- of Credit", in said Paragraph 19, Exhibit A. (3) Other Security In the event that Exhibit A, at Paragraph 19, indicates the need for Consultant to provide security other than a Performance Bond or a Letter of Credit (indicated by a check mark in the parenthetical space immediately preceding the subparagraph entitled "Other Security"), then Consultant shall provide to the City such other security therein listed in a form and amount satisfactory to the Risk Manager or City Attorney. I. Business License Consultant agrees to obtain a business license from the City and to otherwise comply with Title 5 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code. 2. Duties of the City A. Consultation and Cooperation City shall regularly consult the Consultant for the purpose of reviewing the progress of the Defined Services and Schedule therein contained, and to provide direction and guidance to achieve the objectives of this agreement. The City shall permit access to its office facilities, files and records by Consultant throughout the term of the agreement. In addition thereto, City agrees to provide the information, data, items and materials set forth on Exhibit A, Paragraph 10, and with the further understanding that delay in the provision of these materials beyond 30 days after Page 4 authorization to proceed, shall constitute a basis for the justifiable delay in the Consultant's performance of this agreement. B. Compensation Upon receipt of a properly prepared billing from Consultant submitted to the City periodically as indicated in Exhibit A, Paragraph 18, but in no event more frequently than monthly, on the day of the period indicated in Exhibit A, Paragraph 18, City shall compensate Consultant for all services rendered by Consultant according to the terms and conditions set forth in Exhibit A, Paragraph 11, adjacent to the governing compensation relationship indicated by a "checkmark" next to the appropriate arrangement, subject to the requirements for retention set forth in paragraph 19 of Exhibit A, and shall compensate Consultant for out of pocket expenses as provided in Exhibit A, Paragraph 12. All billings submitted by Consultant shall contain sufficient information as to the propriety of the billing to permit the City to evaluate that the amount due and payable thereunder is proper, and shall specifically contain the City's account number indicated on Exhibit A, Paragraph 18 (C) to be charged upon making such payment. 3. Administration of Contract Each party designates the individuals ("Contract Administrators") indicated on Exhibit A, Paragraph 13, as said party's contract administrator who is authorized by said party to represent them in the routine administration of this agreement. 4. Term. This Agreement shall terminate when the Parties have complied with all executory provisions hereof. 5. Liquidated Damages The provisions of this section apply if a Liquidated Damages Rate is provided in Exhibit A, Paragraph 14. It is acknowledged by both parties that time is of the essence in the completion of this Agreement. It is difficult to estimate the amount of damages resulting from delay in performance. The parties have used their judgment to arrive at a reasonable amount to compensate for delay. Failure to complete the Defined Services within the allotted time period specified in this Agreement shall result in the following penalty: For each consecutive calendar day in excess of the time specified for the completion of the respective work assignment or Deliverable, the consultant shall pay to the City, or have withheld from monies due, Page 5 the sum of Liquidated Damages Rate provided in Exhibit A, Paragraph 14 ("Liquidated Damages Rate"). Time extensions for delays beyond the consultant's control, other than delays caused by the City, shall be requested in wdting to the City's Contract Administrator, or designee, prior to the expiration of the specified time. Extensions of time, when granted, will be based upon the effect of delays to the work and will not be granted for delays to minor portions of work unless it can be shown that such delays did or will delay the progress of the work. 6. Financial Interests of Consultant A. Consultant is Designated as an FPPC Filer. If Consultant is designated on Exhibit A, Paragraph 15, as an "FPPC filer", Consultant is deemed to be a "Consultant" for the purposes of the Political Reform Act conflict of interest and disclosure provisions, and shall report economic interests to the City Clerk on the required Statement of Economic Interests in such reporting categories as are specified in Paragraph 15 of Exhibit A, or if none are specified, then as determined by the City Attorney. B. Decline to Participate. Regardless of whether Consultant is designated as an FPPC Filer, Consultant shall not make, or participate in making or in any way attempt to use Consultant's position to influence a governmental decision in which Consultant knows or has reason to know Consultant has a financial interest other than the compensation promised by this Agreement. C. Search to Determine Economic Interests. Regardless of whether Consultant is designated as an FPPC Filer, Consultant warrants and represents that Consultant has diligently conducted a search and inventory of Consultant's economic interests, as the term is used in the regulations promulgated by the Fair Political Practices Commission, and has determined that Consultant does not, to the best of Consultant's knowledge, have an economic interest which would conflict with Consultant's duties under this agreement. D. Promise Not to Acquire Conflicting Interests. Regardless of whether Consultant is designated as an FPPC Filer, Consultant further warrants and represents that Consultant will not acquire, obtain, or assume an economic interest during the term of this Agreement which would constitute a conflict of interest as prohibited by the Fair Political Practices Act. Page 6 E. Duty to Advise of Conflicting Interests. Regardless of whether Consultant is designated as an FPPC Filer, Consultant further warrants and represents that Consultant will immediately advise the City Attorney of City if Consultant learns of an economic interest of Consultant's which may - result in a conflict of interest for the purpose of the Fair Political Practices Act, and regulations promulgated thereunder. F. Specific Warranties Against Economic Interests. Consultant warrants and represents that neither Consultant, nor Consultant's immediate family members, nor Consultant's employees or agents ("Consultant Associates") presently have any interest, directly or indirectly, whatsoever in any property which may be the subject matter of the Defined Services, or in any property within 2 radial miles from the exterior boundaries of any property which may be the subject matter of the Defined Services, ("Prohibited Interest"), other than as listed in Exhibit A, Paragraph 15. Consultant further warrants and represents that no promise of future employment, remuneration, consideration, gratuity or other reward or gain has been made to Consultant or Consultant Associates in connection with Consultant's performance of this Agreement. Consultant promises to advise City of any such promise that may be made during the Term of this Agreement, or for 12 months thereafter. Consultant agrees that Consultant Associates shall not acquire any such Prohibited Interest within the Term of this Agreement, or for 12 months after the expiration of this Agreement, except with the written permission of City. Consultant may not conduct or solicit any business for any party to this Agreement, or for any third party which may be in conflict with Consultant's responsibilities under this Agreement, except with the written permission of City. 7. Hold Harmless Consultant shall defend, indemnify, protect and hold harmless the City, its elected and appointed officers and employees, from and against all claims for damages, liability, cost and expense (including without limitation attorneys' fees) arising out of the conduct of the Consultant, or any agent or employee, subcontractors, or others in connection with the execution of the work covered by this Agreement, except only for those claims arising from the sole negligence or sole willful misconduct of the City, its officers, or employees. Consultant's indemnification shall include any and all costs, expenses, attorneys' fees and liability incurred by the City, its officers, agents, or employees in defending against such claims, whether the same proceed to judgment or not. Further, Consultant at its own expense shall, upon written request by the City, Page 7 defend any such suit or action brought against the City, its officers, agents, or employees. Consultants' indemnification of City shall not be limited by any prior or subsequent declaration by the Consultant. 8. Termination of Agreement for Cause If, through any cause, Consultant shall fail to fulfill in a timely and proper manner Consultant's obligations under this Agreement, or if Consultant shall violate any of the covenants, agreements or stipulations of this Agreement, City shall have the right to terminate this Agreement by g!ving written notice to Consultant of such termination and specifying the effective date thereof at least five (5) days before the effective date of such termination. In that event, all finished or unfinished documents, data, studies, surveys, drawings, maps, reports and other materials prepared by Consultant shall, at the option of the City, become the property of the City, and Consultant shall be entitled to receive just and equitable compensation for any work satisfactorily completed on such documents and other materials up to the effective date of Notice of Termination, not to exceed the amounts payable hereunder, and less any damages caused City by Consultant's breach. 9. Errors and Omissions In the event that the City Administrator determines that the Consultants' negligence, errors, or omissions in the performance of work under this Agreement has resulted in expense to City greater than would have resulted if there were no such negligence, errors, omissions, Consultant shall reimburse City for any additional expenses incurred by the City. Nothing herein is intended to limit Cify's rights under other provisions of this agreement. 10. Termination of Agreement for Convenience of City City may terminate this Agreement at any time and for any reason, by giving specific written notice to Consultant of such termination and specifying the effective date thereof, at least thirty (30) days before the effective date of such termination. In that event, all finished and unfinished documents and other materials described hereinabove shall, at the option of the City, become City's sole and exclusive property. If the Agreement is terminated by City as provided in this paragraph, Consultant shall be entitled to receive just and equitable compensation for any satisfactory work completed on such documents and other materials to the effective date of such termination. Consultant hereby expressly waives any and all claims for damages or compensation arising under this Agreement except as set forth herein. 11. Assignability The services of Consultant are personal to the City, and Consultant shall not assign any interest in this Agreement, and shall not transfer any interest in the same Page 8 (whether by assignment or novation), without prior written consent of City. City hereby consents to the assignment of the portions of the Defined Services identified in Exhibit A, Paragraph 17 to the subconsultants identified thereat as "Permitted Subconsultants". 12. Ownership, Publication, Reproduction and Use of Material All reports, studies, information, data, statistics, forms, designs, plans, procedures, systems and any other materials or properties produced under this Agreement shall be the sole and exclusive property of City. No such materials or properties produced in whole or in part under this Agreement shall be subject to private use, copyrights or patent rights by Consultant in the United States or in any other country without the express written consent of City. City shall have unrestricted authority to publish, disclose (except as may be limited by the provisions of the Public Records Act), distribute, and otherwise use, copyright or patent, in whole or in part, any such reports, studies, data, statistics, forms or other materials or properties produced under this Agreement. 13. Independent Contractor - City is interested only in the results obtained and Consultant shall perform as an independent contractor with sole control of the manner and means of performing the services required under this Agreement. City maintains the right only to reject or accept Consultant's work products. Consultant and any of the Consultant's agents, employees or representatives are, for all purposes under this Agreement, an independent contractor and shall not be deemed to be an employee of City, and none of them shall be entitled to any benefits to which City employees are entitled including but not limited to, overtime, retirement benefits, worker's compensation benefits, injury leave or other leave benefits. Therefore, City will not withhold state or federal income tax, social security tax or any other payroll tax, and Consultant shall be solely responsible for the payment of same and shall hold the City harmless with regard thereto. 14. Administrative Claims Requirements and Procedures No suit or arbitration shall be brought arising out of this agreement, against the City unless a claim has first been presented in writing and filed with the City and acted upon by the City in accordance with the procedures set forth in Chapter 1.34 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, as same may from time to time be amended, the provisions of which are incorporated by this reference as if fully set forth herein, and such policies and procedures used by the City in the implementation of same. Upon request by City, Consultant shall meet and confer in good faith with City for the purpose of resolving any dispute over the terms of this Agreement. 15. Attorney's Fees Page 9 Should a dispute arising out of this Agreement result in litigation, it is agreed that the prevailing party shall be entitled to a judgment against the other for an amount equal to reasonable attorney's fees and court costs incurred. The "prevailing party" shall be deemed to be the party who is awarded substantially the relief sought. 16. Statement of Costs In the event that Consultant prepares a report or document, or participates in the preparation of a report or document in performing the Defined Services, Consultant shall include, or cause the inclusion of, in said report or document, a statement of the numbers and cost in dollar amounts of all contracts and subcontracts relating to the preparation of the report or document. 17. Miscellaneous A. Consultant not authorized to Represent City Unless specifically authorized in writing by City, Consultant shall have no authority to act as City's agent to bind City to any contractual agreements whatsoever. B. Consultant is Real Estate Broker and/or Salesman If the box on Exhibit A, Paragraph 16 is marked, the Consultant and/or their principals is/are licensed with the State of California or some other state as a licensed real estate broker or salesperson. Otherwise, Consultant represents that neither Consultant, nor their principals are licensed real estate brokers or salespersons. C. Notices All notices, demands or requests provided for or permitted to be given pursuant to this Agreement must be in writing. All notices, demands and requests to be sent to any party shall be deemed to have been properly given or served if personally served or deposited in the United States mail, addressed to such party, postage prepaid, registered or certified, with return receipt requested, at the addresses identified herein as the places of business for each of the designated parties. D. Entire Agreement This Agreement, together with any other written document referred to or contemplated herein, embody the entire Agreement and understanding between the parties relating to the subject matter hereof. Neither this Agreement nor any provision hereof may be amended, modified, waived or discharged except by an instrument in writing executed by the party against which enforcement of such amendment, waiver or discharge is sought. E. Capacity of Parties Page 10 Each signatory and party hereto hereby warrants and represents to the other party that it has legal authority and capacity and direction from its principal to enter into this Agreement, and that all resolutions or other actions have been taken so as to enable it to enter into this Agreement. F. Governing LawNenue This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California: Any action arising under or relating to this Agreement shall be brought only in the federal Or state courts located in San Diego County, State of California, and if applicable, the City of Chula Vista, or as close thereto as possible. Venue for this Agreement, and performance hereunder shall be the City of Chula Vista. Page 1 '1 Signature Page to Agreement between City of Chula Vista and Estrada Land Planning, Inc. for Planning and Design Consultant Services IN WITNESS WHEREO~, City and Consultant have executed this Agreement thereby indicating that they have read and understood same, and indicate their full and complete consent to its terms: Dated: ,20__ City of Chula Vista by:. Shirley Horton, Mayor Attest: Susan Bigelow, City Clerk Approved as to form: John M. Kaheny, City A~orney Dated: by:. Steve Estrada, President Exhibit List to Agreement (x) Exhibit A. Page 12 Exhibit A to Agreement between City of Chula Vista and Estrada Land Planning, Inc. 1. Effective Date of Agreement: December 5, 2001 2. City-Related Entity: (x) City of Chula Vista, a municipal chartered corporation of the State of California ( ) Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista, a political subdivision of the State of California ( ) Industrial DevelOpment Authority of the City of Chula Vista, a ( ) Other: , a [insert business form] ("City") 3. Place of Business for City: City of Chula Vista, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91910 4. Consultant: Estrada Land Planning, Inc. 5. Business Form of Consultant: ( ) Sole Proprietorship ( ) Partnership (x) Corporation 6. Place of Business, Telephone and Fax Number of Consultant: 755 Broadway Circle, Suite 300 San Diego, California 92101-6161 Voice Phone (619) 236-0143 Fax Phone (619) 236-0578 Page 13 7. General Duties: The Consultant shall oversee the implementation of.Phase I of the Chula Vista Beautification Project, which involves the planning and designing of entryway statements for three of the City's primary entry points - "E" and "H" Street segments between Interstate 5 and Broadway, and Palomar segment between Interstate 5 and Industrial Boulevard. The Consultant shall prepare a thematic approach to the entryways and corridors, emphasizing the City's unique character and providing an enticing front door to the City's downtown and waterfront redevelopment zones. The Consultant shall provide concept plans for plant materials, paving, sidewalks, signage, artwork, street furniture, lighting, and entryway monuments for the three entryways and corridors. The Consultant shall also work with an internal committee staffed with representatives from Community Development, Planning and Engineering and shall be responsible for community outreach, stakeholder interaction, and design work. 8. Scope of Work and Schedule: A. Detailed Scope of Work: Task 1 - Concept Plan The consultant shall prepare entryway statement and corridor design concept plan, including entryway monuments announcing entry into the City of Chula Vista, landscape and hardscape features, banners and other ancillary features. The design shall consider the following: 1. Assess opportunities for landscape, hardscape and public art within the three defined entry corridors, including the potential for installation of landscaped medians; and 2. Prepare a consistent design theme with monument signs, landscape, hardscape, signage and banners. Reconnaissance and survey: An analysis of the site shall be performed, consisting of field reconnaissance, photo survey and research. The design team shall review the existing conditions, examine possible design constraints, and prepare a site analysis plan. Photographic documentation shall be prepared for use and reference during the design phases. The project team shall define and prioritize proposed planting zones within the corridor in conformance with the construction funding available. The consultant team shall utilize existing data from municipal records and local utility company records to document existing conditions on the site. The reconnaissance and field survey team shall obtain available records from the City of Chula Vista, SDG&E, cable T.V., telephone and other agencies. The agencies shall be contacted to determine plans for future improvements that may affect the project areas. Page 14 Using research data and the information provided by the City in AUtocad format, computer base sheets shall be prepared at an appropriate scale showing location and elevation of all existing paving, curbs, utilities and structures. Design Concepts: Based on the input provided from the City of Chula Vista, the field investigations, the input from any public participation workshops and the program definition, the design team shall prepare concepts indicating the recommended design ideas. The conceptual design concePt may be depicted through the use of colored presentation plans, elevations, sections, sketches, drawings, diagrams, etc. Two simulated computer images of each street shall be prepared (total of six) for use in public information meetings and presentations. A preliminary estimate of probable cost shall be prepared. Preliminary Plans: The preliminary plans shall be created for the entire project at an appropriate scale, indicating locations, size and materials for all proposed construction features, including hardscape, street improvements, plant materials, grading, street furnishings, artwork and entry monuments. During the course of design, a maximum of four (4) design development meetings may be held with City staff and design committees. Revisions resulting from the meetings shall be incorporated in the preliminary plans prior to submittal for City for review. The preliminary plans will include the following: A final concept plan (8 copies), including color graphics depicting the design in site plan and elevation views, signage elements, banner elements, landscape and hardscape features, recommendations, and a discussion of any opportunities and constraints issues associated with the implementation of the concept plan shall be submitted. Specifically, the concept plan shall include: § Site photographs and videotape of the study area § Project goals, priorities, and significant issues § Opportunities and constraints analysis § Discussion of alternative schemes based on public input § Develop cross-sections of key areas to illustrate concepts § Two computer simulations per street of the proposed concepts (6 total) § Review ADA requirements for project with City Staff § Preliminary cost estimates for construction of improvements § Project management, including key staff responsibilities Page 15 Task 2 - Design Guidelines The consultant shall create recommendations for beautification of private property frontages within the corridors, including possible consolidation of driveways and elimination of curb cuts, consistent with the entryway and corridor design themes. (A separate contract to create specific design guidelines for private properties may be necessary). This will include assessing long-term funding and grant opportunities for beautification of private property frontages and making recommendations. Task 3 - Community Meetinqs The consultant shall plan and conduct up to four public meetings to elicit design ideas and to review entryway and corridor design concept plans. Work with internal committee consisting of members of the Community Development, Planning and Engineering Departments. Task 4 - Coordination The consultant shall review and coordinate with MTDB and the City on already planned landscape and hardscape improvements to the "H" Street Trolley Station and the Chula Vista Entryway Beautification Project and report. Recommendations should be made to the City on this report within the context of concept plan development. Task 5 - Si.clna.qe Plan Directional features from the Chula Vista Shopping Center, the Bayfront (Nature Centre, Marina), and the Third Avenue Downtown District. Sketches of signs shall be included in the Final Concept Plan. Task 6 - Approval Meetin~ls The consultant shall assist staff and attend up to three meetings at the Design Review Committee, Planning Commission and City Council, including three public meetings. The Design Review Committee meeting shall include a full presentation. The City Council meeting may be in the form of a workshop to present the consultant's concept plans. B. Date for Commencement of Consultant Services: (x) Same as Effective Date of Agreement ( ) Other: Page 16 C. Dates or Time Limits for Delivery of Deliverables: Deliverable No. 1: Concept Plan for "H" Street segment between Interstate 5 and Broadway - January 8, 2001 Deliverable No. 2: Concept Plan for "E" Street segment between Interstate 5 and Broadway- March 19, 2001 Deliverable No. 3: Concept Plan Palomar segment between Interstate 5 and Industrial Boulevard -March 19, 2001 D. Date of completion of all Consultant services for Phase 1 of the Chula Vista Beautification Project: March 19, 2001 9. Insurance Requirements: ( ) Statutory Worker's Compensation Insurance (x) Employer's Liability Insurance coverage: $1,000,000. ( ) Commercial General Liability Insurance: $I,000,000. ( ) Errors and Omissions insurance: None Required (included in Commercial General Liability coverage). (x) Errors and Omissions Insurance: $250,000 (not included in Commercial General Liability coverage). 10. Materials Required to be Supplied by City to Consultant: 11. Compensation: A. (x) Single Fixed Fee Arrangement. For performance of all of the Defined Services by Consultant as herein required, City shall pay a single fixed fee in the amounts and at the times or milestones or for the Deliverables set forth below: Single Fixed Fee Amount: $58,000 payable as follows: Milestone or Event or Deliverable Amount or Percent of Fixed Fee (x) 1. Interim Monthly Advances. The City shall make interim monthly advances against the compensation due for each phase on a percentage of completion basis for each given phase such that, at the end of each phase only the compensation for that phase has been paid. Any payments made hereunder shall be considered as interest free loans which must be returned to the City if the Phase is not satisfactorily completed. If the Phase is satisfactorily Page 17 completed the City shall receive credit against the compensation due for that phase. The retention amount or pementage set forth in Paragraph 19 is to be applied to each interim payment such that, at the end of the phase, the full retention has been held back from the compensation due for that phase. Percentage of completion of a phase shall be assessed in the sole and unfettered discretion by the Contracts Administrator designated herein by the City, or such other person as the City Manager shall designate, but only upon such proof demanded by the City that has been provided, but in no event shall such interim advance payment be made unless the Contractor shall have represented in writing that said percentage of completion of the phase has been performed by the Contractor. The practice of making interim monthly advances shall not convert this agreement to a time and materials basis of payment. 12. Materials Reimbursement Arrangement For the cost of out of pocket expenses incurred by Consultant in the performance of services herein required, Agency shall pay Consultant at the rates or amounts set forth below: ( ) None, the compensation includes all costs. Cost or Rate ( ) Reports, not to exceed $ __ Copies, not to exceed $ Travel, not to exceed $ Printing, not to exceed $ Postage, not to exceed $ Delivery, not to exceed $ Long Distance Telephone Charges, not to exceed $ Other Actual Identifiable Direct Costs: , not to exceed $ , not to exceed $ 13. Contract Administrators: City: Byron Estes, Redevelopment Manager Consultant: Steve Estrada, Presideni 14. Liquidated Damages Rate: N/A Page 1 15. Statement of Economic Interests, Consultant Reporting Categories, per Conflict of Interest Code: (x) Not Applicable. Not an FPPC Filer. ( ) FPPC Filer ) Category No. 1. Investments and sources of income. ) Category No. 2. Interests in real property. ) Category No. 3. Investments, interest in real property and sources of income subject to the regulatory, permit or licensing authority of the depadment. Category No. 4. Investments in business entities and sources of income which engage in land development, construction or the acquisition or sale of real property. ) Category No. 5. Investments in business entities and sources of income of the type which, within the past two years, have contracted with the City of Chula Vista (Redevelopment Agency) to provide services, supplies, materials, machinery or equipment. ) Category No. 6. Investments in business entities and sources of income of the type which, within the past two years, have contracted with the designated employee's department to provide services, supplies, materials, machinery or equipment. ) Category No. 7. Business positions. ( ) List "Consultant Associates" interests in real property within 2 radial miles of Project Property, if any: 16. ( ) Consultant is Real Estate Broker and/or Salesman 17. Permitted Subconsultants: Lisa A. Schirmer, Drawing & Painting 3330 Xenophon Street, San Diego, CA 92106 Page 19 (619) 224-64634 18. Bill Processing: A. Consultant's Billing to be submitted for the following period of time: (x) Monthly ( ) Quarterly ( ) Other: B. Day of the Pedod for submission of Consultant's Billing: ( ) First of the Month ( ) 15th Day of each Month (x) End of the Month ( ) Other: C. City's Account Number: 19. Security for Performance ) Performance Bond, $ ) Letter of Credit, $ ) Other Security: Type:. Amount: $ Retention. If this space is checked, then notwithstanding other provisions to the contrary requiring the payment of compensation to the Consultant sooner, the City shall be entitled to retain, at their option, either the following "Retention Percentage" or "Retention Amount" until the City determines that the Retention Release Event, listed below, has occurred: (x) Retention Percentage: 10% ( )Retention Amount: $ Retention Release Event: (x) Completion of All Consultant Services ( ) Other: Page 20 COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item /[ Meeting Date 12/5/00 ITEM TITLE: Resolution Approving the Final "B" Maps for Otay Ranch Village One, Phase Seven, Neighborhoods R-16 and R~17, Chula Vista Tract No. 96-04A. Accepting on behalf of the City of Chula Vista, Assignable and Irrevocable General Utility and Access Easements, wall easements, and acknowledgment of the offer of dedication of open space lots "J, K, and L" granted on said Maps within said Subdivisions, approving the Subdivision Improvement Agreements for the completion ofiraprovements required by said subdi¥isions, and authorizing the Mayor to execute said agreements. Resolution Approving the "B" Map Supplemental Subdivision Improvement Agreement for Otay Ranch Village One, Phase Seven, Neighborhoods R- 16 and R- 17, Chula Vista Tract No. 96-04A, requiring Developer to comply with certain unfulfilled conditions of Resolution No. 19448 and authorizing the Mayor to Execute Said Agreement SUBMITTED BY: Director ofPublic/_g. Works~/~/,~ ~ REVIEWED BY: City Managert~;~ a'Y (4/5ths Vote: Yes No X ) On May 4, 1999, by Resolution No. 19448, the City Council approved a Tentative Subdivision Map for Chula Vista Tract 96-04A, Otay Ranch, SPA One, Village One, Phase 7. On May 9, 2000 by Resolution 2000-208, the Council approved Village One "A" Map No. 2. On October 24, 2000 by Resolution 2000-371, the Council approved the first "B' Map within Village One, Phase 7. Tonight, the city council will consider the approval of two additional "B" maps within Phase 7. RECOMMENDATION: That Council adopt the following: 1. Resolution approving the Final "B" Maps & Subdivision Improvement Agreements. 2. Resolution approving the "B" Map Supplemental Subdivision Improvement Agreement. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable DISCUSSION: The project is generally located south of East Palomar Street and east ofPaseo Ranchero within the area o£Otay Ranch Village One, Phase 7. The Neighborhood R- 16 "B" map consists of 115 numbered lots (Single Family Detached units) and 17 lettered lots with a total area of 14.363 acres (see Attachment 1). The Neighborhood R- 17 "B" map consists of 98 numbered lots (Single Family Detached units) and 14 lettered lots with a total area of 18.214 acres (see Attachment 2). The final maps have been reviewed by the Public Works Department and found to be in substantial conformance with the approved Tentative Map. Approval of the maps constitutes acceptance by the Page 2, Item __ Meeting Date 12/5/00 City of all assignable and irrevocable general utility and access easements, wall easements, and acknowledgment of the offer of open space lots "J, K, and L" within the Subdivision. The developer has executed a "B" Map Supplemental Subdivision Improvement Agreement, which addresses several on-going conditions of the tentative map. The Developer has secured its share of the development portion of the Park Acquisition and Development (PAD) fees for SPA One neighborhood and community parks. The Developer has provided an Irrevocable Offer of Dedication of Fee Interest for its portion of the land acquisition obligation for community parks with the approval of the first final "B" Map in Village One (Neighborhood R-3, approved 10/6/98, Resolution No. 19210). The Developer has bonded for and agrees to complete all on and off-site street improvements required for the approval of these "B" Maps within two years following map approval, or sooner if construction permits for the required improvements have been issued. FISCAL IMPACT: None to the City. Developer has paid all costs associated with the proposed "A" Map and agreement. Attachments: Attachment i: Plat - Otay Ranch Village One, Neighborhood R-16 & R-17, Chula Vista Tract 96-04A, location map. Attachment 2: Plat - Otay Ranch Village One, Neighborhood R-16 & R-17, Chula Vista Tract 96-04A, detail map. Attachment 3: Minutes of May 4, 1999, by (Resolution No. 19448) Attachment 4: Developer's Disclosure Statements RT File No. 0600-80-OR 169F&OR173F H:\HOME\ENGINEER~AGEN DA\R-16&17 al 13.DOC Nov 03 O0 06:21p Landmark I I~'ov 1S O0 11:21a Landmark (858)58?-8'750 EXCERPT FROM MINUTES OF 5/4/99 ATTACHMENT~ PUBLIC HEARINGS AND RELATED RESOLUTIONS (Continued) Mayor Pro Tem Salas suggested that there should be a study on the effects of high density living, and she expressed concern that those areas could turn into rental areas. Councilmember Moot questioned the cumulative effect of so many small lot products in one subdivision but expressed faith that Planning Department staff would review and resolve any issues. Mayor Horton stated that the impacts and effects need to be closely monitored in future planning. She also indicated that when EastLake presents its low density proposal on the land adjacent to this project, it should offer a balance to the high density housing. Planning Director Leiter stated that the design solutions for small lot developments will be reviewed by the Planning Department, and a report will be brought back to Council for further comment and direction. ACTION: Mayor Horton offered Resola_tion #19447, heading read, text waived. The motion carried 5-0. 9. PUBLIC HEARING PCS-96-04A TO CONSIDER A TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP REVISION SUBDIVIDING PHASE SEVEN (PURPLE PHASE) IN VILLAGE ONE OF OTAY RANCH, SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA (SPA ONE) INTO 447 LOTS - APPLICANT: THE OTAY RANCH COMPANY RESOLUTION 19448, APPROVING A TENTATIVE SUBDMSION MAP REVISION FOR PHASE SEVEN (PURPLE PHASE) IN VII J.AGE ONE OF THE OTAY RANCH SPECIFIC PLANNING AREA ONE PLAN, TRACT 96-04A The Planning Commission held a public hearing on April 14, 1999 and voted 7-0 to adopt a resolution recommending that Council approve the Phase Seven Tentative Subdivision Map, and adopt a resolution recommending that Council approve an amendment to the Otay Ranch Phase Two Resource Management Plan. Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolution. (Director of Planning and Building) Notice of the hearing was given in accordance with legal requirements, and the hearing was held on the date and at the time specified in the notice. Mayor Horton opened the public hearing and asked if anyone from the audience wished to speak. Kent Arden, Otay Ranch Company, spoke in support of staff recommendations. Carolyn Butler, 97 Bishop Street, expressed concern about armed guards. There being no further comments, Mayor Horton closed the hearing. ACTION: Mayor Horton offered Resolution #19448, heading read, text waived. The motion carried 5-0. Page 6 05/04/99 I/-7 THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Pursuant to Council Policy 101-01, prior to any action upon matters which will require discretionary action by the Council, Planning Commission and all other official bodies of the City, a statement of disclosure of certain ownership or finar ~.~ interests payments, or campaign cqntributions fora City of Chula Vista election must be filed. ~'he tgllowing informa. J must be disclosed: 1. List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the property that is the subject of the application or the contract, e.g., owner, applicant, contractor, subcontractor, material supplier. 2. If any person* identified pursuant to (1) above is a corporation or parmership, list the names of all individuals with a $1000 investment in the business (corporation/parmership) entity. 3. If any person* identified pursuant to (1) above is a non-profit organization or trust, list the names of any person serving as director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary or trustor of the trust. 4. Please identify every person, including any agents, employees, consultants, or independent contractors you have assigned to represent you before the City in this matter? 5. Has any person* associated with this contract had any financial dealings with an official** of the City of Chula Vista as it relates to this contract within the past 12 months. Yes No ,~ If Yes, briefly describe the nature of the financial interest the official** may have in this contract? 6. Have you made a contribution of more than $250 within the past twelve (12) months to a current member of the Chula Vista City Council? Nop~ Yes __ If yes, which Council member? 7. Have you or any member of your governing board (i.e. Corporate Board of Directors/Executives, non-profit Board of Directors made contributions totaling more than $1,000 over the past four (4) years to a current member of the Chula Vista City Council? Yes No ~,, If Yes, which Council member? 8. Have you provided more than $300 (or an item of equivalent value) to an official** of the City of Chula Vista in the past twelve (1.2) months? (This includes being a source of income, money to retire a legal debt, gift, loan, etc.) Yes No_b~_ If Yes, which official** and what was the nature of item provided? Signatu~--~'e of-Con/ractor/Apph"rcant Print or type m~ne ofContractor/~pplicant . . * Person is defined as: any individual, fu'm, co-partnership, joint venture, association, social club, fraternal organization, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate, any other county, city, municipality, district, or other political subdivision, -or any other group or combination acting as a unit. ** Official includes, but is not limited to: Mayor, Council member, planning Commissioner, Member of a board, commission, or committee of the City, employee, or staff members. H:\HOME\ENGINEER~ADMIN\CONTRACT\STL25200.23 (Boiler Mm) /~ / ~ ~ I4 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING FINAL MAPS OF CHULA VISTA TRACT NOo96-04A, OTAY RANCH, VILLAGE ONE, PHASE SEVEN, NEIGHBORHOODS R-17 & R-16. ACCEPTING ON BEHALP OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA THE GENERAL UTILITY AND ACCESS EASEMENTS, AND THE WALL EASEMENTS GRANTED ON SAID MAPS WITHIN SAID SUBDIVISIONS, ACKNOWLEDGING ON BEHALF OF THE PUBLIC THE IRREVOCABLE OFFERS OF DEDICATION OF FEE INTEREST POR OPEN SPACE LOTS ~J, K, AND L", APPROVING THE SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENTS FOR THE COMPLETION OF IMPROVEMENTS REQUIRED BY SAID SUBDIVISIONS, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENTS · NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Chula Vista hereby finds that certain map survey entitled Chula Vista Tract 96-04A OTAY RANCH, SPA ONE, VILLAGE ONE, PHASE SEVEN, NEIGHBORHOOD R-17, and more particularly described as follows: Lots 3, 6, J, and K according to Map thereof No. 13990, Chula Vista Tract No. 96-04A Otay Ranch, Village One in the City of Chula Vista, County of San Diego, State of California, filed in the office of the County Recorder of San Diego County on June 27, 2000. Area: 18.214 Acres No. of Lots: 109 Numbered Lots: 98 Lettered Lots: Open Space Lots: 2.282 Acres is made in the manner and form prescribed by law and conforms to the surrounding surveys; and that said map and subdivision of land shown thereon is hereby approved and accepted. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, said Council hereby accepts on behalf of the City of Chula Vista the two foot wall easements, the sixty-two (62) foot wide general utility and access easements within over and around Lots ~M, and N" for installation of public utilities, noting that use of said general utility and general access easements by others is subject to written permission and issuance of an Encroachment Permit from the City of Chula Vista, and has acknowledged on behalf of the City of Chula Vista the Irrevocable Offers of Dedication of Fee Interest in Lot~"'J, K, and L , all as shown on this map within this subdIvision, subject to the conditions set forth thereon. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk of the City of Chula Vista be and she is hereby authorized and directed to endorse upon said map the action of said Council; that said Council has approved said subdivision map, and that those certain easements with the right of ingress and egress for general utility, and general access, as granted thereon and shown on said map within said subdivision, are accepted on behalf of the City of Chula Vista as herein above stated. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that City Clerk be and she is hereby directed to transmit said map to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of the County of San Diego. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that that certain Subdivision Improvement Agreement dated the for the completion of improvements in said subdivision, a copy of which is on file in the office of the City Clerk, is hereby approved. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Chula Vista hereby finds that certain map survey entitled Chula Vista Tract 96-04A OTAY PJ~NCH, SPA ONE, VILLAGE ONE, P~LASE SEVEN, NEIGHBORHOOD R-16, and more particularly described as follows: Lot 4 according to map thereof No. 13990, Chula Vista Tract No. 96-04A Otay Ranch, Village One in the city of Chula vista, County of San Diego, State of California, filed in the office of the County Recorder of San Diego County on June 27, 2000. Area: 14.363 Acres No. of Lots: 132 Numbered Lots: 115 Lettered Lots: 17 Open Space Lots: 1.04 Acres is made in the manner and form prescribed by law and conforms to the surrounding surveys; and that said mad and subdivision of land shown thereon is hereby approved and accepted. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, said Council hereby accepts on behalf of the City of Chula Vista the two foot wall easements, the sixty-two (62) foot wide general utility and access easements within over and around Lots ~A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, and K" for installation of public utilities, noting that use of said general utility and general access easements by others is subject to written permission and issuance of an Encroachment Permit from the City of Chula Vista, all as shown on this map within this 2 subdivision, subject to the conditions set forth thereon. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk of the City of Chula Vista be and she is hereby authorized and directed to endorse upon said map the action of said Council; that said Council has approved said subdivision map, and that those certain easements with the right of ingress and egress for general utility, and general access, as granted thereon and shown on said map within said subdivision, are accepted on behalf of the City of Chula vista as herein above stated. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that City Clerk be and she is hereby directed to transmit said map to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of the County of San Diego. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that that certain Subdivision Improvement Agreement dated the · for the completion of improvements in said subdivision, a copy of which is on file in the office of the City Clerk, is hereby approved. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor of the City of Chula Vista is hereby authorized and directed to execute said Agreements on behalf of the City of Chula Vista. Presented by Approved as to form by John P. Lippitt Jo~{~/~. Kaheny Director of Public Works City Attorney H:\home~attorney~reso\otay ranchR16 & R17 Final Map 3 Recording Requested by: CITY CLERK When Recorded, Mail to: CITY OF CHULA VISTA 276 Pourth Avenue Chula Vista, Ca. 91910 No transfer tax is due as this is a conveyance to a public agency of less than a fee interest for which no cash cons.ideration has been paid or received. DeClarant SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this day of 2000, by and between THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, a municipal corporation, hereinafter called "City", and OTAY/Aa_NCH ONE, LLC, hereinafter called "Subdivider" with reference to the facts set forth below, which Recitals constitute a part of this Agreement; RECITALS: WHEREAS, Subdivider is about to present to the City Council of the City of Chula Vista for approval and recordation, a final subdivision map of a proposed subdivision, to be known as OTAY RANCH, VILLAGE 1, PHASE SEVEN, NEIGHBORHOOD R-16 (CVT 96-04A) pursuant to the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act of the State of California, and in compliance with the provisions of Title 18 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code relating to the filing, approval and recordation of subdivision map; and WHEREAS, the Code provides that before said map is finally approved by the Council of the City of Chula Vista, Subdivider must have either installed and completed all of the public improvements and/or land development work required by the Code to be installed in subdivisions before final maps of subdivisions are approved by the Council for purpose of recording in the office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, or, as an alternative thereto, Subdivider shall enter into an agreement with City, secured by an approved improvement security to insure the performance of said work pursuant to the requirements of Title 18 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, agreeing to install and complete, free of liens at Subdivider's own expense, all of the public improvements and/or land development work required in said subdivision within a definite period of time prescribed by said Council; and WHEREAS, Subdivider is willing in consideration of the approval and recordation of said map by the Council, to enter into this agreement wherein it is provided that Subdivider will install and complete, at Subdivider's own expense, all the public improvement work required by City in connection with the proposed subdivision and will deliver to City improvement securities as approved by the City Attorney; and WHEREAS, a tentative map of said subdivision has heretofore been approved, subject to certain requirements and conditions, as contained in Resolutio~ No. 19448, approved on the 4th day of May~ 1999 (',Tentative Map Resolution"); and WHEREAS, complete plans and specifications for the construction, installation and completion of said public improve- ment work have been prepared and submitted to the city Engineer, as shown on Drawings Nos. 00107-01 through 00107-10 inclusive, on file in the office of the City Engineer; and WHEREAS, an estimate of the cost of constructing said public improvements according to said plans and specifications has been submitted and approved by the City in the amount of One Million Three Hundred Twelve Thousand Three Hundred Four Dollars and No Cents ($1,312,304.00). NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS MUTUALLY UNDERSTOOD AND AGREED AS FOLLOWS: 1. Subdivider, for itself and his successors in interest, an obligation the burden of which encumbers and runs with the land, agrees to comply with all of the terms, conditions and requirements of the Tentatiye Map Resolution; to do and perform or cause to be done and performed, at its own expense, without cost to City, in a good and workmanlike manner, under the direction and to the satisfaction and approval of the City Engineer, all of the public improvement and/or land development work required to be done in and adjoining said subdivision, including the improvements described in the above Recitals ("Improvement Work"); and will furnish the necessary materials therefor, all in strict conformity and in accordance with the plans and specifications, which documents have heretofore been filed in the office of the city Engineer and as described in the above Recitals this reference are incorporated herein and made a part hereof. 2. It is expressly understood and agreed that all monuments have been or will be installed within thirty (30) days after the completion and acceptance of the Improvement Work, and that Subdivider has installed or will install temporary street name signs if permanent street name signs have not been installed. 3. It is expressly understood and agreed that Subdivider will cause all necessary materials to be furnished and all Improvement 2 Work required under the provisions of this contract to be done on or before the second anniversary date of Council approval of the Subdivision Improvement Agreement. 4. It is understood and agreed that Subdivider will perform said Improvement Work as set forth hereinabove, or that portion of said Improvement Work serving any buildings or structures ready for occupancy in said subdivision, prior to the issuance of any certificate of clearance for utility connections for said buildings or structures in said subdivision, and such certificate shall not be issued until the'City Engineer has certified in writing the completion of said public improvements or the portion thereof serving said building or structures approved by the City; provided, however, that the improvement security shall not be required to cover the provisions of this paragraph. 5. It is expressly understood and agreed to by Subdivider that, in the performance of said Improvement Work, Subdivider will conform to and abide by all of the provisions of the ordinances of the City of Chula Vista, and the laws of the State of California applicable to said work. 6. Subdivider further agrees to furnish and deliver to the city of Chula Vista, simultaneously with the execution of this agreement, an approved improvement security from a sufficient surety, whose sufficiency has been approved by the City in the sum of Six Hundred Fifty-Six Thousand One Hundred Fifty-Two Dollars and No Cents ($656,152.00) which security shall guarantee the faithful performance of this contract by Subdivider and is attached hereto, marked Exhibit "A" and made a part hereof. 7. Subdivider further agrees to furnish and deliver to the City of Chula Vista simultaneously with the execution of this agreement, an approved improvement security from a sufficient surety, whose sufficiency has been approved by the City in the sum of Six Hundred Fifty-Six Thousand One Hundred Fifty-Two Dollars and No Cents ($656,152.00) to Secure the payment of material and labor in connection with the installation of said public improvements, which security is attached hereto, marked Exhibit "B" and made a part hereof and the bond amounts as contained in Exhibit "B", and made a part hereof. 8. Subdivider further agrees to furnish and deliver to the City of Chula Vista, simultaneously with the execution of this agreement, an approved improvement security from a sufficient surety, whose sufficiency has been approved by the City in the sum of Eight Thousand Dollars and No Cents ($8,000.00) to secure the installation of monuments, which security is attached hereto, marked Exhibit "C" and made a part hereof. 9. It is further agreed that if the Improvement Work is not completed within the time agreed herein, the sums provided by said 3 improvement securities may be used by City for the completion of the Improvement Work within said subdivision in accordance with such specifications herein contained or referred, or at the option of the City, as are approved by the city Council at the time of engaging the work to be performed. Upon certification of completion by the City Engineer and acceptance of said work by City, and after certification by the Director of Finance that all costs hereof are fully paid, the whole amount, or any part thereof not required for payment thereof, may be released to Subdivider or its successors in interest, pursuant to the terms of the improvement security. Subdivider agrees to pay to the city any difference between the total costs incurred to perform the work, including design and administration of construction (including a reasonable allocation of overhead), and any proceeds from the improvement security. 10. It is also expressly agreed and understood by the parties hereto that in no case will the City of Chula Vista, or any department, board or officer thereof, be liable for any portion of the costs and expenses of the work aforesaid, nor shall any officer, his sureties or bondsmen, be liable for the payment of any sum or sums for said work or any materials furnished therefor, except to the limits established by the approved improvement security in accordance with the requirements of th~ State Subdivision Map Act and the provisions of Title 18 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code. 11. It is further understood and agreed by Subdivider that any engineering costs (including plan checking, inspection, materials furnished and other incidental expenses) incurred by City in connection with the approval of the Improvement Work plans and installation of Improvement Work hereinabove provided for, and the cost of street signs and street trees as required by City and approved by the City Engineer shall be paid by Subdivider, and that Subdivider shall deposit, prior to recordation of the Final Map, with City a sum of money sufficient to cover said cost. 12. It is understood and agreed that until such time as all Improvement Work is fully completed and accepted by city, Subdivider will be responsible for the care, maintenance of, and any damage to, the streets, alleys, easements, water and sewer lines within the proposed subdivision. It is further understood and agreed that Subdivider shall guarantee all public improvements for a period of one year from date of final acceptance and correct any and all defects or deficiencies arising during said period as a result of the acts or omission of Subdivider, its agents or employees in the performance of this agreement, and that upon acceptance of the work by City, Subdivider shall grant to City, by appropriate conveyance, the public improvements constructed pursuant to this agreement; provided, however, that said acceptance shall not constitute a waiver of defects by City as set forth hereinabove. 13. It is understood and agreed that City, as indemnitee, or any officer or employee thereof, shall not be liable for any injury to person or property occasioned by reason of the acts or omissions of Subdivider, its agents or employees, or indemnitee, related to this agreement, subdivider further agrees to protect and hold the City, its officers and employees, harmless from any and all claims, demands, causes of action, liability or loss of any sort, because of or arising out of acts or omissions of Subdivider, its agents or employees, or indemnitee, related to this agreement; provided, however, that the approved improvement security shall not be required to cover' the provisions of this paragraph. Such indemnification and. agreement to hold harmless shall extend to damages to adjacent or downstream properties or the taking of property from owners of such adjacent or downstream properties as a result of the construction of said subdivision and the public improvements as provided herein. It shall also extend to damages resulting from diversion of waters, change in the volume of flow, modification of the velocity of the water, erosion or siltation, or the modification of the point of discharge as the result of the construction and maintenance of drainage systems. The approval of plans providing for any or all of these conditions shall not constitute the assumption by City of any responsibility for such dama§e or taking, nor shall City, by said approval, be an insurer or surety for the construction of the subdivision pur3uant to said approved improvement plans. The provisions of this paragraph shall become effective upon the execution of this agreement and shall remain in full force and effect for ten (10) years following the ? acceptance by the City of the improvements. 14. Subdivider agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City or its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul, an approval of the City, advisory agency, appeal board, or legislative body concerning a subdivision, which action is brought within the time period provided for in Section 66499.37 of the Government Code of the State of California. 15. Assignability. Upon request of the Subdivider, any or all on-site duties and obligations set forth herein may be assigned to Subdivider's successor in interest if the City Manager in his/her sole discretion determines that such an assignment will not adversely affect the City's interest. The city Manager in his/her sole discretion may, if such assignment is requested, permit a substitution of securities by the successor in interest in place and stead of the original securities described herein so long as such substituted securities meet the criteria for security as set forth elsewhere in this Agreement. Such assignment will be in a form approved by the City Attorney. (NEXT PAGE IS SIGNATURE PAGE) 5 SIGNATURE PAGE TO SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT OTAY RANCH, VILLAGE 1, PHASE SEVEN, NEIGHBORHOOD R-16, (CVT 96-04A) IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this agreement to be executed the day and year first hereinabove set forth. THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA OTAY R/LNCH ONE, LLC Mayor of the City of Chula vista ATTEST City Clerk Approved as to form by (Attach Notary Acknowledgment) LIST OF EXHIBITS Exhibit "A" Improvement Security - Faithful Performance Form: Bonds Amount: $656,152.00 Exhibit "B" Improvement Security - Material and Labor: Form: Bonds Amount: $656,152.00 Exhibit "C" Improvement Security - Monuments: Form: Bonds Amount: $8,000.00 Securities approved as to form and amount by ~ city Atto~ey -- Improvement Completion Date: Two (2) years from date of City Council approval of the Subdivision Improvement Agreement. CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT '~ State of California ~ County of orange ss. On NOvember 13, 200Q before me, NANCY FALKEN~AGEN, NOTARY PUBLIC personally appeared Cheryl A. Fieqe Name(s) o[ Sigoeds) [] personally known to me [] proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(,6~ whose namc..~g is/ar~= subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that=heCshe/C'.%:-cxecuted the same in ~/her/~hei¢ authorized capacityCe~, and that by :t~i~her/~ siguBture~)=on the instrument the person(~), or ~ ' '"' F' EN' "'"'~--~'~e~'~l the entity upon behalf of which the person{e)= ~ C%.~.# ironer, r acted, executed the instrument _-- ,~.~ on 175477 · ~ Notary ! ~.~J~"j~)' Oronge County ~ WITNESS my hand end official seal. o rtO t_ Though the reformation below is not required by law, it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document and could prevent fraudulent removal and reattachment of this form to another document, Description of Attached Document Title or Type of Document: Document Date: Number of Pages: Signer(s) Other Than Named Above: Capacity(les) Claimed by Signer Signer's Name: ~3 Individual Top of thumb here E~ Corporate Officer -- Title(s): [~ Padner-- ~ Limited E] General L3 Attorney in Fact [~ Trustee [3 Guardian or Conservator © Other: Signer Is Representing: ,-// Executed in Triplicate ] [ und o.: (To Be Us~ ~or to Appro~l of Subdi~si0n ~pmv~ent A~c~t) ~: $ i 1,811.00 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista, County of San Diego, State of California, and 0tay Ranch One, LLC 0lereina~f..x"pdncipal") desire to enter into a Subdivision Improvement Agreement (hereinafter referred to as "Agreement") whereby Principal agrees to install and complete certain designated public improvements for the project known as Otay Ranch Village 1_, Pha§e 7, R-16 ;and WHEREAS, Principal desires to commence construction of said public improvements prior to approval of said Agreement by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista; and, V~rl]EREAS, the City of Chula Vista, County of San Diego, State of California, has issued to Principal Construction Permit No. (hereinafter referred to as "Permit") for the public improvement work as set forth in more detail on City of Chula Vista Drawing Nos. Of) / f) ,:~/7/thrungh '~C) I C}~ - [ \, regarding construction of said public improvements, which Permit is hereby r&ferred to and made a part hereof; and, WHEREAS, said Principal is required under the terms of said Permit to furnish a bond for faithful performance of said Permit. NOW THEREFORE, we, the Principal and safeco Insurance Coml~anv of America , a corporation of the State of Washington , (hereinafter "Surety"), are held and firmly bound unto the City of Chula Vista, a municipal corporation (hereinafter "City") in the County of San Diego, State of California, and to and for the benefit of any and all pemons who may suffer damages by breach of the conditions hereof, in the penal sunlof Six Hundred Fifty Six Thousand* dollars,($656,152.00 ), Iawfld money ofthe United States, for the payment of which sum well and truly to be made, we bind ourselves, our heirs, successors, executors and administrators, jointly and severally, ftrmly by these presents. *One Hundred Fifty Two and no/lO0 The condition of this obligation is such that if the above-bound Principal, his or its heirs, executors, administrators, successors or assigns, shall in all things stand to and abide by, and well and truly keep and perform the terms, covenants, conditions, and provisions of said Permit and a subsequent Agreement and any alteration thereof made as therein provided, on his or their part, to be kept and performed at the time and in the manner therein specified, and in all respects according to their tree intent and meaning, and shall indemnify and save harmless City, its officers, agents and employees, as therein stipulated, then this obligation shall become null and void; otherwise, it shall be and remain in full force and effect. As part of the obligation secured hereby and in addition to the face mount specified therefor, there shall be included costs and reasonable expenses and fees, including reasonable attorney's fees, incurred by City in successfully enforcing such obligation, all to be taxed as costs and included in any judgment rendered. Thc Surety hereby stipulates and agrees that no change, extension of time, alteration or addition to the terms of the P~nnit orto the work to be performed thereunder or the specifications accompanying the same shall in anywise affect its obligations on this bond, and it does hereby waive notice of any anub change, extension of time, alteration or addition to the terms of the Permit or to the work or to the specifications. CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT No. 5907 State of CALIFORNIA County of ORANGE On November 8, 2000 before me, PATRJC]LA M. WHITE, NOTARY PUBLIC DATE NAME. TITLE OF OFFICER ~ E.G.. "JANE DOE. NOTARY PUBLIC" personally appeared PATE]CiA H. BREBNER NAME(S} OF SIGNER(S) [] personally known to me - OR - [] proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(les), and that by his/hefltheir signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. ~ :'~:,~ ~ WITNESS my hand and official seal. SIGNATURE OF NOTARY OPTIONAL Though the data below is not required by law, it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document and could prevent fraudulent reattachment of this form. CAPACITY CLAIMED BY SIGNER DESCRIPTION OF ATTACHED DOCUMENT [] INDIVIDUAL CORPORATE OFFICER TITLE OR TYPE OF DOCUMENT TITLE(S) [] PARTNER(S) [] LIMITED GENERAL [] A'CFORNEY-IN-FACT [] TRUSTEE(S) [] GUARDIAN/CONSERVATOR NUMBER OF PAGES [] OTHER: SIGNER IS REPRESENTING: DATE OF DOCUMENT NAME OF PERSON(S) OR ENTITY(lES) SIGNER(S) OTHER THAN NAMED ABOVE i' I S4067/GEEF 2/98 © 1993 NATIONAL NOTARY ASSOCIATION - 8236 Rernmel Ave., P~O, Box 7184. Canoga Park. CA 91309-7184 .... ! ~ CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT State of County of~..~.~~__ personally appeared ~;L('" I /'-J'. Nerve[s) of ~personally known to me [] proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person~"T whose name(s~/~re subscribed to the within instrument and ~..~wledg~'~"'to me tha~he/they executed the same in~/k~r authorized capacity(ies~, and that b~/her/their signature(e) on the instrument the person(e), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(e~- acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and officfal seal. OPTIONAL Though the information below is not required by law, it may prove valuable to persons relyin, g on the document and could prevent fraudulent removal and reattachment of this form to another document. Description of Attached Document Title or Type of Document: Document Date: Number of Pages: Signer(s) Other Than Named Above: Capacity(ies) Claimed by Signer(s) Signer's Name: Signer's Name: [] Individual LJ Individual [] Corporate Officer [] Corporate Officer Title(s): Title(s):_ L~ Partner -- [] Limited [~J General ~ Partner -- ~ Limited [] General lT Attorney-in-Fact [] Attorney-in-Fact LJ Trustee ~ Trustee [] Guardian or Conservator ~ [] Guardian or Conservator [] Other: Top of thumb here [] Other: ~-op o[ thumb here Signer Is Representing: Signer Is Representing: Executed in Triplicate BOND FOR MATERIAL AND LABOR Bona I%.: 5go oo (To Be Used With Subdivision Improvement Agreement) Premh~m- Included in performance bond WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Chela Vista, County of San Diego,' State of CalifoHlia, alld Otay Ranch One, LLC (hereinafter Principal) have entered into a Subdivision Improvement Ag~ement (hereinafter referred to as Agreement) whereby Principal agrees to install and complete certain desi~ated public improvements, which said Agreement~ dated , 19__, and identified as project Otay Ranch Village 1, Phase 7, R-16 is hereby referred to and made a part hereof; and, WIffEREAS, .nder the terms of said Agreement, Principal is required, before entering upon the perforamnce of the work. to file a good and sufficient payment bond with the City of Chula Vista to secure the claims to which reference is made in Title 15 (commencing with Section 3082), Part 4, Division 3, of the Civil Code of the State of California. NOW THEREFORE, said Principal and Safeco Insurance Company of America a corporation of the State of Washington , (hereinafter Surety), are held and firmly bound unto the City of Chula Vista. a municipal corporation (hereinafter City) in the County of San Diego, State of Califon~ia, and all contractors, subcontractors, laborers, matedalmen and other persons employed in the performance of the aforesaid Agreement and referred to in the aforesaid Code of Civil Procedure in the sum of Six Hundred Fifty Six Thousand One* doilars, ($656,152.00 ), lawfulmoney of the United States, for matefials furnished or labor thereon of any kind, or for amounts due under the Unemploymem Insurance Act wi~h respect to such work or labor, that said Surety will pay the same in an amount not exceeding the amount hereinabove set forth, and also in case suit is brought upon this bond, will pay, in addition to the fac~ amount thereof, costs and reasonable expenses and fees, incinding reasonable attorney's fees, incun~d by City in successfully enforcing such obligation, to be awarded and fLxed by the court, and to be taxed as costs and to be included in the judgment therein rendered. *Hundred Fifty Two and no/100 It is hereby expressly stipulated and .agreed that this bond shall inure to the benefit of any and all persons, companies and corporations entitled to file claims under Title 15 (commencing with Section 3082), part 4, Division 3, of the Civil Code, so as to give a fight of action to them or their assigns in any suit brought upon th/s bond. Should the condition of this bond be fully performed, then this obligation shall become null and void, otherwise, it shall be and remain in full force and effect. The Surety hereby stipulates and agrees that no change, extension of time, alteration or addition to the terms of the Agreement or to the work to be performed thereunder or the. specificafiom accompanying the same shall in anywise affect its obligations on this bond, and it does hereby waive notice of any such change, extension of time, alteration or addition to the terms of the Agreement or to the work or to the specifications. · CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT No. 5907 State of CALIFORNIA County of ORANGE On November 8, 2000 beforeme, PATRICIAM. WHITE, NOTARY PUBLIC DATE NAME, 11TLR OF OFFICER - E.G. "JANE DOE, NOTARY PUSLIC" personally appeared PA'IR/CIA H. BEEBNEI~. NAME(S) OF SIGNER(S) [] personally known to me - OR - [] proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(les); and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. ~ WITNESS my hand and official seal. .... .z~.~,...~,.~v~;~ ~ SIGNATURE OF NOTARY OPTIONAL Though the data below is not required by law, it may prove valuabie to persons relying on the document and could prevent fraudulent reattachment of this form. CAPACITY CLAIMED BY SIGNER DESCRIPTION OF ATTACHED DOCUMENT INDIVIDUAL CORPORATE OFFICER TITLE OR TYPE OF DOCUMENT TITLE(S) E~ PARTNER(S) [] LIMITED GENERAL [] ATTORNEY-IN-FACT [~ TRUSTEE(S) [~ GUARDIAN/CONSERVATOR NUMBER OF PAGES E~ OTHER: SIGNER IS REPRESENTING: DATE OF DOCUMENT NAME OF PERSON(S) OR ENTI~(IES) SIGNER(S) OTHER THAN NAMED ABOVE S~067/GEEF 2J98 © 1993 NATIONAL NOTARY ASSOCIATION · 8236 Remmet Ave., P,O. Box 7184 · Canoga Park, CA 91309-7~84 POWER Aa~'Eco IN~I. IRANCE COMPANY OF S A F E C O' O A ORN ~at ~CO INEU~CE COMPA~ OF ~E~CA and GENE~ IHSU~CE COMP~ OF ~E~CA, ~ a W~g~n ~m~n, its tree and lawful attomey(s}-in-fuct, with full autho~y to execute ~ its behalf fidelity and surely bonds or undedakings and other documents of a similar character issued in the coume of its business, and to bind the respective company thereby. IN V'~flTNESS WHEREOF, SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA and GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA have each executed and ath~tad these presents this ]3Ut day of J'.mc , 2000 R.A. PIERSON, SECRETARY W. RANDALL STODDARD, PRESIDENT CERTIFICATE Extract fTom the By-Laws of SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA and of GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA: "Articfu V, Section t3. - FIDELITY AND SURETY BONOS ... the Pmsidsnt, any Vice President, the Secretmy, and any Assistant Vice president appointed for that purpose by the officer in charge of surebj operations, shall each have authedb/to appoint individuals as ahamays-fo~fuct or under Jther appmphato flues wflh autho~iy to execute an behalf of the company fidstity and surety bonds and other documents of similar chalac~r issued by Ihe company in the r~ume of Its business... On any inct~ment making or evidencing such appointment, the signatures may be affixed by facsimile. On any ins~Jment confuntng such authority or on any br ~r undertaking of the company, the seal, or a tac~imile ~hereof, may be impressed or affixed or in any other manner reproduced; provided, however, that the seal si be n~cessa~y to the validity of any such fost~Jment or undertaking." Extract from a Res~u§on of the Boald of Directars of SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA .... and of GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMEPJCA adopted July 28, 1970. "On any certificate executed by the Sec~-e~ry or an assistant sectelary of the Company setting out, (i) The pmvisfuns of Arflcle V, Section 13 of the By-Laws, and (ii) A copy of the power-of*atfomey appointment, e~cuted pursuant thereto, and (iii) Cedifying that said power-of-attomey appctntment is in flail force and effect, the signature of the certifying officer may be by fucsimile, and the seal of the Company may be a fucsimile thereof." L R.A. Pierson. Secretary of SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA and of GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANy OF AMERICA, do hereby certify that the foregoing ex~acts of the By-Laws and of a Resolution of the Boa~l of Directors of these c~q~mflans, and of a Power of Attomay issued pumuant the~'etol are tree and con'ect, and that both the By-Laws, the Resolution and the Power of Atfomey am still in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the facsimifo seal of said corporation this 8th dayof November 2000 R.A. PIERSON, SECRETARY CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT State of ~ ~.~ personally appeared (._~LK'I ~.. f"~'~./Je~z~ d-~f' ~' E~personally known to me [] proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(,~'whose name(.e'~re subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me thal~/she/they executed the same ini~)/her/their authorized capacity(les'), and that byi~her/their signature(,e.)-on the instrument the person(~, or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) j ~1~"~/ o~a~ ~y II acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. OPTIONAL Description of Attached Document Title or Type of Document: Document Date: Number of Pages: Signer(s) Other Than Named Above: Capacity(ies) Claimed by Signer(s) Signer's Name: Signer's Name: Ed Individual LJ Individual I] Corporate Officer L~ Corporate Officer Title(s): Title(s): g Partner-- Lq Limited LJ General LJ Partner-- ~] Limited [] General F~] Attorney-in-Fact [] Attorney-in-Fact L3 Trustee L~ Trustee Lg Guardian or Conservator ~ C] Guardian or Conservator © Other: Top of thumb here [~ Other: Top of thumb here ~',~.-.-..- Signer Is Representing: Signer Is Representing: Executed in Triplicate SURVEY MO ENSTALLATION BOND Bona No.: ~804c Premium: $144.00 LET IT BE KNOWN BY THESE PRESENTS, that otay Ranch One, LLC as the subdivider (hereinafter ~PrineipaP), and safeco Insurance Company of America , a corporation of the State of Washington (hereinafter "Surety'), are held and firmly bound unto the City of Chela Vim, a municipal corporation (hereinafter "City'), in the County of San Diego, State of California, and to and for the benefit of any and all persons who may suffer damage by reason of the breach of the conditions hereof, in the penal sum of Eight Thousand and no/100 ...... dollars ($.8,000.00 .) lawful money of the United Stems, to be paid to City. WHEREAS, Principal is presently engaged in subdividing certain lands to be known as Otay Ranch Village 1; Phase 7, R-16 subdivision in the City of Chula Vista; and, WHEREAS, Principal and City have entered into a Subdivision Improvement Agreemem approved by City Council Resolution No. (hereinafter referred to as ~Agreement') whereby Principal agrees to iastall durable survey monuments for said subdivision, which said Agreement, dated 19.. , and identified as project Otay Ranch Village 1~ Phase 7, R-16 is hereby referred to and made a pa~ hereof; and, WHEREAS, Principal desires to not install durable survey monuments prior to the recordation of the final map of the subdivision and desires to install same at a later date, NOW, THEREFORE, the condition of the above obligation is that if Principal shall have installed durable monuments of the survey by Landmark Consulting in accordance with the final map of said subdivision, a copy of which said map is hereby made and same is incorporated herein a~ though set forth in ful!, and according m the ordinances of the City of Chula Vista in full force and effect at the time of the giving of this bond, on or before the expiration of thir~ (30) consecutive days following completion and acceptance of public improvements within said subdivision as specified in said Agreement, then the obligation shall be void, otherwise to be and remain in full force and effect. C.,~LIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT No. 5g07 State of CALn~ORNIA County of ORANGE On I~ovember 8, 2000 beforeme, PATRICIAM. WHITE, NOTARY PUBLIC DATE NAME, TITLE OF OFFICER- E.G., "JANE POE, NOTARY PUBLIC" personally appeared PATRICIA H. BREBNER NAME(S) OF SIGNER(S) [] personally known to me - OR - [] proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(les), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. ~ ' : 'i ..... _ ,.~.,,~,,:~ ~ WITNESS my hand and official seal. OPTIONAL Though the data below is not required by law, it may prove valuable to pemons relying on the document and could prevent fraudulent reattachment of this form. CAPACITY CLAIMED BY SIGNER DESCRIPTION OF ATTACHED DOCUMENT [] INDIVIDUAL CORPORATE OFFICER TITLE OR TYPE OF DOCUMENT TITLE(S) [~ PARTNER(S) ~ LIMITED GENERAL [] A'i-YORNEY-IN-FACT ~] TRUSTEE(S) [] GUARDIAN/CONSERVATOR NUMBER OF PAGES [] OTHER: SIGNER IS REPRESENTING: DATE OF DOCUMENT NAME OF PERSON(S) OR ENTiTY(lES) SIGNER(S) OTHER THAN NAMED ABOVE S4067/GEEF 2/98 © 1993 NATIONAL NOTARY ASSOCIATION · 8236 Remmet Ave, P.O. Box 7184 · Canoga park. CA 91309-7184 POWER S~=ECO INSUR~ COMp~' OF AME~C^ ATTORNEY HOME OFFICE; SAFECO pLAZA its ~ue and lawful attomey(s)4n-fact, wire full au~odty to execute en ils behalf fidelity and surety bonds or undertakings and o[her documents of a similar character issued in the course of ils business, and to bind the mspactlve company thereby. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA and GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA have each executed and attested these presents this 13th day of 3tat , 2000 R.A. PIERSON~ SECRETARY W. RANDALL STODDARD, PRESIDENT CERTIFICATE Exffact Eom the By-Laws of SAI~CO INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA and of GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA: "Ad, cie V, Sechon 13. - FIDELITY AND SURETY BONDS ... the Presidenl, any Vice President, the Secretary, and any Assistant Vice President appointed for that purpose by the officer in charge of surety operations, shali each have authedty Ko appoint individuals as attorneys-th-fact or under othe~' appmpdets titles with authority to execute on behalf of the company fideffiy end surety bonds and other documents of similar character issued by the company in Ihe coume of its business... On any insiTument making or evidencing such appointment, [he signatures may be affixed by facsimile. On any instrument conferring such authority or on arty bo- ' ',r undertaking of the company. [he seal, or a facsimile [here<~f, may be impressed or affixed or in any other manner reproduced; provided, however, [hal [he seal s~ be necessaq/to [he velidby of any such instrument or undertaking." Extmcl from a Reselution of [he Boa~l of Directors of SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA and of GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA adopled July 28, 1970. "On any certificats executed by the Secretary er an assistant secretary of [he Company setting out, Ii) The provisions of Artiele V, Se~ion 13 of [he By-Laws, and (ii) A copy of [he power-of*a(tomey appointment, execuled pursuant ~hereto, and (iii) Cedlfyingthatsaidpower-of-affomeyappelntment[sinfutiforceaedeffect, the signature of the certifythg officer may be by facsimile, and the seal of the Company may be a tacsimha [hereof." I, R.,'~. piemon, Secretary of SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA and of GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, do hereby certify [hat file foregoing exkacts of the By-Laws and of a Resolution of the Boa~d of Directors of [h~se corporations, and of a Power of ^ifomey issued pursuant thereto, are true and correct, and [hat both the By-Laws, [he Resoledon and the Power of Atiomey are sttil in futi force and effect IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the tecsimile seal of said corporation this 8th dayof November 2000 R.A. PIERSON, SECRETARY $-0974/SAEF 7/98 ® Registered trademark of SAFECO Co~oration, 6113/00 PDF tl ,: / CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT State of ~~.,,~ (../ On l,/ / ~/O(~ -~ before me, ~ ~ personally appeared. ~ ! N. ~Z~U C ~monally known to me G proved to me on the basis'of satisfacto~ evidence to be the person~) whose name(~are subscribed to the within instrument and~nowledged to me tha~/sho/they executed the same i~her/their authorized capaci~(~), and that b~her/their signature(~on the instrument the person(~), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(~ acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. OPtionAL - r~ou~ too information ~olow is no~ ro~u~ro~ Oy ta~ it ma~ p~vo ualoa~lo to pomons rol~in~ on ~o ~ocumont and coul~ ~rovo~t Des~Hpfion o~ ~ttachod Doeumont ~tle or lypo of Documont: ~ocumonI Date: ~umDor of Pa~os: Si~ner(s) Or,or Than ~amoO Capacity(ies) C~aimed by S~gner(s) Signer's Name: Signer's Name: [.J individual ~ Individual ~ Corporate Officer ~ Corporate Officer ~tle(s): Title(s): _ [.J Pa~ner--~ Limited LI General ~ Padner ~ ~ Limited ~ Genemt ~J AEorney-in-Fact ~ A~orney-in-Fact ~ Trustee ~ Trustee ~ Guardian or Consewator ~ ~ Guardian or Conse~ator ~ Other: Top of thumb hem ~ Other: rep of thumb hem Signer Is Representing: Signer Is Representing: Recording Requested by: CITY CLERK When Recorded, Mail to: CITY OF CHI/LA VISTA 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, Ca. 91910 No transfer tax is due as this is a conveyance to a public agency of less than a fee interest for which no cash consideration has been paid or received. Declarant SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT A~REEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this day of , 2000, by and between THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, a municipal corporation, hereinafter called "city", and OTAY RANCH TWO, LLC., 2479 MacKenzie Creek Road, Chula Vista, CA 91914, hereinafter called "Subdivider" with reference to the facts set forth below, which Recitals constitute a part of this Agreement; RECITALS: WHEREAS, Subdivider is about to present to the City Council of the City of Chula Vista for approval and recordation, a final subdivision map of a proposed subdivision, to be known as OTAY RANCH, VILLAGE 1, PHASE SEVEN, NEIGHBORHOOD R-17 (CVT 96-04A), pursuant to the.provisions of the Subdivision Map Act of the State of california, and in compliance with the provisions of Title 18 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code relating to the filing, approval and recordation of subdivision map; and WHEREAS, the Code provides that before said map is finally approved by the Council of the City of Chula Vista, Subdivider must have either installed and completed all of the public improvements and/or land development work required by the Code to be installed in subdivisions before final maps of subdivisions are approved by the Council for purpose of recording in the office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, or, as an alternative thereto, Subdivider shall enter into an agreement with'City, secured by an approved improvement security to insure the performance of said work pursuant to the requirements of Title 18 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, agreeing to install and complete, free of liens at Subdivider's own expense, all of the public improvements and/or land development work required in said subdivision within a definite period of time prescribed by said Council; and WHEREAS, Subdivider is willing in consideration of the approval and recordation of said map by the Council, to enter into this agreement wherein it is provided that Subdivider will install and complete, at Subdivider's own expense, all the public improvement work required by City in connection with the proposed subdivision and will deliver to City improvement securities as approved by the city Attorney; and WHEREAS, a tentative map of said subdivision has heretofore been approved, subject to certain requirements and conditions, as contained in Resolution No. 19448, approved on the 4th day of May, 1999 ("Tentative Map Resolution"); and WHEREAS, complete plans and specifications for the construction, installation and completion of said public improve- ment work have been prepared and submitted to the City Engineer, as shown on Drawings Nos. 00062-01 through 00062-09 inclusive, on file in the office of the City Engineer; and WHEREAS, an estimate of the cost of constructing said public improvements according to said plans and specifications has been submitted and approved by the City in the amount of One Million Forty-Five Thousand Eight Hundred Ninety Dollars and No Cents ($1,045,890.00) . NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS MUTUALLY UNDERSTOOD AND AGREED AS FOLLOWS: 1. Subdivider, for itself and his successors in interest, an obligation the burden of which encumbers and runs with the land, agrees to comply with all of the terms, conditions and requirements of the Tentative Map Resolution; to do and perform or cause to be done and performed, at its own expense, without cost to City, in a good and workmanlike manner, under the direction and to the satisfaction and approval of the city Engineer, all of the public improvement and/or land development work required to be done in and adjoining said subdivision, including the improvements described in the above Recitals ("Improvement Work"); and will furnish the necessary materials therefor, all in strict conformity and in accordance with the plans and specifications, which documents have heretofore been filed in the Office of the City Engineer and as described in the above Recitals this reference are incorporated herein and made a part hereof. 2. It is expressly understood and agreed that all monuments have been or will be installed within thirty (30) days after the completion and acceptance of the Improvement Work, and that Subdivider has installed or will install temporary street name signs if permanent street name signs have not been installed. 3. It is expressly understood and agreed that Subdivider will cause all necessary materials to be furnished and all Improvement 2 Work required under the provisions of this contract to be done on or before the second anniversary date of Council approval of the Subdivision Improvement Agreement. 4. It is understood and agreed that Subdivider will perform said Improvement Work as set forth hereinabove, or that portion of said Improvement Work serving any buildings or structures ready for occupancy in said subdivision, prior to the issuance of any certificate of clearance for utility connections for said buildings or structures in said subdivision, and such certificate shall not be issued until the 'City Engineer has certified in writing the completion of said public improvements or the portion thereof serving said building or structures approved by the City; provided, however, that the improvement security shall not be required to cover the provisions of this paragraph. 5. It is expressly understood and agreed to by Subdivider that, in the performance of said Improvement Work, Subdivider will conform to and abide by all of the provisions of the ordinances of the City of Chula vista, and the laws of the State of California applicable to said work. 6. Subdivider further agrees to furnish and deliver to the City of Chula Vista, simultaneously with the execution of this agreement, an approved improvement security from a sufficient surety, whose sufficiency has been approved by the City in the sum of Five Hundred Twenty-Two Thousand Nine Hundred Forty-Five Dollars and No Cents ($522,945.00) which security shall guarantee the faithful performance of this contract by Subdivider and is attached hereto, marked Exhibit "A" and made a part hereof. 7. Subdivider further agrees to furnish and deliver to the City of Chula vista simultaneously with the execution of this agreement, an approved improvement security from a sufficient surety, whose sufficiency has been approved by the City in the sum of Five Hundred Twenty-Two Thousand Nine Hundred Forty-Five Dollars and No Cents ($522,945.00) to secure the payment of material and labor in connection with the installation of said public improvements, which security is attached hereto, marked Exhibit "B" and made a part hereof and the bond amounts as contained in Exhibit "B", and made a part hereof. 8. Subdivider further agrees to furnish and deliver to the City of Chula Vista, simultaneously with the execution of this agreement, an approved improvement security from a sufficient surety, whose sufficiency has been approved by the City in the sum of Eleven Thousand Four Hundred Forty Dollars and No Cents ($11,440.00) to secure the installation of monuments, which security is attached hereto, marked Exhibit "C" and made a part hereof. 9. It is further agreed that if the Improvement Work is not completed within the time agreed herein, the sums provided by said improvement securities may be used by City for the completion of the Improvement Work within said subdivision in accordance with such specifications herein contained or referred, or at the option of the City, as are approved by the City Council at the time of engaging the work to be performed. Upon certification of completion by the City Engineer and acceptance of said work by City, and after certification by the Director of Pinance that all costs hereof are fully paid, the whole amount, or any part thereof not required for payment thereof, may be released to Subdivider or its successors in interest, pursuant to the terms of the improvement security. Subdivider agrees to pay to the City any difference between the total costs incurred to perform the work, including design and administration of construction (including a reasonable allocation of overhead), and any proceeds from the improvement security. 10. It is also expressly agreed and understood by the parties hereto that in no case will the City of Chula vista, or any department, board or officer thereof, be liable for any portion of the costs and expenses of the work aforesaid, nor shall any officer, his sureties or bondsmen, be liable for the payment of any sum or sums for said work or any materials furnished therefor, except to the limits established by the approved improvement security in accordance with the requirements of the State Subdivision Map Act and the provisions of Title 18 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code. 11. It is further understood and agreed by Subdivider that any engineering costs (including plan checking, inspection, materials furnished and other incidental expenses) incurred by City in connection with the approval of the Improvement Work plans and installation of Improvement Work hereinabove provided for, and the cost of street signs and street trees as required by City and approved by the City Engineer shall be paid by Subdivider, and that Subdivider shall deposit, prior to recordation of the Final Map, with City a sum of money sufficient to cover said cost. 12. It is understood and agreed that until such time as all Improvement Work is fully completed and accepted by City, Subdivider will be responsible for the care, maintenance of, and any damage to, the streets, alleys, easements, water and sewer lines within the proposed subdivision. It is f~the~ understood and agreed that Subdivider shall guarantee all public improvements for a period of one year from date of final acceptance and correct any and all defects or deficiencies arising during said period as a result of the acts or omission of Subdivider, its agents or employees in the performance of this agreement, and that upon acceptance of the work by City, Subdivider shall grant to City, by appropriate conveyance, the public improvements constructed pursuant to this agreement; provided, however, that said acceptance 4 shall not constitute a waiver of defects by City as set forth hereinabovel 13. It is understood and agreed that city, as indemnitee, or any officer or employee thereof, shall not be liable for any injury to person or property occasioned by reason of the acts or omissions of Subdivider, its agents or employees, or indemnitee, related to this agreement. Subdivider further agrees to protect and hold the City, its officers and employees, harmless from any and all claims, demands, causes of action, liability or loss of any sort, because of or arising out of acts or omissions of Subdivider, its agents or employees, or indemnitee, related to this agreement; provided, however, that the approved improvement security shall not be required to cover the provisions of this paragraph. Such indemnification and agreement to hold harmless shall extend to damages to adjacent or downstream properties or the taking of property from owners of such adjacent or downstream properties as a result of the construction of said subdivision and the public improvements as provided herein. It shall also extend to damages resulting from diversion of waters, change in the volume of flow, modification of the velocity of the water, erosion or siltation, or the modification of the point of discharge as the result of the construction and maintenance of drainage systems. The approval of plans providing for any or all of these conditions shall not constitute the assumption by City of any responsibility for such damage or taking, nor shall City, by said approval, be an insurer or surety for the construction of the subdivision pursuant to said approved improvement plans. The provisions of this paragraph shall become effective upon the execution of this agreement and shall remain in full force and effect for ten (10) years following the acceptance by the city of the improvements. 14. Subdivider agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City or its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul, an approval of the City, advisory agency, appeal board, or legislative body concerning a subdivision, which action is brought, within the time period provided for in Section 66499.37 of the Government Code of the State of Californial 15. Assignability. Upon request of the Subdivider, any or all on-site duties and obligations set forth herein may be assigned to Subdivider's successor in interest if the City Manager in his/her sole discretion determines that such an assignment will not adversely affect the City's interest. The City Manager in his/her sole discretion may, if such assignment is requested, permit a substitution of securities by the successor in interest in place and stead of the original securities described herein so long as such substituted securities meet the criteria for security as set forth elsewhere in this Agreement. Such assignment will be in a form approved by the city Attorney. 5 SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT OTAY RANCH, VILLAGE 1, PHASE SEVEN, NEIGHBOP~qOOD R-17 (CVT 96-04A) IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this agreement to be executed the day and year first hereinabove set forth. THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA OTAY RANCH TWO, LLC. Mayor of the City of Chula -/-~-- ~_~ ~< Vista ATTEST City Clerk Approved as to form by (Attach Notary Acknowledgment) CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT State of California County of Orange ~ ss. On NOvember 13 ~ 2oo_q before me, _NANCY FALKEN GEN NOT ¥ , personally appeared C.he~yl A. Fieqe __ __ [] personally known to me [] proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(~ whose namc4c4 is/ar:e= subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that:heCshe/~:executed the same in =h~e/her/~hei~ authorized capacity~iem~ and that by ~her/6'~e~ ___ .~ NC~ signature(~)=on the instrument the person(~), or the entity upon behalf of which the persorffe)~ acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. OPTIONAL Though the information below is not required by law, it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document and could prevent fraudulent removal and reattachment of this form to another document. Description of Attached Document Title or Type of Document: Document Date: Number of Pages: Signer(s) Other Than Named A§ove: Capacity(les) Claimed by Signer Signer's Name: [] Individual TOp of thumb here [_l Corporate Officer -- Title(s): [] Padner-- [] Limited L~ General [] Attorney in Fact E~ Trustee [] Guardian or Conservator [] Other: Signer Is Representing: LIST OF EXfRIBITS · Exhibit "A" Improvement Security - Faithful Performance Form: Bonds Amount: $522,945.00 Exhibit "B" Improvement Security - Material and Labor: Form: Bonds Amount: $522,945.00 Exhibit "C" Improvement Security - Monuments: Form: Bonds Amount: $11,440.00 Securities approved as to form and amount by U~ ~/ City k%torn~ Improvement Completion Date: Two (2) years from date of City Council approval of the Subdivision Improvement Agreement. H: \home \at torney\ sia \ORV1R 17 Executed in Triplicate I FileNo.: (~g[~q BOND FOR FAITltFUL PERFORMPdNCE Bond No.: 580 3993 (To Be Used Pr/or to Approval of Subdivision Improvement Agreement) Premimn: $9,413.00 Vv'HE~, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista, County of San Diego, State of California, and Otay Ranch Two, LLC (hereinafter "Principal'~) desire to enter into a Subdivision Improvement Agreement (hereinafter referred to as "Agreement") whereby Principal agrees to install and complete certain designated public improvements for the project known as Otay Ranch Village 1, Phase 7; Neighborhood R-17 ;and WHEREAS, Principal desires to commence construction of said public improvements prior to approval of said Agreement by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista; and, WHEREAS, the City of Chula Vista, County of San Diego, State of California, has issued to Principal Construction Permit No. OR 169 I (hereinafter referred to as "Permit") for the public improvement work as set forth in more detail on City of Chula Vista Drawing Nos. 00062-01 through 00062-09 , regarding construction of said public improvements, which Permit is hereby referred to and made a part hereof; and, WHER_EAS, said Principal is required under the terms of said Permit to furnish a bond for faithful performance of said Pennit. NOW THEREFORE, we, the principal and Safeco Insurance Company of America , a corporation of the State of Washington , (hereinafter "Surety"), are held and firmly bound unto the City of Chula Vista, a municipal corporation (hereinafter "City") in the County of San Diego, State of California, and to and for the benefit of any and all persons who may suffer damages by breach of the conditions hereof, in the penal sum of Five Hundred Twenty Two Thousand* dollars, ($ 522,945.00 ), lawful money of the United States, for the payment of which sum well and truly to be made, we bind ourselves, our heirs, successors, executors and administrators, jointly and severally, firmly by these presents. *Nine Hundred Forty Five and no/i00 The condition of this obligation is such that if the above-bound Principal, his or its heirs, executors, administrators, successors or assigns, shall in all things stand to and abide by, and well and truly keep and perform the terms, covenants, conditions, and previsions of said Pernfit and a subsequent Agreement and any alteration thereof made as therein provided, on his or their part, to be kept and performed at the time and in the manner therein specified, and in all respects according to their true intent and meaning, and shall indemnify and save harmless City, its officers, agents and employees, as therein stipulated, then this obligation shall become null and void; otherwise, it shall be and remain in full force and effect. As part of the obligation secured hereby and in addition to the face amount specified therefor, there shall be included costs and reasonable expenses and fees, including reasonable attorney's fees, incurred by City in successfully enfoming such obligation, all to be taxed as costs and included in any judgment rendered. The Surety hereby stipulates and agrees that no change, extension of time, alteration or addition to the terms of the Permit or to the work to be performed thereunder or the specifications accompanying the same shall in anywise affect its obligations on this bond, and it does hereby waive notice of any such change, extension of time, alteration or addition to the terms of the Permit or to the work or to the specifications. CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT No. S907 State of California County of Orange On September 13 2000 before me, PaU-icia M. White, Notary Public DATE NAME, 'nTLE OF OFFICER - E.G., "JANE DOE, NOTARY PUBLIC" personally appeared PaU'icia H. Br6bner NAME(B) OF SIGNER{S) [] personally known to me - OR - [] 3roved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(les), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. ~A~Cl,, ,, ,,"~t~ WITNESS my hand and official seal. OPTIONAL Though the data below is not required by law, it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document and could prevent fraudulent reattachment of this form. CAPACITY CLAIMED BY SIGNER DESCRIPTION OF ATTACHED DOCUMENT [] INDIVIDUAL [] CORPORATE OFFICER TITLE OR TYPE OF DOCUMENT TITLE(S) [] PARTNER(S) [] LIMITED GENERAL [] ATTORNEY-IN-FACT [] TRUSTEE(S) [] GUARDIAN/CONSERVATOR NUMBER OF PAGES [~] OTHER: SIGNER IS REPRESENTING: DATE OF DOCUMENT NAME OF PERSON(S) OR ENTITY(lES) Safeco Insurance Company of America SIGNER(S) OTHER THAN NAMED ABOVE [ S~4067/GEEF 2/98 © 1993 NATIONAL NOTARY ASSOCIATION, 8236 Returner Ave,, P.O. Box 7184 · Canoga Park, CA 91309-7184 CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT State of California County of O/""~,,'/~ ~--~ ss. Date ~ame and ~Ue of ~.g . ~ane Doe, NO~ personally appeared ~r/ ~, Xe.e~ed~r Name(s) ~f Signe~s) ~ersonally known to me ~ proved to me on the basis of satisfacto~ evidence to be the person~ whose name~ subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me ~a~executed the same in ~ ~thorized capacity~, and that by ~ . ~;;~~ signature~on the instrument the person~, or ~ --~-- the entity upon behalf of which the person~ ]~ Comm~lon~ 117~ z acted, executed the instrument. ~ Nota~ Publlc-Collf~la ~ ~ O~nge Coun~ ~ ~a ~ ~m.~~ ~/--//WITN~SS my hand an~ official seal. Place Nota~ Seal Above ~ ~ ~ignatu~ of NO~ Public OPTIONAL Though the info~ation below is not required by la~ it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document and could prevent fraudulent removal and rea~achment of this form to another document, Description of Attached Document Title or Type of Document: Document Date: Number of Pages: Signer(s) Other Than Named Above: Capacity(les) Claimed by Signer Signer's Name: [] Individual Top Of thumb hem [ J Corporate Officer ~ Title(s): ~ Padner-- ~ Limited ~ General [~] A~orney in Fact ~] Trustee ~ Guardian or Conse~ator [] Other: Signer Is Representing: Executed in Triplicate BOND FOR MATERIAL AND LABOR No.: . 5 (To Be Used With Subdivision Improvement A~reement) Premium: Include-~-~ ii~ performance bOnd WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista, County of San Diego,' State of Califoraia, alld 0ray Ranch Two, LLC (hereinafter Principal) have entered into a Subdivision Improvement Agreement (hereinafter referred to as Agreement) whereby Principal agrees to install and complete certain designated public improvements, which said Agreement, dated , 19__, and identified as project Otay Ranch Village 1, Phase 7, Neighborhood R-17 is hereby referred to and made a part hereof; and, W}Th~,EAS, under the terms of said Agreement, Principal is required, before entering upon the performance of the work, to f-He a good and sufficient payment bond with the City of Chula Vista to secure the claims to which reference is made in Tide 15 (commencing with Section 3082), Part 4, Division 3, of the Civil Code of the State of California. NOW T}TEREFORE, said Principal and safeco Insurance Company of America , a corporation of the State of Washington , (hereinafter Surety), are held and fnmaly bound arno the City of Chula Vista, a municipal corporation (hereinafter City) in the County of San Diego, State of California, and all contractors, subcontractors, laborers, materialmen and other persons employed in the performance of the aforesaid Agreement and referred to in the aforesaid Code of Civil Procedure in the sum of Five Hundred Twenty Two Thousand* dollars, ($ 522,945.00 .), lawful money of the United States, for materials furnished or labor thereon of any kind, or for mounts due under the Unemployment Insurance Act with respect to such work or labor, that said Surety will pay the same in an amount not exceeding the amount hereinabove set forth, and also in case suit is brought upon this bond, will pay, in addition to the face amount thereof, costs and reasonable expenses and fees, including reasonable attorney's fees, incurred by City in successfully enforcing such obligation, to be awarded and £Lxed by the court, and to be taxed as costs and to be included in the judgment therein rendered. *Nine Hundred Forty Five and no/100 It is hereby expressly stipulated and agreed that this bond shall inure to the benefit of any and all persons, companies and corporations entitled to ~e claim~ under Tide 15 (commencing with Section 3082), Part 4, Division 3, of the Civil Code, so as to give a right of action to them or their assigns in any suit brought upon this bond. Should the condition of this bond be fully performed, then thi~ obligation shall become null and void, otherwise, it shall be and remain in full force and effect. The Surety hereby stipulates and agrees that no change, extension of time, alteration or addition to the terms of the Agreement or to the work to be performed thereunder or the specifications accompanying the same shall in anywise affect its obligations on this bond, and it does hereby waive notice of any such change, extension of time, alteration or addition to the terms of the Agreement or to the work or to the specifications. CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT No. 8807 State of California County of Orange · On September 13 2000 before me, Patricia M. White, Notary Public DAllE NAME, ~TLE OF OFFICER - E.G., "JANE DOE, NOTARY PUBLIC" personally appeared Pu~[c[a H. Brebner NAME(S) OF SIGNER(S) [] personally known to me - OR - [] proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(les), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. ~:~. ,:,~* ,~ ~ ,x~ WITNESS my hand and official seal. OPTIONAL Though the data below is not required by law, it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document and could prevent fraudulent reattachment of this form, CAPACITY CLAIMED BY SIGNER DESCRIPTION OF ATTACHED DOCUMENT INDIVIDUAL CORPORATE OFFICER TITLE OR TYPE OF DOCUMENT TITLE(S) [] PARTNER(S) [] LIMITED GENERAL ~ ATTORNEY-IN-FACT [~ TRUSTEE(S) [] GUARDIAN/CONSERVATOR NUMBER OF PAGES ~] OTHER: SIGNER IS REPRESENTING: DATE OF DOCUMENT NAME OF PERSON(S) OR ENTITY(lES) Safeco Insurance Company of America SIGNER(S) OTHER THAN NAMED ABOVE S-4067/GEEF 2/98 © 1993 NATIONAL NOTARY ASSOCIATION - 8236 Remmet Ave,, P.O. BOX 7184 · Canoga Park, CA 91309-7184 ;ALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT State of California of ~""4~'"?'~ ~"/ SS. County On~C~J/'~ ~1~/",~ ..t~.¢~. before me, /1~'¢~/'/~/~,¢~---~./~-/~ ¢/ Date /'/' ///.~me and RUe of ~ (~ 'Jane Doe, ~etral~ Public') personally appeared __ .~f / ~. /~,~'~r~__..~, ~.~ personally known to proved to me on the basis of sat[sfactow evidence to be the personj~ whose subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that~executed same the in ~c,, ,, ,~,, authorized capacity(4es'), and that by signature,,(,S') on the instrument the person(,~, or the entity upon behalf of which the person(~,~ acted, executed the instrument. ~- ~__O_mnge~CoU~.% 'x~ WITN.ESS my hand .and official seal. OPTIONAL Though the information below is not required by/aw, it may prove ~a/uab/e to persons relying on the document and could prevent fraudulent removal and rea~tachment of this form to another document. Description of Attached Document Title or Type of Document: Document Date: Number of Pages: Signer(s) Other Than Named Above: Capacity(les) Claimed by Signer Signer's Name: [~ Individual Top o[ thumb here I ] Corporate Officer-- Title(s): J J Padner-- ~_; Limited LJ General E~ Attorney in Fact [] Trustee ~;I Guardian or Conservator F3 Other: Signer Is Representing: its I~ue and lawful attomey(s)-in-fact~ with f~ll a~tho~ty to execute on its behalf fidelity and surety bonds or undertakings and other documenfa of a similar character issued in toe coume of its business, and to bind the respe~ve company th~eby. IN WITNESS WHEREOF. SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA and GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANy OF AMERICA have each e~ecuted and attesmcl these presents R.A. PIERSON, SECRETARY W. RANDALL STOODARD, PRESIDENT CERTIFICATE Ex,'act from the By-Laws of SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA and of GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA: "Article V, Section 13. - FIDELITY AND SURETY BONDS ... the President, any Vice President. the Secretary, a~cl any Assistant Vice President appointed far that purpose by the officer in charge of sureb/operations, shall each have authority to appoint individuals as attorneys-in-fact or under other appropriate ~Jlles with authority to execute on behalf of the company ~elity and surety bonds and other documents of similar character issued by the company in the course of its business,.. On any toslrument making or evidencing such appothtment, the stgnatores may be affixed by facsimile. On any insb'ument confelTing such authority or on any bond or undertaking of [he company, the seal. or a facsimile [hereof, may be impressed or affixed or in any other manner reproduced; provided, however, [hat [he seat shall not be necessary ~o the validity cf any such instmrument or undertaking." Ex~nact from a ResoJrd~on of [he Board of Directom of SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA and of GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA adopmd July 28. 1970. "On any certificate executed by the Secretary or an assis faffi secretary of [he Company setlJng out, (i) The provLsions of A~dcle V, Section 13 of [he By-Laws, and (i~) A o~py of the power-of-attorney appothbment, executed pursuant thereto, and (iii) Certifying that said power-of-attorney appointment is in fiji[ force and effect, the signature of ~he certifying officer may be by facsimile, and the seal of the Company may be a facsimNe [hereof." I, R.A, Pierson, Secretary of SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA and of GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA. do hereby certify [hat the foregoing extracts of the By-Laws and of a Resolution of [he Board of [~irectom of these corporations, and of a Power of Attorney issued pursuant thereto, are htJe and correct, and that hoth the By-Laws. the Resolu§on and [he Power of AJtomey are still in f~ll farce and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, ~ have hereunto set my hand and affixed ~he facsimito seal ol said card.re,ton [his 13th dayaf September 2000 R.A. PIERSON, SECRETARY S-09741SAEF 7198 ® Registered trademark of S^FECO CorporalJon. 6/13/00 PDF Executed in Triplicate SLrR~rEY MONUMENT INSTA.LLATION BOND Bond No.: 580 \/~ '' ' Premium: $206,~ LET IT BE KNOVv-N BY THESE PRESENTS, that Otay Ranch Two, LLC aS the mabdivider (hereinafter 'Principal'), and Safeco Insurance Company of America , a corporation of the State of Washington . Oaereinaher ~Surety'), are held and fir~y bound unto the City of Chula Vise, a municipal corporation (hereinafmr 'City"), in th.~ County of San Diego, State of California, and to and for the benefit of any and all persons who may suffer dsm~ge by reason of the breach of the conditions hereof, in the penal sum of Eleven Thousand Four Hundred Forty and no/100 ..... dollars ($11,440.00 ) lawful money of the United States, to be paid to City. WHEREAS, Principal is presently engaged in subdividing certain lands to be known as 0ray Ranch V±llag~e 1, Phase 7, Neighborhood R-17 subdR'ision in the City of Chula Vista; and, WHEREAS, Principal and City have entered into a Subdivision Improvement A~eem approved by City Council Resolution No. (hereinafter referred to as "A~eement') whereby Principal a~ees to install durable survey monuments for said subdivision, which said A~eement, dated , 19 and identified as project 0ray Ranch Village 1, Phase 7, Neighborhood R-17 is h:rebv referred ro and made a part hereof; and, WHEREAS, Principal desires to not install durable survey monuments prior to the recordation of the final map of the subdivision and desires to install same at a later date, NOW, THEREFORE, the condition of the above obligation is that if Principal shall have installed durable monuments of the survey by Lundstrom & Associates in accordance with the final map of said subdivision, a copy of which said map is hereby made and same is incorporated herein as though set forth in full, and according to the ordinances of the City of Chula Vista in full force and effect at the time of the giving of this bond, on or before the expiration of thirty (30) consecutive days following completion and acceptance of public improvements within said subdivision as specified in said Agreement, then the obligation shall be void, otherwise to be and rema_ in full force and effect. CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT No. 8907 State of California County of Orange On September 13 2000 before me, Patricia M. White, Notary Public DATE NAME, TITLE OF OFFICER - E.G., "JANE DOE, NOTARY PUBLIC" personally appeared Pat~icis H. Brebner NAME(S) OF SIGNER(S) [] personally known to me - OR - [] proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(les), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. ., , ,~,¥, ~,~- calilornla WITNESS my hand and official seal. OPTIONAL Though the data below is not required by law, it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document and could prevent fraudulent reattachment of this form. CAPACITY CLAIMED BY SIGNER DESCRIPTION OF ATTACHED DOCUMENT [] INDIVIDUAL [] CORPORATE OFFICER TITLE OR TYPE OF DOCUMENT TITLE(S) [~ PARTNER(S) [] LIMITED GENERAL [] ATTORNEY-IN-FACT [~] TRUSTEE(S) [] GUARDIAN/CONSERVATOR NUMBER OF PAGES ~] OTHER: SIGNER IS REPRESENTING: DATE OF DOCUMENT NAME OF PERSON(S) OR ENTITYOES) Safeco Insurance Company of America SIGNER(S) OTHER THAN NAMED ABOVE S-4067/GEEF 2/98 © 1993 NATIONAL NOTARY ASSOCIATION - 8236 Remmet Ave., P.O. Box 7184 · Canoga Park, CA 91309-7184 t ; - CALIFORNIA ALL.PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT State of California County of ~-- personally appeared Name(s) o[ Signer(s) personally known to me proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person~ whose namet~ subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me Lhatl~sNe~executed the same in is~J~rer/[h ~;r authorized capacity~, and that by ~____________~.,her/..'~'~.fr-' · ~ -.~,^:~..~1:~.~__~'~ signature(e.).'l:~n the instrument the person(.~")i or ~-m -..~:~'"',"'~'"' '~'""'--', [ the entity upon behalf of which the person(e.)~- ],~m~ Comm~on# 1175477 _ ~'/~ NotaryPubllc-Cal~fomla ~ acted, executed the instrument, ~ ~ Oronge Counht ~ ~ MyC.~mm.r:xl:~/v~r20~ WITNESS my hand and official seal. O~TIOIVA£ Tbough the information below is not required by law, it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document and could prevent fraudulent removal and reattachment of this form to anolher document. Description of Attached Document TitJe or Type of Document: Document Date: Number of Pages: Signer(s) Other Than Named Above: Capacity(les) Claimed by Signer Signer's Name: [~ individual Top elthumb here ~ Corporate Officer-- Title(s): L/ Padner-- [1 Limited L] General I ] Attorney in Fact LI Trustee [] Guardian or Conservator I] Other: Signer Is Representing: $ A F E (::: O' OFA'CI'ORNEY "O SOFF CE:S. ECOm. U No. 1232g KNOW ALL BY THESE PRESENTS: That SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA and GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA. each a Washington oorpmaEon, does each hereby appoint its hue and lawful attomey(s)-in-Mct, wgh fall authedty to execute an its behaff fidelity and surety bonds or undertakings and oiner documents of a similar character issued in the coume of its business, and to bind the mspec~ve company thereby. IN W1TNESS WHEREOF, SAFECO ~NSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA and GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA have eada executed and attested these presents this 13th day of .,rune , 2000 R.A. PIERSON, SECRETARY W. RANDALL STODDARD, PRESIDENT CERTIFICATE Extract fi.om the By-Laws of SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA and of GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA: "Ar~de V, Section 13. - FIDELITY AND SURETY BONDS .., the President, any Vice President, the Sec~etsq,, and any Assistant Vice President appointed for that purpose by the officer in charge of surety operations, shaft each have authodty to appoint individuals as attomeys-in-Pact or under other approphate flees with authority to execute on behalf of the company fidelity and surety bonds and other documects of similar character issued by the company in the coume of its business... On any insf~Jment making or evidencing such appointment, file signa[ures may be affixed by facsimile. On any instrument confefaag such authority or on any bond or undertaking of the company, the seal. or a tecsimile thereof, may be impressed or affixed or in any other manner reproduced: provided, however, that the seal shall not be necessary to the validity of any such insh~Jment or undettaking." Extract ~'om a Resolution of the Board of Direcfom of SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA and of GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA adopted July 28, 1970. "On any certificate executed by the Secretary or an assistant secretary of the Company setting out, ti) The provisions of Argcle V, Section 13 of ina By-Laws, and (ii) A copy of the power-of-attorney appointment, executed pursuan{ thereto, and (iii} Certifying that said power-of-attorney appointment is in full force and effect, /he signature of the certifying officer may be by facsimile, and the seal of the Company may be a facsimile thereof." I, R.A. Piemon, Secretary of SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA and of GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, do hereby certify that the ~oregoing extracts of the By-Laws aed of a Resolution of the Board of Directors of these corporations, and of a power of Attorney issued pursuant therelo, are flue and c~rrect, and that both the ByLaws, the Resolution and the Power of A[tomey are still in fuji force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the facsimile seal of said c~3rporation lhis 13th dayof September 2000 R.A, PIERSON, SECRETARY S-0974/SAEF 7198 ® Registered trademark of SAFECO corporation. 6/13/00 pDF RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY CouNcIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA~PPROVING THE '~B" MAP SUPPLEMENTAL SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT FOR OTAY PJU~CH VILLAGE ONE, PHASE 7, NEIGHBORHOOD R-16 AND R-17, CHULA VISTA TRACT NO. 96-OTAY P~ANCH SPA ONE, REQUIRING DEVELOPER TO COMPLY WITH CERTAIN uNFULFILLED CONDITIONS OF RESOLUTION NO. 19448 D_ND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT WHEREAS, the developer has executed a Supplemental Subdivision Improvement. Agreement to satisfy remaining conditions of City Council ResolUtion No. 19448. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby approve the "B" Map Supplemental Subdivision Improvement Agreement for Otay Rench Village One, Phase 7, Neighborhoods R-16 and R-17, Chula Vista Tract No. 96-04A, a copy of which shall be kept on file in the office of the .City Clerk. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor of the City of Chula Vista is hereby authorized to execute said Agreement on behalf of the City of Chula Vista. Presented by Approved as to form by John P. Lippitt JohIf ~.~ Kaheny Director of Public Works City Attorney IH \HOME'~A~FORNEYIRESOIssia Otay Ranch Neighborhoods R-16 and R-~7 (November 28, 2000 (12:10pm)] RECORDING REQUEST BY: City Clerk WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: CITY OF CHULA VISTA 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 No transfer tax is due as this is a conveyance to a public agency of less than a fee interest for which no cash consideration has been paid or received. Developer Above Space for Recorder's Use SUPPLEMENTAL SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT FOR THE FINAL "B" MAPS OF OTAY RANCH VILLAGE ONE, NEIGHBORHOODS R-16 AND R-17, CHULA VISTA TRACT NO. 96-04A (Conditions 1, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 22, 23, 24, 33, 34, 40, 56, 84, 90, 91,104, 105, 106, 108, 109, 114, 122, 123,124, 125, 126, 127, 130, 131,132, 133,134, 136, 144, and 145 of Resolution 19448) This Supplemental Subdivision Improvement Agreement ("Agreement") is made this __day of December, 2000, by and between THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, California ("City" or "Grantee" for recording purposes only) and the signators of this Agreement, OTAY PROJECT L.P., a California Limited Partnership, OTAY RANCH ONE, LLC., a Delaware Limited Liability Company and OTAY RANCH TWO, LLC., a Delaware Limited Liability Company ("Developer" or "Grantor"), with reference to the facts set forth below, which recitals constitute a part of this Agreement: RECITALS A. This Agreement concerns and affects certain real property located in Chula Vista, California, more particularly described on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein ("Property"). The Property is within approved Tentative Subdivision Map Chula Vista Tract 96- 04A (Resolution No. 19448 on May 4, 1999 the "Resolution"), which project is commonly known as Village 1, Phase 7 of the Otay Ranch Project, Sectional Planning Area One (SPA One), and a portion of Chula Vista Tract 96-04. For purposes of this Agreement the term "Project" shall also mean "Property". B. "Owner" or "Developer" means the person, persons or entity having a legal or an equitable interest in the property or parts thereof and includes Owner's, successors-in-interest and assigns of any property within the boundaries of the "B" Map. C. Otay Ranch L.P. conveyed title of the Project area to South Bay Project, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company .on August 26, 1997, which in turn conveyed the Property to Otay Project LLC, ("Otay Project"), a venture jointly owned by South Bay Project, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company and Otay Ranch Development, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, which in turn conveyed the Property to Otay Ranch One, LLC., A Delaware Limited Liability Company and Otay Ranch Two, LLC., A Delaware Limited Liability Company. D. Developer and/or Developer's predecessor in interest has applied for and the City has approved Tentative Subdivision Map commonly referred to as Chula Vista Tract 96-04A ("Tentative Subdivision Map") for the subdivision of the Property. E. The City has adopted Resolution No. 19448("Resolution") pursuant to which it has approved the Tentative Subdivision Map subject to certain conditions as more particularly described in the Resolution. F. City is willing, on the premises, security, terms and conditions herein contained to approve the final map for which Developer has applied as being in substantial conformance with the Tentative Subdivision Map described in this Agreement. Developer understands that subsequent final maps may be subject to the same security terms and conditions contained herein. G. The following defined terms shall have the meaning set forth herein, unless otherwise specifically indicated: a. For purposes of this Agreement, "Final Map" means the final map for Otay Ranch Village One Neighborhood R-16 and R-IT b. "Commencing Construction" means when a construction permit or other such approval has been obtained from the City or a construction contract has been awarded for the improvement, whichever occurs first. c. "Complete Construction" means when construction on said improvement has been completed and the City accepts the improvement. d. "Owner or Developer" means the person, persons or entity having a legal or an equitable interest in the property or parts thereof and includes Owner's successors-in-interest and assignors of any property within the boundaries of the map. This includes Otay Project, L.P. and 2 any and all owners of real property within the boundaries of the Property, and all signatories to this Agreement including: i) Otay Project, L.P. ii) Otay Ranch One, LLC, A Delaware Limited Liability Company iii) Otay Ranch Two, LLC, A Delaware Limited Liability Company e. "Guest Builder" means those entities obtaining any interest in the Property or a portion of the Property, after the Final Map has been recorded. f. "PFFP" means the SPA One Public Facilities Financing Plan adopted by Resolution No. 18286, as amended by Resolution No. 19408 and as may be further amended from time to time. g. "RMP 2" means the Otay Ranch Resource Management Plan, Phase 2, approved by the City Council on June 4, 1996, as amended on July 20, 1999 by Resolution No. 19538 and as may be further amended from time to time. h. '"A' Map Agreement" means the Supplemental Subdivision Improvement agreement for the Village 1, Phase 7 of the Otay Ranch Project, Map Number 13990, adopted by Resolution No. 2000-208. h. "Preserve/Owner Manager" is the entity or entities defi~ed by the RMP 2 with the duties and responsibilities described therein. i. "Parks Master Plan" means the City-wide Parks Master Plan, subject to future City Council approval. j. "Otay Ranch Parks Agreement" means the agreement pertaining to the construction of parks in Otay Ranch SPA One, McMillin Lomas Verdes and Otay Ranch adopted by Resolution No. 19636 as may be amended from time to time. k. "Improvement Plans" means all the onsite and offsite improvements required to serve the lots created by the Final Map, in accordance with improvement plans to be approved by the City. Said improvements shall include, but not limited to, asphalt concrete pavement, base, concrete curb, gutter and sidewalk, sewer, reclaimed and potable water utilities, drainage facilities, street lights, signage, landscaping, irrigation, fencing and fire hydrants. 1. "SPA One Plan" means the Otay Ranch Sectional Planning Area Plan as adopted by the City Council on June 4, 1996 pursuant to Resolution No. 18286 and amended on February 16, 1999 by Resolution No. 19376. m. "Community Association" means the Otay Ranch Village One Community Association as defined in the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions of Otay Ranch Village One (C,C&R's) recorded on January 2, 1998 as Document No. 1998-0000749 and 3 all Supplementary Declarations thereto. n. "Community Common Area" means real property, and improvements situated thereon, owned in fee or leased by the Community Association for the common use and enjoyment of the Owners as further defined in said C,C&R's. o. "Olympic Parkway Agreement" means the Agreement for the Financing and Construction of Olympic Parkway and Related Roadway Improvements approved by the City Council on April 20, 1999 by Resolution No. 19410. NOW, THEREFORE, in exchange for the mutual covenants, terms and conditions herein contained, the parties agree as set forth below. 1. Performance Obligation. Otay Project, L.P., co-signator to this Agreement, represents to the City that it is acting as the Master Developer for this Project and expressly assumes performance of the obligations set forth in paragraph 7 of this Agreement. Notwithstanding the foregoing, all parties to this Agreement acknowledge and agree that all such obligations remain a covenant running with the land as set forth more particularly in paragraph 2 below. 2. Agreement Applicable to Subsequent Owners. a. Agreement Binding Upon Successors. This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the successors, assigns and interests of the parties as to any or all of the Property as described on Exhibit "A" until released by the mutual consent of the parties. b. Agreement Runs with the Land. The burden of the covenants contained in this Agreement ("Burden") is for the benefit of the Property and the City, its successors and assigns and any successor in interest thereto. City is deemed the beneficiary of such covenants for and in its own right and for the purposes of protecting the interest of the community and other parties public or private, in whose favor and for whose benefit of such covenants running with the land have been provided without regard to whether City has been, remained or are owners of any particular land or interest therein. If such covenants are breached, the City shall have the right to exemise all rights and remedies and to maintain any actions or suits at law or in equity or other proper proceedings to enforce the curing of such breach to which it pr any other beneficiaries of this agreement and the covenants may be entitled. c. Developer Release on Guest Builder Assignments. If Developer assigns any portion of the Project to a Guest Builder, Developer may request to be released from Developer's obligations under this Agreement, that are expressly assumed by the Guest Builder, provided Developer obtains the prior written consent of the City to such release. Such assignment to the Guest Builder shall, however, be subject to this Agreement and the Burden of this Agreement shall remain a covenant running with the land. The City shall not withhold its consent to any such request for a release so long as the assignee acknowledges that the Burden of the Agreement runs with the land, assumes the obligations of the Developer under this Agreement, and demonstrates, to the satisfaction of the. City, its ability to perform its obligations under this Agreement as it relates to the portion of the Project which is being acquired by the Assignee. d. Partial Release of Developer's Assignees. If Developer assigns any portion of the Project subject to the Burden of this Agreement, upon request by the Developer or its assignee, the City shall release the assignee of the Burden of this Agreement as to such assigned portion if such portion has complied with the requirements of this Agreement to the satisfaction of the City and such partial release will n. ot, in the opinion of the City, jeopardize the likelihood that the remainder of the Burden will not be completed. e. Release of Individual Lots. Upon the occurrence of any of the following events, Developer shall, upon receipt of the prior written consent of the City Manager (or Manager's designee), have the right to release any lot(s) from Developer's obligation under this Agreement: i. The execution of a purchase agreement for the sale of a residential lot to a buyer of an individual housing unit; ii. The conveyance of a lot to a Homeowner's Association; The City shall not withhold its consent to such release so long as the City finds in good faith that such release will not jeopardize the City's assurance that the obligations set forth in this Agreement will be performed. At the request of the Developer, the City Manager (or Manager's designee) shall execute an instrument drafted by Developer in a recordable form acceptable to the City Manager (or Manager's designee), which confirms the release of such lot or parcel from the encumbrance of this Agreement. Notwithstanding the foregoing, at the close of an individual homeowner's escrow on any lot or parcel encumbered by this Agreement, such lot or parcel shall be automatically released from the encumbrance hereof. 3. Condition No. 1 - (General Preliminary). In partial satisfaction of Condition 1 of Resolution 19448, Developer hereby agrees, to comply with the requirements and guidelines of the Otay Ranch General Development Plan (GDP),the SPA One Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Plan, the Public Facilities Financing Plan ("PFFP"), Ranch-Wide Affordable Housing Plan, SPA One Affordable Housing Plan, and the SPA One Non-Renewable Energy Conservation Plan, as may be amended from time to time, and shall remain in compliance with and implement the terms, conditions and provisions of said documents. 4. Condition No. 3 - (General Preliminary). In partial satisfaction of Condition No. 3 of the Resolution, Developer hereby agrees that if any of the terms, covenants or conditions contained within the Resolution shall fail to occur or if they are, by their terms, to be implemented and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to be so implemented and maintained according to their terms, the City shall have the right to denythe issuance of building 5 permits for the Project, deny, or further condition the subsequent approvals that are derived from the approvals herein granted, institute and prosecute litigation to compel their compliance with said conditions or seek damages for their violation. The applicant shall be notified ten (10) days in advance prior to any of the above actions being taken by the City and shall be given the opportunity to remedy any deficiencies identified by the City within a reasonable period of time. 5. Condition No. 4 - (General Preliminary). In partial satisfaction of Condition No. 4 of the Resolution, Developer hereby agrees to indemnify, protect, defend and hold the City harmless from and against any and all claims, liabilities and costs, including attorney's fees, arising from challenges to the Environmental Impact Report for the Project and/or any or all entitlements and approvals issued by the City in connection with the Project. 6. Condition No. 5 - (General Preliminary). In partial satisfaction of Condition 5 of the Resolution, Developer hereby agrees, that Developer shall comply with the all applicable SPA One conditions of approval. 7. Condition Nos. 8, 10 and 11- (Conveyance Obligation). In partial satisfaction of Condition Nos. 8, 10 and 11, the Developer agrees as follows: u. The Developer provided the City with Irrevocable Grants of Fee Title, of approximately 764.7 acres of real property in accordance with the RMP 2, a portion of which (17.063 acres) is intended to satisfy the particular acreage conveyance obligation of the R-16 Final Map (21.638 acres for R-17) at a rate of 1.188 acres of conveyance per acre of area within the Final Maps, as of the date of this Agreement. But such obligation may be subject to change in accordance with paragraph c below. Any remaining amount shall be credited towards any future map obligations. b. That such dedicated property shall be granted in fee title to the City and County of San Diego as joint tenants and subject to the approval of the Preserve Owner/Manager. Should the Preserve Owner/Manager not approve this conveyance, Developer agrees to convey equivalent real property that complies with this provision. c. That Developer shall convey additional real property if necessary in order to comply with the conveyance formula described in RMP 2, as may be amended by City. Developer acknowledges that the amended RMP 2 may contain a conveyance formula greater than 1.188 acres per developable acre. d. That all land to be conveyed as described above shall be free and clear of liens and encumbrances except for easements for existing public infrastructure and other easements approved by the City or for planneffpublic infrastructure as permitted in the RMP, Phase 2. Developer further agrees to pay all taxes and assessments as they came due as to the land to be conveyed until title has legally transferred to the City and County of San Diego. e. Developer acknowledges that property within the boundaries of the "A" Map 6 which will be the subject of future final maps may have conveyance obligations to fulfill for all development areas, including applicable streets, open space lots, paseos, pedestrian parks and slope areas shown on the "A" Map. 8. Condition No. 9 - (CEQA). In partial satisfaction of Condition No. 9 of the resolution, the applicant shall implement all applicable mitigation measures identified in EIR 95-01, subsequent EIR 97-03, the CEQA Findings of Fact for this Project (on file in the City Clerk's Office as Document No. CO96-056 and Resolution No. 18286) and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (on file in the City Clerk's Office as Document No. CO96-057 and Resolution Nos. 18284 and 18285). 9. Condition No. 22, 23 and 24 - (streets, right-of-way and public improvements). In partial satisfaction of Condition Nos. 22, 23 and 24 of the Resolution Developer hereby agrees as follows: a Improvement Work. Developer agrees to construct the street improvements and land development work in and adjoining said subdivision and as shown on the Drawings set forth on Exhibits "B" ("Street and Public Improvements"), at its own expense, without any cost to the City, in a good and workmanlike manner, under the direction and to the satisfaction and approval of the City Engineer. Developer further agrees to furnish the necessary materials therefore; all in sttict conformity and in accordance with the plans and specifications, which documents have heretofore been filed in the Office of the City Engineer and by this reference are incorporated herein and made a part hereof. Developer shall complete construction of the Street Improvements on or before the earlier of the second anniversary date of Council approval of this Agreement or, if prior to Council approval of this agreement, a construction permit was issued for any portion of said Street Improvement, then construction on that portion for which a permit was issued shall be completed on or before the second anniversary date of issuance of said permit. It is expressly understood and agreed to by Developer that, in the performance of construction of said Street Improvements, Developer shall conform to and abide by all of the provisions of the ordinances of the City of Chula Vista, and the laws of the State of California applicable to said work. b. Bonding. i. Developer agrees to furnish and deliver to the City of Chula Vista, simultaneously with the execution of this Agreement, and to thereafter maintain until City acceptance of the work referenced herein, an approved improvement security from a sufficient surety, whose sufficiency has been approved by the City in the sums as set forth on Exhibit "B", which security shall guarantee the faithful performance in connection with the installation of the Street Improvements as shown on Exhibit "B". ii. Developer agrees to furnish and deliver to the City of Chula Vista simultaneously with the execution of this Agreement, and to thereafter maintain until City acceptance of the work referenced herein, an approved improvement security from a sufficient 7 surety, whose sufficiency has been approved by the City in the sums as set forth on Exhibit "C" to secure the payment of material and labor in connection with the installation of said Street Improvements, which security is shown on Exhibit "B". iii. Developer acknowledges and agrees that if the Street Improvements are not completed within the time agreed herein, the sums provided by said improvement securities may be used by City for the completion of the Street Improvements in accordance with those approved plans and specifications contained on Exhibit "B", or at the option of the City, for those improvements shown on Exhibit "B" that are less than, but not greater to, the sums provided by said improvement securities. Upon certification of completion by the City Engineer and acceptance of said work by City, and after certification by the Director of Finance that all costs hereof are fully paid, the whole amount, or any part thereof not required for payment thereof, may be released to the Developer or its successors in interest, pursuant to the terms of the improvement security. Developer agrees to pay to the City any difference between the total costs incurred to perform the work, including limited and reasonable design and administration of construction in substantial conformance with the approved plans (including a reasonable allocation of overhead), and any proceeds from the improvement security. c. Developer's Costs and Expenses. It is also expressly agreed and understood by the parties hereto that in no case will the City of Chula Vista, or any department, board or officer thereof, be liable for any portion of the costs and expenses of the work aforesaid, nor shall the City or the City's officer, sureties or bondsmen, be liable for the payment of any sum or sums for said work or any materials furnished therefor. d. Plan Check fees and Additional Costs. It is further understood and agreed by Developer that any engineering costs (including plan checking, inspection, materials furnished and other incidental expenses) incurred by City in connection with the approval of the Street Improvements plans and installation of Street Improvements described above, as required by City and approved by the City Engineer shall be paid by Developer, and that Developer shall deposit, prior to recordation of the Final Map, with City a sum of money sufficient to cover said cost. e. Maintenance Costs. Developer understands and agrees that until such time as all of the Street Improvements as covered by any particular bond are fully completed and accepted by City, Developer shall be responsible for the care, maintenance of, and any damage to, such streets and any alleys, easements, water and sewer lines. It is further understood and agreed that Developer shall guarantee all of the Street Improvements for a period of one year from date of final acceptance and correct any and all defects or deficiencies arising during said period as a result of the acts or omission of Developer, its agents or employees in the performance of this Agreement, and that upon acceptance of the work by City, Developer shall grant to City, by appropriate conveyance, the public improvements constructed pursuant to this Agreement; provided, however, that said acceptance shall not constitute a waiver of defects by City as set forth hereinabove. f. Indemnification Developer further understands and agrees that City, (as "Indemnitee") 8 or any officer or employee thereof, shall not be liable for any bodily injury, death, or property damage, including thereto hazardous materials and property takings claims occasioned by reason of the acts or omissions of Developer, its subcontractors or suppliers, its agents or employees, or Indemnitee (which are not the result of Indemnitee's sole negligence or willful misconduct), related to the construction of the Street Improvements. Developer further agrees to defend, indemnify, protect and hold the Indemnitee, its officers and employees, harmless from any and all claims, demands, causes of action, liability, costs and expense (including, without limitation, reasonable attomey's fees) or loss for bodily injury, death or property damages, including thereto hazardous materials and property takings claims because of or arising out of Developer's construction of the Street Improx?ements or the acts or omissions of Developer, its subcontractors or suppliers, its agents or employees, or Indemnitee, related thereto; provided, however, that Developer shall have no obligation to indemnify, defend, protect or hold Indemnitee harmless from any such losses, claims, demands, causes of action, liability, damages, costs or expenses which arise out of the sole negligence or willful misconduct of the Indemnitee or any officer or employee thereof. Developer further agrees to defend, indemnify, protect and hold the Indemnitee, its officers and employees, harmless from any and all claims, demands, causes of action, liability, cost and expense (including without limitation, reasonable attorney's fees) made or incurred by such third parties pursuant to or arising out of contracts entered into by third parties with or on behalf of Developbr or its successors, assigns or agents concerning construction of the Street Improvements; provided, however, that Developer shall have no obligation to indemnify, defend or hold Indemnitee harmless from any such losses, claims, demands, damages, causes of action, liability, costs and expenses to the extent that they have arisen due to the sole negligence or willful misconduct of Indemnitee. The improvement securities referred to above shall not cover the provisions of this paragraph. Such indemnification and agreement to hold harmless shall extend to damages to adjacent or downstream properties or the taking of property from owners of such adjacent or downstream properties as a result of construction of the Street Improvements as provided herein. It shall also extend to damages resulting from diversion of waters, change in the volume of flow, modification of the velocity of the water, erosion or siltation, or the modification of the point of discharge as the result of construction of the Street Improvements. The approval of plans for the Street Improvements shall not constitute the assumption by City of any responsibility for such damage or taking, nor shall City, by said approval, be an insurer or surety for said work and related improvements. The provisions of this paragraph shall become effective upon the execution of this Agreement and shall remain in full force and effect for ten (10) years following the acceptance by the City of the Street Improvements. 10. Condition No. 33 (Street Trees). In partial satisfaction of Condition No.33 of the Resolution: a. Developer shall obtain approval from the Director of Planning and Building and the City Engineer of a separate street tree improvement plan which includes the final selection of trees, the location of trees within the parkway, and in relation to water laterals, sewer laterals, dry utilities, driveways, inlets and pedestrian ramps, within thirty (30) days of the approval of the Final Maps. Developer understands that the City may withhold the issuance of building permits 9 within the Final Maps if the street tree improvement plan is not approved within said thirty (30) day period. b. Developer, upon request of the Director of Planning and Building, shall plant within all street parkways, trees which have been selected from the revised list of appropriate tree species described in the Village Design Plan which shall be approved by the Directors of Planning and Building and Public Works. The applicant shall provide root control methods per the requirements of the Director of Planning and Building and a deep watering inigation system for the trees. Anqmt,-t4or~s~t .... oh~n I.,, provided frnm 11. Condition No. 34 - (ADA Standards). In satisfaction of Condition No. 34 of the Resolution the Developer agrees that in the event the Federal Government adopts ADA standards for street rights-of-way which are in conflict with the standards and approvals contained herein, all such approvals conflicting with those standards shall be updated to reflect those standards. Unless otherwise required be federal law, City ADA standards may be considered vested, as determined by Federal Regulations, only after construction has commenced. 12. Condition No. 40 (Encroachment Permit). In satisfaction of Condition No. 40 of the Resolution, the Developer shall apply and obtain an encroachment permit prior to the installation of all private facilities within the public right of way. The Developer shall maintain, in perpetuity, membership in an advance notice such as the USA Dig Alert Service and shall cause any private facilities owned by the Developer to be marked out whenever work is performed in the area. 13. Condition No. 56 - (NPDES). In satisfaction of Condition No. 56 of the Resolution, Developer agrees to comply with all the provisions of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and the Clean Water Program. 14. Condition Nos. 84 - (Neighborhood Parks). In partial satisfaction of Condition No. 84 of the Resolution, Developer agrees to comply with the City's Parklands and Public Facilities Ordinance as may be amended from time to time. 15. Condition No. 90 - (Walls on City Property). In satisfaction of Condition No. 90 of the Resolution, Developer agrees to have each purchaser of homes adjoining open space lots containing walls maintained by the Open Space District sign a statement stipulating that they are aware that the walls are on City Property and that the purchasers shall not modify or supplement the wall or encroach onto City Property. 17. Condition No. 104 - (Withhold Building Permits and Hold Harnfless). In partial satisfaction of Condition No. 104 of the Resolution, the Developer understands and agrees that the performance of Developer's obligations hereunder is required for the health and safety of the residents of its Project. Therefore Developer agrees: 10 a That the City may withhold building permits for any and ail buildings within the Project if any one of the following occur: i. Regional development threshold limits set by the East Chula Vista Transportation Phasing Plan, as amended from time to time, have been reached or in order to have the Project comply with the Growth Management Program as may be amended from time to time. ii. Traffic volumes, levels of service, public utilities and/or services either exceed the adopted City threshold standards or fail to comply with the then effective Growth Management Ordinance and Growth Management Program and any amendments thereto. Public utilities shall include, but not be limited to, air quality, drainage, sewer and water. iii. The Developer does not comply with the terms of the Reserve Fund Program. b That the City may withhold building permits for any of the phases of development identified in the PFFP, if the required public facilities, as identified in the PFPP or as amended by the Annual Monitoring Program or otherwise conditioned have not been completed or constructed to satisfaction of the City. c That, on the condition that City shall promptly notify the Developer of any claim, action or proceeding and on the further condition that the City fully cooperates in the defense, the Developer shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, and its agents, officers and employees, from any claim, action or proceeding against the City, or its agents, officers or employees, to attack, set aside, void or annul any approval by the City, including approvals by its Planning Commission, City Council, or any approval by its agents, officers, or employees with regard to this Project. d That, on the condition that City shall promptly notify the Developer of any claim, action or proceeding, Developer shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, and its agents, officers and employees, from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City, or its agents, officers or employees, related to erosion, siltation or increased flow of drainage resulting from the Property. City agrees to reasonably cooperate with Developer in the defense of any such action, claim or proceeding. e. In partial satisfaction of Condition No.104(e) of the Resolution, the Developer understands and agrees that cable television companies franchised by the City of Chula Vista may place conduit within the City easements and provide cable television service for lots within the Final Map area, as described on Exhibit A. Developer agrees to comply with ail roles, regulations, ordinances and procedures regulating and affecting the operation of cable television within Chula Vista. Developer further acknowledges and agrees that Developer will not in any way impair or interfere with City's use of City's easements as described herein. f To include in the Articles of Incorporation or Charter for the Homeowner's Association (HOA) provisions prohibiting the HOA from dedicating or conveying for public streets, land used for private streets without approval of 100% of all the HOA members. g. That the City may withhold the issuance of building permits for the Project, should the Developer be determined by the City to be in breach of any of the terms of the Tentative Map Conditions or any Supplemental Agreement. The City shall provide the Developer of notice of such detemaination and allow the Developer reasonable time to cure said breach. 17. Condition No. 105 '- (Congestion Management Program). In satisfaction of Condition No. 105 of the Resolution the Developer shall enter into a supplemental agreement with the City prior to approval of the first "B" Map or the approval of a parcel map for Neighborhood R-39 of the SPA One Plan where the Developer agrees to: a. Participate, on a fair share basis, in any deficiency plan or financial program adopted by SANDA~G to comply with the Congestion Management Program (CMP) and b. Agrees to not protest formation of any future regional impact fee program or facilities benefit district to finance the construction of regional facilities described in the Otay Ranch GDP and Otay Ranch SPA One PFFP. This agreement to not protest the inclusion of these public improvements shall not be deemed a waiver of the right to challenge the amount of any fee, which may be imposed due to these new improvements and shall not interfere with the right of any person to vote in a secret ballot election. 18. Condition No. 106 - (High School Site). In satisfaction of Condition No. 106 of the Resolution the Developer shall deliver to the School District a graded high school site including utilities provided to the site and an all weather access road acceptable to the District prior to issuance of the 1,400th building permit. The schedule for delivery of the graded high school site is subject to modification by the School District as based on District facility needs. The all weather access road shall also be acceptable to the Fire Department 19. Condition Nos. 114 - (Growth Management Ordinance). In satisfaction of Condition No. 114 of the Resolution, the Developer agrees, upon the request of the City, to the following: a~ Fund the preparation of an annual report monitoring the development of Otay Ranch as described in Chapter 9, "Growth_Management of the Otay Ranch General Development Plan". The annual report will analyze the supply of, and demand, for public facilities and services governed by the thresholds. b. Prepare a five .(5) year development phasing forecast identifying targeted submittal dates for future discretion~plications (SPAs and tentative maps), projected construction dates, corresponding public facility needs per the adopted threshold standards, and 3_2 identifying financing options for necessary facilities as described in Chapter 9, "Growth Management" of the Otay Ranch General Development Plan". 20. Condition No. 122. - (PFFP). In partial satisfaction of Condition No. 122 of the Resolution, Developer agrees to adhere to the PFFP and any amendments thereto, approved by the City Council, including but not limited to the, SPA and tentative map improvements installed in accordance with said Plan or as required to meet threshold standards adopted by the City. Developer and City acknowledge that the PFFP identifies a facility phasing plan based upon a set of assumptions concerning the location and rate of development within and outside of the project area. Throughout the build-out of SPA One, actual development may differ from the assumptions contained in the PFFP (i.e., the development of EastLake 1113. Developer understands that neither the PFFP nor any other SPA One document grant the Applicant an entitlement to develop as assumed in the PFFP, or limit the SPA One's facility improvement requirements to those identified in the PFFP. Developer acknowledges that compliance with the City's threshold standards, based on actual development patterns and updated forecasts in reliance on changing entitlements and market conditions, shall govern SPA One development patterns and the facility improvement requirements to serve said development. In addition, the sequence in which improvements are constructed shall correspond to any future Eastem Chula Vista Transportation Phasing Plan or amendment to the Growth Management Program and Ordinance adopted by the City. Developer understands and agrees that the City Engineer may modify the sequence of improvement construction should conditions change to warrant such a revision. Developer agrees that concurrent with the approval of the first final map approved after a Public Facility Financing Plan has been approved for the EastLake 11I GDP Area, the Developer shall update, at Developer's sole expense and subject to a Reimbursement Agreement, the SPA 1 PFFP and agrees that the City Engineer may change the timing of construction of the public facilities, including without limitation, the nature, sizing, extent and timing for the construction of public facilities caused by SPA One, shall become a condition for all subsequent SPA One entitlements, including tentative and final maps. 21. Condition No. 123. - (Code Requirements). In partial satisfaction of Condition No. 123 of the Resolution, Developer agrees to comply with all applicable sections of the Chula Vista Municipal Code. Developer further agrees that any final map for the Project and all plans for said Project shall be prepared in accordance with the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act and the City of Chula Vista Subdivision Ordinance and Subdivision Manual. 22. Condition No. 124. - (Undergrounding). In partial satisfaction of Condition No. 124 of the Resolution, Developer agrees to underground all utilities within the subdivision in accordance with Municipal Code requirements. 23. Condition No. 125. - (Payment of Fees). In partial satisfaction of Condition No. 125 of the Resolution, Developer agrees to pay the following fees in accordance with the City Code and Council Policy: a. The Transportation and Public Facilities Development Impact Fees. 3_3 b. Signal Participation Fees. c. All applicable sewer fees, including but not limited to sower connection fees. d. Interim SR-125 impact fee. e. Telegraph Canyon Sewer Basin DIF. f. Poggi Canyon Sewer Basin DIF as may be adopted by the City in the future. h. Reimbursement District for Telegraph Canyon Road Phase 2 24. Condition No. 126. - (Code Requirements). In partial satisfaction of Condition No. 126 of the Resolution, Developer agrees to comply with all relevant Federal, State, and Local regulations, including the Clean Water Act. The Developer shall be responsible for providing all required testing and documentation to demonstrate said compliance as required by the City Engineer. 25. Condition No. 127. - (Disclosure of Special Taxes). In partial satisfaction of Condition No. 127 of the Resolution, Developer agrees to ensure that prospective purchasers sign a "Notice of Special Taxes and Assessments" pursuant to Municipal Code Section 5.46.020 regarding projected taxes and assessments. Submit disclosure form for approval by the City Engineer prior to Final Map approval. 26. Condition No. 130. - (Landscape Manual), In satisfaction of Condition No. 130 of the Resolution, Developer agrees to comply with all aspects of the City of Chula Vista Landscape Manual. 27. Condition No. 131. - (Planned Community District Regulations). In satisfaction of Condition No. 131 of the Resolution, Developer agrees to comply with the Otay Ranch SPA One planned Community District Regulations. 28. Condition No. 132. - (Code Requirements). In partial satisfaction of Condition No. 132 of the Resolution, Developer agrees to comply with Chapter 19.09 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code (Growth Management) as may be amended from time to time by the City. Said chapter includes but is not limited to: threshold standards (19.09.04), public facilities finance plan implementation (19.09.090), and public facilities finance plan amendment procedures (19.09.100). Developer further acknowledges and agrees that the City is presently in the process of amending its Growth Management Ordinance to add a proposed Section 19.09.105, to establish provisions necessary to ensure compliance with adopted threshold standards (particulm-ly traffic) prior to construction of State Route 125. Said provisions will require the demonstration, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, of sufficient street system capacity to accommodate a proposed development as a prerequisite to final map approval for that development, and the applicant hereby agrees to comply with adopted araendments to the Growth Management Ordinance. 29. Condition No. 134. - (NPDES). In satisfaction of Condition No. 134 of the Resolution, Developer agrees to comply with all applicable regulations established by the United States Environmental Protection Agency as set forth in the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System(NPDES) permit requirements for urban runoff and storm water discharge and any regulations adopted by the City of Chula Vista pursuant to the NPDES regulations or requirements. Further, the applicant shall file a notice of intent with the State Water Recourses Control Board to obtain coverage under the NPDES General Permit for storm water discharges associated with construction activity and shall implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) concurrent with the commencement of grading activities. The SWPPP shall include both construction and post construction pollution prevention and pollution control measures and shall identify funding mechanisms for post construction control measures. 30. Condition No. 136 - (Guarded Entrances). In satisfaction of Condition No. 136 of the Resolution, Developer agrees that guarded entrances will not have physical barriers and that the entrances will be staffed from dusk until dawn, unless the MHOA or the applicant determines it is economically impractical. 31. Condition No. 144 - (MHOA). In satisfaction of Condition No. 144 of the Resolution, Developer agrees that future property owners will be notified during escrow, by a document to be initialed by the owners, and approved by the City Engineer and Director of Planning, of the maintenance responsibilities of the MHOA and their estimated annual cost. 32. Satisfaction of Conditions. City agrees that the execution of this Agreement constitutes satisfaction or partial satisfaction of Developer's obligation of Condition Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 22, 23, 24, 33, 34, 40, 56, 84, 90, 91,104, 105, 106, 108, 109, 114, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 136, 144, and 145 of the Resolution. Developer further understands and agrees that the some of the provisions herein may be required to be performed or accomplished prior to the approval of other final maps for the Project, as may be appropriate. 33. Unfulfilled Conditions. Developer hereby agrees, unless otherwise conditioned, that Developer shall comply with all unfulfilled conditions of approval of the Tentative Map, established by Resolution No. 19448 and shall remain in compliance with and implement the terms, conditions and provisions therein. 34. Previous Agreements. The Developer acknowledges that nothing in this Agreement shall supersede, nullify or otherwise negatively impact the terms of the first and second Village 1 "A" Map Agreements, Map No. 13592 and Map No. 13990 thereof or all prior "]3" Map Agreements for Village 1, unless specifically noted herein. This Agreement affirms and reflects the terms, conditions and provisions "A" Map Agreements, all subsequent Final "B" Map Agreements and of the Tentative Map 96-04 conditions applicable specifically to the Final Map for the Property. 35. Recording. This Agreement, or an abstract hereof shall be recorded simultaneously with the recordation of the Final Map. 36. Building Permits, Developer and Guest Builders understand and agree that the City may withhold the issuance of building permits for the Project, should the Developer be determined by the City to be in breach of any of the terms of this Agreement. The City shall provide the Developer of notice of such determination and allow the Developer with reasonable time to cure said breach. 37. Miscellaneous. a. Notices. Unless otherwise provided in this Agreement or by law, any and all notices required or permitted by this Agreement or by law to be served on or delivered to either party shall be in writing and shall be deemed duly served, delivered, and received when personally delivered to the party to whom it is directed, or in lieu thereof, when three (3) business days have elapsed following deposit in the U.S. mail, certified or registered mail, return receipt requested, first-class postage prepaid, addressed to the address indicated in this Agreement. A party may change such address for the purpose of this paragraph by giving written notice of such change to the other party. Facsimile transmission shall constitute personal delivery. CITY OF CHULA VISTA 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA. 91910 Attn: Director of Public Works Developer: Otay Project, L.P. 350 West Ash Street, Suite 730 San Diego, CA 92101 Attn: Kim John Kilkenny Fax (619) 234-4088 Otay Ranch One, LLC, A Delaware Limited Liability Company and Otay Ranch Two, LLC, A Delaware Limited Liability Company 2479 MacKenzie Creek Road Chula Vista, CA 91914 Attn: Doug Brooks A party may change such address for the purpose of this paragraph by giving written notice of such change to the other party in the manner provided in this paragraph. Facsimile transmission shall constitute personal delivery. b. Captions. Captions in this Agreement are inserted for convenience of reference and do not define, describe or limit the scope or intent of this Agreement or any of its terms. c. Entire Agreement. This Agreement contains the entire agreement between the parties regarding the subject matter hereof. Any prior oral or written representations, agreements, understandings, and/or statements shall be of no force and effect. This Agreement is not intended to supersede or amend any other agreement between the parties unless expressly noted. d. Preparation 'of Agreement. No inference, assumption or presumption shall be drawn from the fact that a party or his attorney prepared and/or drafted this Agreement. It shall be conclusively presumed that both parties participated equally in the preparation and/or drafting this Agreement. e. Recitals; Attachments. Any recitals and Attachments set forth above are incorporated by reference into this Agreement. f. Attorneys' Fees. If either party commences litigation for the judicial interpretation, reformation, enforcement or rescission hereof, the prevailing party will be entitled to a judgment against the other for an amount equal to reasonable attorney's fees and court costs incurred. The "prevailing party" shall be deemed to be the party who is awarded substantially the relief sought. g. Olympic Parkway Agreement. The parties do not intend by this Agreement to modify or amend in any way the Olympic Parkway Agreement. To the extent of any inconsistencies between this Agreement and the Olympic Parkway Agreement with regard to obligations specifically set forth in the Olympic Parkway Agreement, the Olympic Parkway Agreement shall control. [NEXT PAGE IS PAGE ONE OF THREE SIGNATURE PAGES] 3_7 [PAGE ONE OF THREE SIGNATURE PAGES TO THE~ SUPPLEMENTAL SUBDMSION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT FOR THE FINAL "B" MAPS OF OTAY RANCH VILLAGE ONE NEIGHBORHOODS R-16 AND R-17, CHULA VISTA TRACT NO. 96-04A IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed the day and year first hereinabove set forth. CITY OF CHULA VISTA Mayor Attest: Susan Bigelow City Clerk John~.~eny City Attorney [NEXT PAGE 1S PAGE TWO OF SIGNATURE PAGES] 3_8 [PAGE TWO OF THREE SIGNATURE PAGES TO THE SUPPLEMENTAL SUBDMSION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT FOR THE FINAL "B" MAPS OF OTAY RANCH VILLAGE ONE NEIGHBORHOODS R-16 AND R-17, CHULA VISTA TRACT NO. 96-04A] DEVELOPERS/OWNERS: OTAY PROJECT, L.P., a California limited partnership By: Otay Project, LLC, a California limited liability company, General Partner By: Otay Ranch Development, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Authorized Member By: ~ (Attach Notary Acknowledgment) [NEXT PAGE IS PAGE THREE OF SIGNATURE PAGES] 3_9 CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT State of California County of ;;:~:~J"D~r.~...4~ / ss. On '~D~cI'~lelP__ ~"~':'~efore me, personally appeared ~'~ppersonally known to me [] proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence iI;L;C;N;O;AT i 'o be the person(s)whose name(,,s~-is/ac~- ~"-Z,a~& Commlsslon#t~ · subscribed to the within instrument and ~ NOtO~/Public - Co~,~,¢a he/ ........ cy executed ~".~ ~co~~)_~"'~'~/vtyv~°n~ the same in hi sR'~"Ctf~' a u t h o rize d ~ - capacity(lee-), and that by his/he-r/their. signature(s) on the instrument the person(s~, or the entity upon behalf of which the person(~- acted, executed the instrument. OPTIONAL Though the information below is not required by law, it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document and could p[event fraudulent removal and reattachrnent of this form to another document. Description of Attached Document Title or Type of Document: ~/.,~. ~ '1~-~ ~ E2~, '(~ ~ r"] Document Date: Number of Pages: Signer(s) Other Than Named Above: Capacity(les) Claimed by Signer Signer's Name: 1~3 Individual ~ ] Corporate Officer -- Title(s): Top of thumb hece [ I Partner -- [ ] Limited [-~) General t I Attorney in Fact [2] Trustee LJ Guardian or Conservator L~ Other: Signer Is Representing: [PAGE THREE OF THREE SIGNATURE PAGES TO THE SUPPLEMENTAL SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT FOR THE FINAL "B' MAPS OF OTAY RANCH VILLAGE ONE NEIGHBORHOODS R-16 AND R-17, CHULA VISTA TRACT NO. 96-04A] DEVELOPERS/OWNERS: Otay Ranch One, LLC, A Delaware Limited Liability Company By:~ '.-/ · ~' Otay Ranch Two, LLC, A Delaware Limited Liability Company BY:~~~K '~ (Attach Notary Acknowledgment) 20 CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT State of California Ss. county of persona,,y appeared ~ersonally known to me [] proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person,(~/ whose name,~arc- subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that _~/thc~.' executed same in ~--~,eir authorized the capacity(.ie~), and that by ~t~,ir _ signature(,~/~n the instrument the person,,(,~'~, or i~;~ ~J~C~'FA~I-~G~I -- ~ the entity upon behalf of which the person,.Cs.)-- - ,~r-~,~.~ Comm~lon # '1175477 [ acted, executed the instrument ! \~--Ia"?~/ Orange County ~ WITNESS my hand and 9~ficial seal. OPTIONAL Though the information below is not required by law, it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document and could prevent fraudulent removal and rea~achment of this form to another document. Description of Attached Document Title or Type of Document: Document Date: Number of Pages: Signer(s) Other Than Named Above: Capacity(les) Claimed by Signer Signer's Name: [] Individual Top of ~humb here ~] Corporate Officer--Title(s): [;] Partner-- [] Limited [] General rJ Attorney in Fact [] Trustee I~ Guardian or Conservator /~ Other: CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT State of California ~ Coun~ of ~ ~ ss. personally appear~ ~/~// ~.~¢~ * ~sonally known to me ~ proved to me on the basis of satisfacto~ evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/hedtheir ~ ~ -- ~: ~C,~--~ signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or ~rF~ B the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) ] _ ~ Comm~lon~ 117~ [ ~ Nofa~Pub~c-Col{~lo ~ acted, executed the instrument. I ~/ Orange Coun~ ~ ] ~~m.~~ WITNE. SS my handpnd official seal. OPTIONAL Though the information below is not mqui~d by la~ it may prove valuable to pe~ons relying on the document Description of Attached Document Title or Type of Document: Document Date: Number of Pages: Signer(s) Other Than Named Above: Capacity(les) Claimed by Signer Signer's Name: ~ Individual ~ ~ Corporate Officer--Title(s): Top of thumb here ~ Pa~ner-- ~ Limited ~ General ~ A~orney in Fact ~ Trustee ~ Guardian or Conse~ator ~ Other: SignerlsRepresenting: ~ ~ ~; ~ List of Exhibits Exhibit A Legal Description of Property Exhibit B Street and Public Land Development Improvements, CV Tract 96-04A Exhibit B Street and Public Land Development Improvements Chula Vista Tract 96-04A Improvements Improvement Cost Bond No. Drawing No. Otay Ranch Village 1, Phase 7 $3,238,477 3SM95939500 99-458 to Rough Grading and Storm Drain 99-490 Otay Ranch Village 1, Phase 7, $835,682.50 5991057 99-768 to Street and Sewer Improvements 99-788 Otay Ranch Village 1, Phase 7, $1,073,435 SD00089323 99-1078 to Landscape and Irrigation 99-1034F Exhibit "A" Legal Description of Property OTAY RANCH VII J.AGE 1, NEIGHBORHOOD R-16, CHULA VISTA TRACT NO. 96-04A BEING LOT 4 OF CHULA VISTA TRACT NO. 96-04 OTAY RANCH VII J.AGE I "A" MAP NO. 2 IN TI-IE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO MAP THEREOF NO. 13990, FII.FD IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY ON JUNE 27, 2000. OTAY RANCH VII J~AGE 1, NEIGHBORHOOD R-17, CHULA VISTA TRACT NO. 96-04A BEING A SUBDIVISION OF LOTS 3, 6, "J", AND "K" OF OTAY RANCH "A" MAP NO. 2, CHULA VISTA TRACT NO. 96-04A, AS SHOWN ON MAP NO. 13390, IN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, FII.ED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY ON JUNE 27, 2000. TOGETHER WITH THOSE PORTIONS OF QUARTERS SECTIONS 40 AND 41 OF RANCHO DE LA NACION, ACCORDING TO MAP THEREOF NO. 166 BY MORRIIJ. IN THE OFFICE OF THE SAN DIEGO RECORDER ALL WITHIN THE COLrNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA LYING WITHIN THAT CERTAIN PARCEL OR STRIPO OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED TO THE SOUTHERN CAIJFORNAI MOUNTAIN WATER COMPANY, RECORDED JUNE 24, 1912 IN BOOK 570 OF DEEDS, PAGE 113, RECORDS OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA //,3-27 COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item ],~ Meeting Date 12/05/00 ITEM TITLE: Resolution Approving the submittal of twelve (12) applications to the California Department of Transportation (CalTrans) for the Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) 2002/03 Hazard Elimination Safety (HES) Program Director of Public Work~/ 0j~/ SUBMITTED BY: [^ g-" REVIEWED BY: CityManager~'~- (4/SthsVote: Yes NoX) The Federal Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982 created the Hazard Elimination Safety (HES) Program by combining several existing safety programs. The HES Program provides funds for safety improvements on all public roads and highways, except for the interstate system. These funds serve to eliminate or reduce the nmnber and severity of traffic accidents at hazardous public roads and highway locations, sections, and elements. CalTrans regulations require that official applications be submitted in order for projects to be considered for fimding. In order for an application to be official, Council must approve a resolution authorizing submittal of the Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) 2002/03 HES program. Projects are chosen and then approved for funding after the applications have been evaluated by CalTrans. RECOMMENDATION: That Council approve the submittal of twelve (12) applications to CalTrans for the Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) 2002/03 Hazard Elimination Safety (HES) Program. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable. DISCUSSION: On September 21, 1999, City Council approved the submittal of eight (8) applications to CalTrans for the FFY 2001/02 HES program. Since then, the program has been temporarily suspended by CalTrans in favor of a different program titled "Safe Routes to Schools." However, CalTr'ans is now soliciting applications for the FFY 2002/03 HES program. Therefore, staff is recommending the resubmittal of the previous applications, except that one application is now separated into two (2) different applications and another application is separated into four (4) different applications, for a total of twelve (12) applications. This is primarily done to divide the project cost associated with one application to smaller amounts in order to increase chances of getting more grants, but the total submitted cost estimates remain the same as the previous submittal. For projects to be eligible for HES funding, a specific safety problem must be identified for correction and the project must correct or substantially improve the condition. In addition, the ~oapleted. local Federal assistance project must provide for, or consider, the upgrading of related safety features to the appropriate standards. The local safety project financed with HES Funds may be'located on any road functionally classified as a "local road or rural minor collector" or higher. 19-t Page 2, Item ]~ Meeting Date 12/5/00 Projects eligible for HES funding are prioritized under two categories. The first category is for those projects qualifying based on calculated Safety Index. This is calculated by using accidents directly related to the correction proposed by the project or using all accidents at the location and applying a "Reduction Factor". Projects are then prioritized statewide by descending safety indexes. The second category is for those projects qualifying based on Work Type priority. Work type is used to fund projects with safety needs that catmot be quantified by Safety Index due to the lack of sufficient accident data. Safety Inde. x projects receive approximately 25 percent of available I-lES Funds, whereas Work Type priorities receive approximately 75 percent. The following are descriptions of work type priority project applications that we propose to submit to CalTrans for the Hazard Elimination Safety Program for FFY 2002/03 funding (The Federal Fiscal Year starts on October 1 and ends on September 30): 1) Traffic Sign Replacement - Replacement of existing school zone engineer-grade yellow sheeting signs with the new high-visibility fluorescent green school signs. This project will replace, add and/or install the new school signs and Telespar perforated, square tubing, breakaway posts at approximately 50 school corridors. 2) Traffic Signal Installation at Hilltop Drive and Oxford Street - Installation of a fully actuated 8-phase traffic signal system. This intersection ranked #1 on the 2000 City Traffic Signal Priority List. 3) Traffic Signal Installation at Eastlake Parkway and Clubhouse Drive - Installation ora fully actuated 8-phase traffic signal system. This intersection ranked #2 on the 2000 City Traffic Signal Priority List. 4) Traffic Signal Installation at East "J" Street and Paseo del Rey - Installation of a fully actuated 8-phase traffic signal system. This intersection ranked #5 on the 2000 City Traffic Signal Priority List. 5) 8-inch Red Traffic Signal Indication Upgrade at Various Location - This project will includes the replacement of existing 8-inch red indications with the newer 12- inch Light Emitting Diode (LED) Red indications at 21 locations. Current signal standards require 12-inch indications to enhance the visibility of the traffic signal phasing to the motorist. 6) Traffic Signal Upgrade ~ Fifth Avenue and "L" Street - Modification of existing traffic signal to a fully actuated 8-phase traffic signal system. This project will also include the installation of the Emergency Vehicle Pre-Emption (EVPE) System, protective/permissive left turns and other hardware as required. 7) Traffic Signal Upgrade ~ Third Avenue and Moss Street- Modification of existing traffic signal to a fully actuated 8-phase traffic signal system. This project will also include the installation of the Emergency Vehicle Pre-Emption (EVPE) System, protective/permissive left turns and other hardware as required. L Page 3, Item /2-- Meeting Date 12/5/00 8) Traffic Signal Upgrade ~ Allen School Lane and Otay Lakes Road- Modification of existing traffic signal to a fully actuated 8-phase traffic signal system. This project will also include thc installation of the Emergency Vehicle Pre- Emption (EVPE) System, protective/permissive lefl turns and other hardware as required. 9) Traffic Signal Upgrade ~ Broadway and "D" Street- Modification of existing traffic signal to a fully actuated 8-phase t~affic signal system. This project will also include the installation of the Emergency Vehicle Pre-Emption (EVPE) System, protective/permissive left turns and other hardware as required. 10) Internally Illuminated Street Name Sign (IISNS) Installation (Part I) - Replace existing traffic signal mounted reflective street name signs with internally illuminated street name signs at 15 intersections throughout the City. These existing signs have lost their reflectivity and the visibility factor has been diminished. This project will include all hardware required for retrofitting various signalized intersections. 11) Internally Illuminated Street Name Sign (IISNS) Installation (Part II) - Replace existing traffic signal mounted reflective street name signs with internally illuminated street name signs at 14 intersections throughout the City. These existing signs have lost their rcflectivity and the visibility factor has been diminished. This project will include all hardware required for retrofitting various signalized intersections. 12) Street Light Installation - Installation of additional street lighting on Palomar Street between Third Avenue and Broadway. This project will add twelve (12) new 250- watt High Pressure Sodium Vapor (HPSV) street lights to improve thc existing lighting conditions at night. · The projects are listed in priority order in the following table: Project Construction Engineering & Total Administration 1. Traffic Sign Replacement $106,000 $19,000 $125,000 2. Traffic Signal Installation at Hilltop $157,000 $40,000 $197,000 Drive and Oxford Street 3. Traffic Signal Installation at Eastlake $133,000 $33,000 $166,000 Parkway and Clubhouse Drive 4. Traffic Signal Installation at East "J" $163,000 $33,000 $196,000 Street and Pasco del Rey 5.8-inch Red Traffic Signal Indication $70,000 $10,000 $80,000 Upgrade at Various Location 6. Traffic Signal Upgrade at Fifth $83,000 $20,000 $103,000 Avenue and "L" Street Page 4, Item /~--~ Meeting Date ,12/5/00 Project Constraction Engineering & Total Administration 7. Traffic Signal Upgrade at Third $54,000 $16,000 $70,000 Avenue and Moss Street 8. Traffic Signal Upgrade at Allen $101,000 $29,000 $130,00~3 School Lane and Otay Lakes Road 9. Traffic Signal Upgrade at Broadway $72,000 $25,000 $97,000 and "D" Street 10. Internally Illuminated Street $227,000 $33,000 $260,000 Name Sign Installation (Part I) 11. Internally Illuminated Street $212,000 $28,000 $240,000 Name Sign Installation (Part 1I) 12. Street Light Installation $116,000 $34,000 $150,000 TOTAL $1,494,000 $320,000 $1,814,000 Project costs include preliminary engineering, construction engineering, and construction. Funds can be authorized for the Preliminary Engineering (PE) Phase before the beginning of FFY 2002/03; however, funding authorization for the Construction Phase of these projects before FFY 2002/03 is contingent upon the availability of funds. The City of Chula Vista's net share of project costs is zero, since staff is requesting 100% cost reimbursement fi.om CalTrans. Federal funds are considered "allocated" to each project phase when the Office of Local Programs (OLP) Area Engineer at CalTrans authorizes the work through the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) delegated authorization process. These funds are reserved for the project, but the local agency will not he reimbursed for any phase until after the contract is awarded. A copy of the application package is located in the City Clerk's Office for Council's review. FISCAL IMPACT: Potential total revenue to the City of $1,814,000. The actual amount is dependent upon which of the projects is approved for funding by CalTrans and the amount that they approve· There will not be any local matching funds for this grant submittal. This resolution approves the submittal of the applications, but does not formally approve the implementation of the projects. These projects will be submitted for approval for both FY 2001-02 and 2002-03 CIP. Prepared by: Majed A1-Ghafry File No.: 0740-75-KY026 H:~HOMEkENGINEERLA. GENDA~HES_MA.DOC RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING THE SUBMITTAL OF TWELVE (12) APPLICATIONS TO THE CALIFOR/~IA DEP/kRTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (CALTRANS) FOR THE FEDERAL FISCAL YEAR (FFY) 2002/03 HAZARD ELIMINATION SAFETY (HES) PROGRAM WHEREAS, the Federal Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982 created the Hazard Elimination Safety (HES) Program by combining several existing safety programs; and WHEREAS, the HES Program provides funds for safety improvements on all public roads and highways, except the interstate system; and WHEREAS, these funds serve to eliminate or reduce the number and severity of traffic accidents at hazardous public roads and highway locations, sections, and elements; and WHEREAS, Caltrans regulations require that official applications be submitted in order for projects to be considered for funding; and WHEREAS, in order for the applications to be official, council must approve a resolution authorizing submittal of the Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) 2002/03 HES Program; and WHEREAS, projects are chosen and then approved for funding after the applications have been evaluated by Caltrans. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the city of Chula Vista does hereby approve the submittal of twelve (12) applications to the California Department of Transportation (CalTrans) for the Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) 2002/03 Hazard Elimination Safety (HES) Program: 1) Traffic Sign Replacement - Replacement of existing school zone en§ineer-grade yellow sheeting signs with the new high-visibility fluorescent green school signs. This project will replace, add and/or install the new school signs and Telespar perforated, square tubing, breakaway posts at approximately 50 school corridors. 2) Traffic Signal Installation at Hilltop Drive and Oxford Street - Installation of a fully actuated 8-phase traffic signal system. This intersection ranked #1 on the 2000 City Traffic Signal Priority List. 3) Traffic Signal installation at Eastlake Parkway and Clubhouse Drive Installation of a fully actuated 8- phase traffic signal system. This intersection ranked #2 on the 2000 City Traffic Signal Priority List. 4) Traffic Signal Installation at East ~J" Street and Paseo del Rey Installation of a fully actuated 8-phase traffic signal system. This intersection ranked #5 on the 2000 city Traffic Signal Priority List. 5) 8-inch Red Traffic Signal Indication Upgrade at Various Location - This project will includes the replacement of existing 8-inch red indications with the newer 12-inch Light Emitting Diode (LED) Red indications at 21 locations. Current signal standards require 12-inch indications to enhance the visibility of the traffic signal phasing to the motorist. 6) Traffic Signal Upgrade ~ Fifth Avenue and ~L" Street Modification of existing traffic signal to a fully actuated 8-phase traffic signal system. This project will also include the installation of the Emergency Vehicle Pre-Emption (EVPE) System, protective/permissive left turns and other hardware as required. 7) Traffic Signal Upgrade ~ Third Avenue and Moss Street- Modification of exisking traffic signal to a fully actuated 8-phase traffic signal system. This project will also include the installation of the Emergency Vehicle Pre-Emption (EVPE) System, protective/permissive left turns and other hardware as required. 8) Traffic Signal Upgrade ~ Allen School Lane and Otay Lakes Road- Modification of existing traffic signal to a fully actuated 8-phase traffic signal system. This project will also include the installation of the Emergency Vehicle Pre-Emption (EVPE) System, protective/permissive left turns and other hardware as required. 9) Traffic Signal Upgrade ~ Broadway and "D" Street- Modification of existing traffic signal to a fully actuated 8-phase traffic signal system. This project will also include the installation of the Emergency vehicle Pre-Emption (EVPE) System, protective/permissive left turns and other hardware as required. 10) Internally Illuminated Street Name Sign (IISNS ) Installation (Part I) - Replace existing traffic signal mounted reflective street name Signs with internally 2 illuminated street name signs at 15 intersections throughout the City. These existing signs have lost their reflectivity and the visibility factor has been diminished. This project will include all hardware required for retrofitting various signalized intersections. 11) Internally Illuminated Street Name Sign (IISNS ) Installation (Part II) - Replace existing traffic signal mounted reflective street name signs with internally illuminated street name signs at 14 intersections throughout the City. These existing signs have lost their reflectivity and the visibility factor has been diminished. This project will include all hardware required for retrofitting various signalized intersections. 12) Street Light Installation Installation of additional street lighting on Palomar Street between Third Avenue and Broadway. This project will add twelve (12) new 250- watt High Pressure Sodium Vapor (HPSV) street lights to improve the existing lighting conditions at night. Presented by Approved as to form by John P. Lippitt Jo~/. Kaheny J ~// Director of Public Works Ci~r/Attorney ~ COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item ]5 Meeting Datel2/05/O0 ITEM TITLE: Resolution Appropriating $88,000.00 fi"om the unappropriated balance of thc Gas Tax Fund and $337,031.50 in unanticipated revenue fi.om the SDG&E Incentive program to a new CIP - Traffic Signal Lamp Replacement Program (TF.-291); approving a Governmental Agency Participation Agreement with San Diego Gas & Electric Company~for the replacement of incandescent lamps to light emitting diode (L.E.D.) lamps; authorizing the Mayor to sign the Agreement and authorizing thc Purchasing Agent to enter into a contract with Synchroncx for the purchase of traffic signal L.E.D. lamps / SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public Worksf~//~ REVIEWED BY: City Manager ~ ~ (4/5tbs Vote: Yes X No._} Thc City is in a position to save approximately $74,000.00 per year in energy costs by switching the green traffic signal indication lamps fi.om incandescent lamps to light emitting diode (L.E.D.) lamps. San Diego Gas & Electric Company has an incentive program that offers up to $175.00 rebate per light. The proposed project must be completed by June 30, 2001 in order to receive the incentive. This · / project is part of the City's overall Carbon Dioxide Reduction and Energy Conservation Plan. RECOMMENDATION: That Council adopt the resolution appropriating $88,000.00 fi"om the unappropriated balance of the Gas Tax Fund and $337,032.00 in unanticipated revenue fi'om the SDG&E Incentive program to a new CIP - Traffic Signal Lamp Replacement Program (TF-291); approving a Governmental Agency Participation Agreement with San Diego Gas & Electric Company for the replacement of incandescent lamps to light emitting diode (L.E.D.) lamps; authorizing the Mayor to sign the Agreement and authorizing the Purchasing Agent to enter into a contract with Synchronex for the purchase of traffic signal L.E.D. lamps DISCUSSION: On September 1 I, 2000, San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E) implemented an L.E.D. Traffic Signal Program. The program was established to encourage retrofit of incandescent traffic signals with L,E.D. lamp replacements by the public agencies in order to save energy costs. The highlight of the program was that SDG&E offered a rebate of up to $175.00 for every traffic signal green lamp installed by the public agencies before June l, 2001. This meant that thc City could replace all traffic signal (approximately 2,190) green lamps for only $88,000.00 after receiving SDG&E's rebate of up to 337,032.00. The City will also save administration costs by participating in the City of El Cajon's purchasing procedures, as recommended by our Purchasing Agent. As the result ora competitive bidding process, per bid # 030-01, the City of El Cajon has awarded a contract to Synchronex for purchase of L.E.D. lamps. There is a public agency clause that enables the City of Chula Vista to purchase against this contract. Council Resolution 6132 and the Municipal Code Section 2.56.140 authorize the Purchasing Page 2, Item /-~ Meeting Date 12/05/00 Agent to participate in cooperative bids with other governmental agencies. Please note that the installation of the L.E.D. lamps will be accomplished by a separate public works contract in accordance with Section 1009 of the City Charter. The approval of the agreement with SDG&E would allow the City to participate in this program and realize significant traffic signal energy savings. In "Table I" below, a savings analysis, based on the City of E1 Cajon's bid prices, is shown for the Council to consider: TABLE I - L.E.D. TRAFFIC SIGNAL SAVINGS A1NALYSIS-Coased on the City of El Cajon's bid prices) 12" solid green 8" solid green 12"green arrow TOTAL Number of lamps 1,484 136 570 2,190 Material Cost (w/tax and $251,045.00 $11,920.00 $ 60,865.00 $323,830.00 Shipping & Handling) Installation Cost ~ $ 29,680.00 $ 2,720.00 $11,400.00 $ 43,800.00 $20.00 per lamp (separate contract) Total Installed Cost $280,725.00 $14,640.00 $ 72,265.00 $367,630.00 Contingencies $ 20,910.00 Total Project Costs $388,540.00 SDG&E Incentive (up to ($157.00 per ($81.35 per ($99.10per $300,540.00 $337,032.00) lamp) = lamp) = lamp)= $232,990.00 $11,065.00 $56,485.00 Net Project Costs $ 88,000.00 Project Pay Back Period With Labor And Incentive 1.19 years Page 3, Item /3 Meeting Date 12/05/00 Using the most recent inventory of the work to be done, the number of signal indications to be converted has been updated as shown above; therefore, the pay back period based on the anticipated energy savings for the project is just over a year. Based on current energy rates, the City will continue to save approximately $74,000.00 per year in signal utility costs. In 1998, when the City switched all traffic signal red lamps to L.E.D. lamps, the City experienced a savings of one third of our traffic signal energy cost and a reduction of 1,600 tons of carbon dioxide. Using L.E.D. technology to replace incandescent lamps in traffic signals saved the City over $88,000.00 per year. The City changed all 1847 traffic signal red lamps in order to obtain a 60%, or more, savings for each red signal or arrow replaced. L.E.D. units use only 7 to 25 watts instead of the 85 to 150 watts used by each incandescent lamp. Payback on the red lamps was approximately 2.8 years on a total investment of $250,000.00. FISCAL IMPACT: The project's net cost to the City of $88,000.00 will be funded from the unappropriated balance of the Gas Tax Fund. Payback is anticipated at 1.19 years since the utility budget for the City's traffic signals will be reduced by approximately $74,000.00 beginning in fiscal year 2001-2002. Attachments: 1) Governmental Agency Participation Agreement (for signature) 2) Attachment "A"- Letter from SDG&E dated 09/12/00 detailing the L.E.D. savings 3) Attachment "B"- Copy of City of El Cajon's bid # 030-01 Prepared By: Majed AI-Ghafry H:\HOM E\ENGIN EER~AGEN DA\LEDLAMp_,DOC ^ ~,~ Sernpra Energy"compan~ GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT . · San Diego Gas & Electric LED Traffic Signal Incentive Program THIS AGREEMENT ("Agreemanf'), dated and effective as of the date signed by the Governmental Agency below, sets forth certain agreements by and between San Diego Gas & Electric ("SDG&E), a California corporation and City of Chula Vista ("Governmanml Agency"), either or both of which may also be referred to as "Party" or "Parties" to this Agreement. WHEREAS, the California Public Utilities Commission ("CPUC"), by ruling of the Assigned Commissioners and Administrative Law Judge on the Summer :2000 Energy Efficiency Initiative, D. 00~07-017, dated August 21, :2000 ("Ruling"), SDG&E was directed to offer a Lighting Emitting Diode ("LED") traffic signal rebate program to governmental agencies in SDG&E's service territory; WHEREAS, SDG&E has developed the LED Traffic Signal Incentive Program to encourage Govermnental Agencies to replace red and green incandescent traffic signal lamps, yellow flashing beacons and pedestrian signals (Lamp(s)) with energy-efficient LED traffic signal {amps pursuant to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, and WHEREAS, Governmental Agency would like to participate in the Program pursuant to the terms and conditions of this Agreement: NOW, THEREFORE, in considerati.on of the mutual premises and the mutual promises of each party herein contained, the parties agree as follows: 1. GovernmentalAgency agrees to: (a) Replace incandescent traffic and pedestrian signal lamps with Lamps as set forth in Paragraph 2 below and further described in Attachment I. (b) Provide SDG&E with a complete copy of the Governmental Agency's invoice for the purchase of the Lamps. Governmental Agency's invoices(s) shall include, as to each Lamp: intersection location, Lamp description and quantity, and installation date using the LED Traffic Signal Replacement, Verification Report (Attachment 2). Collectively, the invoice and Replacement/Verification Report are the Replacement Documentation. (c) Cooperate with SDG&E in the verification by SDG&E or its agent of both the purchase and replacement of the Lamps. (d) Pay any taxes, which may be imposed on Governmental Agency, as a result of Governmental Agency's receipt of the Incentive hereunder. 2. SDG&E agreesto: (a) pay a maximum individual incentive of $65 for each red Lamp, $175 for each green Lamp, $125 for each yellow flashing beacon, $70 for each combination pedestrian signal and $25 for each pedestrian hand replaced before June l, 2001. The maximum incentive will be reduced be 50% for lamps replaced between June I and December 15, 2001. Lamp, for purposes of this Agreement, shall include all traffic signal balls, arrows and pedestrian signals replaced. The actual incentive payment will be confirmed by SDG&E verification and will be based on the actual number of Lamps replaced. Under no circumstances will SDG&E's incentive payment exceed the actual invoice purchase price of the Lamps replaced. (b) Reserve incentive funds, as shown on the LED Traffic Signal Rebate Form submitted earlier, until the earlier of the replacement completion or June l, 2001. If the actual lamp replacement exceeds the quantity shown on the Lamp Specification Form, incentives will be paid for the higher amount, based on availability of unreserved incentive funds. 3. SDG&E's payment to Governmental Agency of the incentive is completely contingent upon receipt by SDG&E of a complete copy of the Governmental Agency's invoice and completed Replacement/Verification Report (Attachment 3). No incentives will be paid for incomplete or late submissions. 4. The funding approved by the CPUC for this Program is limited and will be reserved and paid on a first-come, first-serve basis to qualified Govemmentul Agencies. 5. SDG&E will transmit payment of the Governmental Agency's invoice to the Governmental Agency, within 30 days after SDG&E receives Governmental Agency's invoices, provided that Governmental Agency has satisfied all requirements of this Agreement and the invoice is correct. 6. All Replacement Documentation, correspondence and other submittals required to be submitted by Governmental Agency to SDG&E under this Agreement shall be mailed first class mail, postage prepaid, to: SDG&E Atlantion: LED Traffic Signal Program 8335 Century Park Ct. MS 12C San Diego, CA 92123-1569 7. SDG&E is regulated by the California Public Utilities Commission ("CPUC") and administem this Program under the auspices of the CPUC. SDG&E and the CPUC reserve the right to audit and examine Replacement Documentation and all other records relating to Governmental Agency's participation in the Program for a period of five years after completion of the Program. 8. SDG&E may terminate this Agreement and immediately cease any payments to Governmental Agency if, in SDG&E's reasonable determination, Governmental Agency breaches any provision of this Agreement. If SDG&E takes legal action to recover any incentives paid to Governmental Agency for which Governmental Agency is not otherwise entitled to payment under the terms of this Agreement, then SDG&E will be entitled to recover all costs relating to such legal action, including, but not limited to, reasonable attorney's fees (including in-house and outside counsel). SDG&E may also terminate this Agreement upon order of the CPUC. In such case, Governmental Agency will be paid all incentives earned for qualifying Lamp replacements prior to the effective date of said termination. 9_. SDG&E is entering into this Agreement solely as an administrator with respect to verification of performance and disbumement of incentive funds. The selection, pumhase and replacement of Lamps are the sole responsibilily of Governmental Agency. Governmental Agency shall indemnify SDG&E, its current and future parent companies, affiliates, subsidiaries, their officers, agents and employees against alt loss, damage, expense and liability resulting from iniurg to or death of persons, including, but not limited to, employees of Government Agency or injury to property, including, but not limited to, damage to property of Governmental Agency, provided such iniury to persons or damage to prnpertT are due or claimed to be due to the negligent acts or omissions of Government Agency, its officers, employees, agents or any other person or persons under its direct supervision and control. Government Agency shall on a SDG&E's request defend any action, claim, or suit asserting a claim covered by this indemnity. Government Agency shall pay all costs that may be incurred by SDG&E in enfoming this indemniW including reasonable attorneys fees including in-house and outside 0ttorneys. In addition to the above, Government Agency will cause its subcontractors to defend, indemnify and hold SDG&E harmless to the same extent as provided in the preceding paragraph. 10. SDG&E reserves the right to disqualify the Governmental Agency due to an incomplete submission or if, in its sole judgement the Lamps installed are different than the Lamps identified in the Lamp Specification Form. LED TS. Rev I I/I/00 2 I1. SDG&E MAKES NO REPRESENTATION OR WARRANTY AS TO THE QUALITY, SAFETY, RELIABILITY, USE, APPLICATION OR EFFICIENCY OF THE LAMPS OR ANY COMPONENTS TI:I~REOF. SDG&E MAKES NO WARRANTY OF ANY KIND. WITH RESPECT TO THE LAMPS, WHETI:IE.R EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUD/NG, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PARTICULAR PURPOSE. 12. Governmental Agency represents that it has read and understands the Program requirements as set forth in this Agreement and Governmental Agency agrees to strictly comply with all provisions contained herein. 13. This Agreement shall be effective on the date it is completely executed by both parties. Purchase and replacement of Lamps must be completed on or before December 15, 2001. If Governmental Agency cannot provide proof of Governmental Agency's purchase of the Lamps and proof that the Lamps are replaced and operational on or before December 15, 2001, this Agreement shall terminate automatically on such date. 1N WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to be executed by their duly authorized officers and representatives. For Governmental Agency: For SDG&E: Govcmmental Agency Name Sign~ William F. Daiber Address Print Name Sr. Program Managcr City Zip Title Telephone Fax Date Contact Name (Please Print) Signature Print Name Federal Tax ID No. lncoq~orated? E-mail Address LED.TS. Rev lI/IIO0 3 / ~ ~ ~ Attachment POWER DEMAND FOR TRAFFIC SIGNAL MODULES MODULE TYPE MAXIMUM NOMINAL (at 74oc) (at 25oc) Red Ball - 12" 17 11 Red Arrow - 12" 1 2 9 Red Ball - 8" 13 8 Red Arrow - 8" Green Ball - 12" 15 15 Green Arrow - 12" 11 11 Green Ball - 8" 12 12 Green Arrow - 8" Yellow Flashing - 12" 25 22 Yellow Flashing - 8" 16 13 Pedestrian Hand 12 10 Combination Pedestrian 12 10 Signal I. If you have any questions regarding any of the above program requirements, please contact Bill Daiber, Program Manager, at 858-636-5765. LEO,TS. Rev 11/1/00 4 / ~ - '~ Attachment 2 LED TRAFFIC SIGNAL INCENTIVE PROGRAM REPLACEMENT/VERIFICATION REPORT Governmental Agency: INTERSECTION COLOR 12" 8" PED PED REPL. COMMENTS PJG ARROW BALL COMBO HAND DATE Page Total__ SDG&E inspection is only a visual verificatioo that led lamps have been installed SDG&E INSPECTOR'S SIGNATURE: Date: This Form May Be Duplicated To Record Additional Replacemcnls Page __ LED.TS Rev Il/l/00 5 /,~ ~ ~ ATTACHMENT A A ~]~Sernpra EBer~¥'c~rnpany September 12. 2000 File NO. ~' ~''~ John Lippi~ Public Works Director Ci~ of Chula Vista 276 4th Avenue ~... -... Chula Vista, CA 91910 Dear John LippiE: I am pleased to announce the final details on San Diego Gas & Electric's LED Tra~C Signal Program effective September 11, 2000· The program has been established to encourage retrofit of Incandescent Tra~c Signals with LED (Light EmiEing Diode) Lamp replacements to save energy. The following details provide the highlights of this exciting program: · Incentive per LED lamp: ( Lamp Color~ype Installed by 6/1/01. ~ Installed affe~ 6/1/01 Reds (balls and arrows) $ 65 $32.50 Green (balls and arrows) $175 $87.50 Yellow (flashing beacon only) $125 $62.50 ~ Pedestrian hand $ 70 $35.00 .- ~ The higher incentives will be paid for installation completed by June 1, 2001. ~ ,,,e ,n~ ,,,v~ ~mount pa,~,,,I be the Posted incentive amount, not to exceed the invoice amount for the LED lamp. Spare LEDs are not eligible for incentives. Installation labor costs will be the responsibili~ of the paAicipant. , The amount of the actual incentive is dependent on the quanti~ of lamps actually replaced. If less equipment is installed than was specified in the contract, the incentive paid will be less than indicated in the contract. In addition, if more lamps are installed than specified in the contract, the additional lamps will still quali~ for an incentive only if additional funding is available. ^ ~-~Sempra Energy'~or~nany · Lamps purchased must adhere to the Power Demand ranges as specified in the following table. Lamps deemed to be above the maximum range are not eligible for the LED incentive. POWER DEMAND FOR TRAFFIC SIGNAL MODULES MODULETYPE MAXIMUM (at~74°C) NOMINAL (at 25°C) 12" Red Ball, 8" Red Ball; 12" Red Arrow 17;~13;'12 11, 8, 9 12" Green Ball, 8"Green Ball 12", Green Arrow12; 10;13 12, 10, 13 12" Amber Bail 8" Amber Ball 12" Amber Arrow 25, 16, 12 22, 13, 10 PedestTian Hand 12 10 o Installed lamps must be hard-wired (Type 1) replacements. · This program ends on December 15, 2001. If you have any questions regarding any of the above program requirements, please contact the undersigned at 858.621.8824 or Bill Daiber at 858.654.8831. Jeff Alexander Program Manager Consumer Programs and Services HQU-O]-20~O 09:41 CITY DF EL CF~TON 619 588 1198 P.02/0~ "B" PURCHASING DMSION INVITATION TO BID FOR TRAFFIC SIGNAL LED'S BID NUMBER: 030-01 DUE: 11:30 AM NOVEMBER 1, 2000 ~YNCHRONEX 1420 N. Clammont Bird, Suita 2001) Claremont, CA 91711 Ph. (909) 48~-11N0 Fax (909) 482-1044 / %-I/ I NOU-05-~00~ ~9:41 CITY O~ EL CA30N 619 588 1198 P.05×08 NOTIC~ INVITING SEALED BIDS Thc City of El Cajon is inviting Scaled Bids for me provision of the following: TRAFFIC SIGNAL Information regarding bid forms and other matters p~rt~!nlng to same .may be obtained from the Finance Department, 200 East Main Street, El Cajon, California~ All bids shall be delivered to the Purchasing Division of the City of El Cajon on or before November I, 2000 at the hour of 11:30 AM at the above address. The Purc&asmg Division shall hold a public rmet~ng at the above hour and date when said bids will be opened. The City resorve~ the right to rej<t any and all proposals or bids, should it deem th~ necessary for the public good, and also the bid of any bidder who has been delinquent or unfaithful in any former contract with the City of El Cajon. Colin Dawson Purchasing Agent Dated: 10/i 8/00 NOV-O]-2000 09:42 CITY OF EL CAJON 619 588 1190 P.04/08 City of El Cajon BID FORM PURCHASING DIVISION 200 I~. Main Street BID NUMBER: 030-01 E~ Cajon, CA 92020 '~19) 441-1715 ~VENDOR NAME AND ADDRESS THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION MUST BE FILLED IN SmCHllONE~g cbmm~, CA ~1711 Ph. ( 09) 4s2-1040 Fax FEDERAL TAX I.D, NO.: TELEPHONE: 1516 12" Green Ball LED, Ecolux D12GA4-4 or DiaJight 432-2270- 2~/~ 001, Nominal 12 watts @ 25°C, Maximum 12 watts @ 74°C 491 8" Green Bail LED, Ecolux D08GA2-4 or Dialight 432-2170- 001, Nominal 10 watts @ 25°C, Maximum 10 watts @ 74°C 733 12' Green Arrow LED, Ecolux D12GA7-4C or Dialight 430- C~ 2374-001, Nominal 12 watts @ 25°C, Maximum 13 watts @ 74oC 27 12" Yellow ~all LED,-~-colux D12YA4-4 or Dialight 433-3230- 001, Nominal 22 watts @ 25°C, Maximum 25 watts @ 74°C 80 Pedestrian Hand LED, Ecolux P11PA3-S4C or Dialight 432- ? 5401-001, Nominal 10 watts @ 25°C, Maximum 12 watts @ 74°C 0 Pedestrian Hand/Man LED, Ecolux P11PAC-$, Nominal lo / watts @ 25°C, Maximum 12 watts @ 74°C 0 Count-down Pedestrian Head, Ecolux P16MAD-S, Nominal 10 watts @ 25°C, Maximum 12 watts @ 740C 69 8" Red Ball LED, Ecolux D08RA2-A4C or Dialight 433-1110- 003, Nominal 8 watts @ 25°C, Maximum 13 watts @ 74°C BIDS WILL BE OPI )FFICE OF THE CITY PURCHASING AGENT, LOCATED IN THE CITY HALL AT 200 EAST MAIN ST., EL CAJON, CALIFORNIA, AT 11:30 AM NOVEMBER 1, 2000 THE GENERAL CONDITIONS, SPECIFICATIONS, SPECIAL CONDITIONS AND/OR ~.NY OTHER ATTACHMENTS HERETO ARE AN INTEGRAL PART OF THIS BID. I'HE VENDOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR EXAMINING AND UNDERSTANDING THE T.__ER~_S AND CONDITIONS OF THIS BID. PC-~-~_~ 89:42 CITY OF EL CRJON 619 588 1198 P.05×08 Bid No. O30-01 GENERAL CONDITIONS 1. GENERAL INFORMATION - The Purchasing Agent of the City of El Cajon, California, will receive at his office at City Hail, 200 E~st Main Street at 11:30 AM on November 1, 2000 bid responses for City of El Cajon Bid No. 030-01. Bids shall be made only on this bid form, propedy executed, and enclosed in a sealed envelope bearing the name of the bidder, the bid number, bid due date, and bid title. Forms will be available and may be secured by prospective bidders at the office of the Purchasing AgenL Bids shall be written in or by typewriter. Mistakes may be crossed out and corrections inserted adjacent thereto and must be initiaJed in ink by the person signing the bid. Bids are to be verified before submission as they cannot be corrected or altered or signed after bids are opened. 2. FORM OF BID - The bid shall be made on the attached bidder's proposal form, if the form is deemed inadequate, additional information may be submitted with the proposal, via an attachment of catalogs, drawings, photographs or a leffer. Letters repeating prices and details from the City's specifications must be omitted. 3. INTERPRETATION OF BIDS - Should a bidder find discrepancies in, or omissions from the specifications, or should bidder be in doubt as to their true meaning, bidder may submit to the Purchasing Agent a written request for an interpretation thereof pdor to the bid opening. The person submitting the request shall be responsible for its prompt delivery. Any interpretation of, or change in the proposed documents will be made only by an addendum issued to each person to whom specifications have been issued, and shall become part of any contract awarded. The City will not be responsible for any other explanation or interpretations. 4. ADDENDA - Any addenda issued by the City dudng the time of bidding shall be covered in the bid and shall be made a part of the contract. 5. BID OPENINGS - Bids shall be delivered to the Purchasing Agent of the City of F_.J Cajon on or before the day and hour set for the opening of bids in the published NOTICE TO BIDDERS, Each bid shall be enclosed in a separate se~ description of th~th~ bJdj]~mber,.the name of the bidder, ~nd the date-~Td hour of'tTie bid open~[nq.~A bidder may withdraw his bid, either personally or by written request, at any time prior to the soheduled time for opening of bids, 6, LATE BIDS - Any bids received after the scheduled time of opening will be clocked in and returned unopened to the bidder. 7. NO BID - If a bid is not made, the bid form must be returned and the reason for not bidding stated; other, vise vendor's name will be removed from the bidders list. 8. AWARD OR REJECTION - The bid will be awarded to the lowest responsible bidder. The City, however, reserves the right to reiect any or ali bids, to accept or reject any one or more items of a bid, or to waive any minor irregularities or informalities Jn the bid. It is anticipated that all items will be purchased, however the City reserves the right to change quantities prior to award. The City reserves the dght to make the award to the overall Iow bidder, or split the award amongst the bidders. For the purpose of evaluating bide for multiple awards, the sum of $175.00 is considered to be the administrative cost to the City for issuing and administering each contract awarded. Individual ~.wards will be made for the items and combinations of which result in the lowest aggregate pdce to the City, including such administrative cost. 9. TERMS AND CONDITIONS ~ The bidder shall not change the wording in the attached specifications or conditions. No words or comments shall be added to the general conditions or detailed specifications. Any explanation or alternative offered shall be set forth in a letter attached to the front cover of the specifications. Alternatives which do net substantially comply with the City's specifications cannot be considered. Conditional YNCRRONi Page 1420 N. Clammont BI . Suite 200D Claremont, CA 91711 / ~;~ ~. / ~Z/~ Ph. (909} 482-1040 Fax (909) 482-1044 NOd 03-2000 09:42 CITY OF EL CA.TON 619 588 1190 P.06/08 Bid No. 030-01 bids cannot be accepted. 10. ALTERNATES - The make or brand and.grade of the article on which the bid is submitted should be stated on the bid form. If alternates are bid, literature must be submitted with bid in order for alternate to be considered. All items on which bids are submitted must in all cases be equal or better in quality and utility to those specified by the City. Determination of the acoeptabflity of any product offered shall be solely at the discretion of the City of El Cajon. 11. PAYMENT TERMS - Must be indicated by filling in blanks in upper right comer of bid form. Cash discounts of less than 20 days will be ~onsidered net. 12. FOB POINT - It is understood that the bidder agrees to deliver FOB Destination, with no freight charges to the City. All costs for packing, delivery, drayage, postage, freight, express or for a~ny other purpose are to be borne by the bidder. 13. BRAND NAMES - The use of the name of a manufacturer, or any speoial brand or make, in describing any item in the bid documents does not restrict biddem to that manufacturer or specific article. An equal of the named product will be given due consideration. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the City may impose additional restrictions in the Specifications section of these documents, 14. TA~ --No bid s.h. all include federal excise tax, inasmuch as the City is exempt and will furnish exemption certificates upon request. Bids shall not include state sales or use tax_~ The City will pay applicable state sales or use taxes. 15. SAMPLES- When requested, bidders shall submit properly marked samples of the article(s) on which bid is made to the City. Any sample submitted must be clearly marked in such a manner that'the marking is fixed, so that the identification of the sample is assured. Such marking shall state (1) name of bidder, (2} number of bid, and (3) item number. Samples, when required, must be furnished free of expense to the City, and if not destroyed by tests, will upon request be retumed at bidder's expense ' 16, INSPECTION - All items furnished shaJl be subject to the inspection of the City, and unsuitable items may be rejected. Defective items shall be made good by the vendor in a manner satisfactory to the City. 17, ASSIGNMENT - No assignment by the contractor of any contract to be entered into hereunder or of any part thereof, except of funds to be received thereunder by the contractor, will be recognized by the City unless such assignment has had the pdor written approval et the City. 18. WARRANTY - Terms Qf an_v wa..~.~artty offered b_.y_ the~manufacturer or.~dder shall be included with the bid. 19. TIMELY DELIVERY - -I~me is of the essence, and the purchase order is subject to termination [or failure to deliver on time. The acceptance by buyer of late performa, nce with or without objection or reservation shall not waive the right to claim damage fqr such breach nor constitute a waiver of the requirements for the timely performance of any obligation remaining to be performed by the vendor. ..._ 20. DAMAGES - If delivery does not occur on schedule it is understood that the City will suffer damage. It being impractical and infeasible to determine the amount of actual damage, it is agreed that the contractor' shalt pay to the City the sum of one hundred ($'J00.00) dollars per day for each and every calendar day's delay in finishing the contract. 21. TERMINATION FOR DEFAULT ~ The City may, by written notice of dei'aLilt to .the vendor, terminate any 1420 N, Clarmn0at Blvd, SuIle 200D Page Clarem0nt, CA 91711 5 Ph. (909) 482-1040 Fax (90g) 482-1044 NOU-05-2000 09:4~ CITY OF EL CAJON 619 588 1190 P.07/08 Bid No. 030-01 resulting order in whole or in part should the vendor fall to make satisfactory progress, fail to deliver within time specified therein or fail to deliver in strict conformance to specifications and requirements set forth therein. In the event of such termination, the City reserves the right to purchase or obtain the supplies or services elsewhere, and the defaulting vendor shall be liable for the difference between the prices set forth in the terminated order and the actual cost thereof to the City. The pteva~ng market price shall be considered the fair repurchase price. If, alter notice of termination of this contract under the provisiorls of this clause, it is determined for any reason that the Contractor was not in default under the provisions of this clause, tl~e rights and obligations of the parties shall be the same as if the notice of termination had been issued pursuant to the Termination for Convenience ciause. The rights and remedies of City provided in this article shaJ[ not be exclusive and are in addition to any other rights and remedies provided by law or under resulting order_ 22. TERMINATION FOR CONVENIENCE - The City may, by written notice stating the extent and effective date, terminate any resulting order for convenience in whole or in part, at any time. The City shall pay the vendor as full compensation for performance until such termination the unit or pro rate price for the delivered and accepted portion, and a reasonable amount, as costs of termination, not othen~sa recoverabte from other sources by the vendor as approved by the City, with respect to the undalivered or ur~accepted po~on of the order, provided compensation hereunder shall in no event exceed the total price. In no event shall the City be liable for any loss of profits on the resulting order or portion thereof so terminated. The rights and remedies of City provided in this article shall not be exclusive and are in addition to any other rights and remedies provided by taw or under resulting order. 23. FISCAL YEAR - Obligation for payment of any contract beyond the current fiscal year end is contingent upon the availability of funding from which payment can be made. No legal liability shall arise for payment beyond June 30 of the calendar year unless funds are made available for such performance. 24. AFFIRMATIVE ACTION - The City of El Cajon Affirmative Action Plan requires any vendor who receives business from the City in excess of $10,000.00 to vedty adherence to Affirmative Action guidelines as set forth in Executive Order 11246. To comply, each vendor awarded a contract by the-City of El Cajon shall agree, and by signing and submitting a proposal for this contract dges certify, to adhere to said guidelines. 25. GOVERNING LAW - This contract shall be construed and interpreted according to the laws of the State of California. Questions relating to this bid should be directed to the Purchasing Agent, City of I=1Cajon, 200 E. Main Street, El Cajon, CA 92020. SYNCHRONEX 1420 N. Claremont Blvd. ulte 20013 Page Clamm0nt, CA 91711 /, ph, (909) 482-1040 Fax (909) 482-1044 NOU-05-2000 09:4~ CITY OF EL CRJON 619 588 1190 P.08/08 Bid No. 030-01 SPECIAL cONDITIONS NOTE_: In the event that anything in these Special Conditions is in conflict with a requirement of the General Conditions, the Special Condition shall supersede. PARTICIPATING AGENCIES - This is a cooperative bid. The following agencies ate participating in this bid, and the estimated quantifies shown in the bid specifications reflect the anticipated requirements for all the named agencies. City of El Cajon City of La Mesa City of Lemon Grove Each participating agency shall be responsible for ordering, receiving, inspecting, accepting, and paying tot all orders placed. The terms set forth in this bid shall be applicable to all participating agencies. QUANTITIES - The quantifies shown as estimated requirements represent participating agencies' best estimate of total projected requirements. More or less may be ordered as agencies' needs dictate. Items listed with "0" quantity are items which are normally used, but no immediate quantity requirement could be established. Bids should be submitted on those items. PUBLli~ AGENCY CLAUSE - It is intended that any other public agency (i.e., city, county, district, public authority, public agency, municipality, or other political subdivision of Callfomia) located in the State of California shall have an option to participate in any award mede as a result of this solicitation. The City of El Cajon shall incur no financial responsibility in connection with orders issued by another public agency. The public agency shall accept sole responsibility for placing orders or making payments to the vendor. Option shall not be eov~idered in bid evaluation. State whether option is granted. COMPLIANCE - Manufacturer shall certify compliance with applicable standards, including ITE VTCSH Part 2, and the Proposed CalTrans Standard. .... ~-~ ~-~aa ~z I r ur ~AmlEE Aamin Svcs 619 258 9113 p.~ o RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OP THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROPRIATING $88,000.00 FROM THE UNAPPROPRIATED BALANCE OF THE GAS TAX FUND AND $337,031.50 IN UNANTICIPATED REVENUE FROM THE SDG&E INCENTIVE PROGRA34TO A NEW CIP - TRAFFIC SIGNAL LAMP REPLACEMENT PROGRAM (TP-291); APPROVING A GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT WITH SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY FOR. THE REPLACEMENT OF INCANDESCENT LAMPS TO LIGHT EMITTING DIODE (L.E.D.) LAMPS; AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO SIGN THE AGREEMENT AND AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASING AGENT TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT WITH SYNCHRONEX FOR THE PURCHASE OF TRAFFIC SIGNAL L.E.D. LAMPS WHEREAS, the City is in a position to save approximately $74,000.00 per year in energy costs by switching the green traffic signal indication lamps from incandescent lamps to light emitting diode (L.E.D.) lamps; and WHEREAS, San Diego Gas & Electric Company has an incentive program that offers up to $175.00 rebate per light; and WHEREAS, this proposed project must be completed by June 30, 2001 in order to receive the incentive; and WHEREAS, this project is part of the City's overall Carbon Dioxide Reduction and Energy Conservation Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby appropriate $88,000.00 from the unappropriated balance of the Gas Tax Fund and $337,031.50 in unanticipated revenue from the SDG&E Incentive Program to a new CIP - Traffic Signal Lamp Replacement Program (TF-291). BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby approve a Governmental Agency Participation Agreement with San Diego Gas & Electric Company for the replacement of incandescent lamps to light emitting diode (L.E.D.) lamps, a copy of which shall be kept on file in the office of the City Clerk. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor of the City of Chula Vista is hereby authorized to sign the Governmental Agency Participation Agreement on behalf of the City of Chula Vista. BE IT PURTHER RESOLVED that the Purchasing Agent is ~ hereby authorized to enter into a contract with Synchronex for the ~l purchase of traffic signal L.E.D. lamps. Presented by Approved as to form by John P. Lippitt ~o~n M. K~hety Director of Public Works city Attorney [H:\H OMELATTORN EY~RESO\ Traffic Signal Lamp Replacement Program {November 30, 2000 (8: 5am)] COUNCI]L AGENDA STATEMENT Item Meeting Date 12/05/2000 ITEM TITLE: Resolution Awarding Purchase Agreement to Ken Grody Ford in the mount of $129,282.16 for eight intermediate sedans through a cooperative purchase with the City of San Die, go. ./ SUBMITTED BY: Director ofPublic Works/~ Deputy City Manager / REVIEWED BY: City Manager ~x(~¢, (4/5ths Vote: Yes No X ) The City of Chula Vista is participating in a current City of San Diego bid from Ken Grody Ford to purchase eight intermediate sedans. The City of Chula Vista Municipal Code Section 2.56.140 and Council Resolution No. 6132 authorize the Purchasing Agent to participate in cooperative bids with other government agencies for the purchase of materials of common usage. The City of San Diego pubhcly advertised the bid as required by state law. In addition, one local dealer, Fuller Ford, was sent a bid package. At City staWs request, People's Chew,qet will now be added to the mailing list for future bids. None of the dealerships from the City of Chuta Vista were awarded the bid. RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council award Purchase Agreement for eight intermediate sedans to Ken Grody Ford. BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Not Applicable DISCUSSION: The FY 2000-01 Equipment Replacement Budget provides for the replacement of four intermediate sedans as part of their normal retirement cycle for the following departments/sections: Building Inspection, Central Garage (pool vehicle), Police Patrol (Admin), and Police Investigation (Admin). In addition, the Police Department Budget provides for the addition of four intermediate sedans due to additional staffing commensurate with population increases. FISCAL IMPACT: Thc net total cost including taxes is $129,282.16. Sufficient funds are available in the Equipment Replacement Budget ($67,760) and thc Police Department Budget ($88,926) for this purchase. This represents a combined savings of $27,403.24 in the Equipment Replacement Budget ($3,118.24) and in the Police Department Budget ($24,285). h:~sharedLPublicWorksOperations~A 113 SedansFY01 File No: 1320-DF lq -/ RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AWARDING A PURCHASE AGREEMENT TO KEN GRODY FORD IN THE AMOUNT OF $129,282.16 FOR EIGHT INTERMEDIATE SEDANS THROUGH A COOPERATIVE PURCHASE WITH THE CITY OF SAN DIEGO WHEREAS, Chula. Vista Municipal Code Section 2.56.140 and Council Resolution No. 6132 authorize the Purchasing Agent to participate in cooperative bids with other governmental agencies for the purchase of materials of common usage; and WHEREAS, the City of Chula Vista is participating in a current city of San Diego bid from Ken Grody Ford to purchase eight intermediate sedans. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the city of Chula Vista does hereby award a Purchase Agreement to Ken Grody Ford to purchase eight intermediate sedans through a cooperative purchase with the City of San Diego for a net total cost, including taxes, of $129,282.16. Presented by Approved as to form by Director of Public Works yity Attorney [H %HOME~ATTORNEY%RESOt intermediate sedan bid (November 29, 2000 (2: 4pm)] 16 COt C L AGE A STATE r Item t~ Meeting Date 12/05/00 ITEM TITLE: Resolution Approving One-Year Extension of the Agreement Between the City of Chula Vista and Law Crandall, a Division of Law Engineering. and Environmental Services, Inc. for Material Testing and Geotechinca[ Consulting Services and Increasing the Maximnm Compensation for the Agreement to $750,000 / SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public Works,~,s~)~/ REVIEWED BY: City Manager ~50~ (4/5ths Vote: Yes No X ) On December 15, 1998, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 19296 approving a two-year agreement with Law Crandall to provide materials testing and geotechnical engineering consulting services from January 1, 1999 to December 31, 2000. On March 21, 2000, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2000-090 approving an increase in the maximum compensation for said services from $200,000 to $400,000 through December 31, 2000. Said agreement includes a provision giving the City the option to extend the original two-year agreement for one additional year from January 1, 2001 to December 31, 2001 upon mutual agreement between the City and the Consultant. Staff recommends that the City exercise said option based upon Law Crandall's satisfactory performance. RECOMMENDATION: That City Council adopt the resolution approving a one-year extension of the agreement between the City of Chula Vista and Law Crandall, a Division of Law Engineering and Environmental Services, Inc. for material testing and geotectmical consulting services and increasing the maximum compensation for the agreement to $750,000 BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable. DISCUSSION: The construction of public works infrastructure improvements requires the use of quality materials to assure their longevity and usefulness. In order to verify that materials used in City construction projects meet the City's specifications, we obtain certifications from manufacturers and material suppliers and require supplemental testing on a project-by-project basis. The City does not have the staff or the equipment to perform this highly specialized material and soil testing in-house and it is more practical and feasible to hire a consultant on an as-needed, on- call basis. The services currently provided by Law Crandall have been performed on a contract Page 2, Item Meeting Date 12/05/00 basis by various consultants for the last ten years and have increased the City's ability to assure that quality materials are used in capital improvement projects. The agreement with Law Crandall includes a provision giving the City the option to extend the original two-year agreement for one additional year from January 1, 2001 to December 31, 2001 upon mutual agreement between the City and the Consultant. Law Crandall has expressed a desire to extend the agreement in accordance with said provision. Although its labor costs have increased since the agreement first went into effect on January 1, 1999, Law Crandall has agreed to extend the original unit rates and unit costs, except that the rate for Special Inspection will be reduced from $50 to $45 per hour Staff has been satisfied with Law Crandall's services and recommends approval of a one-year extension to the existing agreement through December 31, 2001 and increasing the maximum compensation for the agreement to $750,000, based upon projected geotechnical and consultant expenditures for approved Capital Improvement Program projects. To date, Law Crandall has submitted invoices of approximately $300,000 for its services since January 199C~. In early 2001, the City will commence the FY 2000-01 overlay program. Material testing costs for the overlay project alone is expected to total approximately $200,000. In addition, material testing and geotechnical consulting costs for other projects planned for design and construction through December 31, 2001 will total between $150,000 and $250,000. Therefore, total compensation for the entire three years of the agreement is expected to be between $650,000 and $750,000. FISCAL IMPACT: The estimated maximum cost of the exist'mg agreement with Law Crandall is $750,000 through December 31, 2001. Funding for material testing and geotechnical consulting services are obtained from approved Capital Improvement Program (CIP) funds, and, to a smaller degree, from developer fees. There will be no expense to the City's General Fund. /kpa Attachments: Resolution No. 19296 - Approving Law Crandall Agreement Resolution No. 2000-090 - Approving Increase in the Maximum Compensation for the Agreement with Law Crandall from $200,000 to $400,000 H:\HOME\ENGINEER\Law Crandall Extension. 113.doc 11/03/2000 4:46 PM RESOLUTION NO. 19296 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING AN AGREEMENT BEI~VEEN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND LAW CRANDALL, A DIVISION OF LAW ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC. FOR MATERIALS TESTING AND GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTING SERVICES AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY WHEREAS, the construction of public works infrastructure improvements requires the use of quality materials to assure their longevity and usefulness; and WHEREAS, to assure that the City continues to obtain quality improvements, the City needs to obtain materials testing and geotechnical engineering services for projects built with both public and private funds; and WHEREAS, these services will provide the City's Public Works Inspectors with the ability to assure that the materials supplied to construct the City's infrastructure meet the project's specifications; and WHEREAS staff has completed the Request for Proposal {RFP) and consultant selection processes and has negotiated the proposed contract with'Law Crandall to provide material testing services from January 1, 1999 to December 31, 2000, with an option to extend the agreement for an additional year. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby approve an Agreement, a copy of which is on file in the office of the City Clerk, known as Document Number CO98-253, between the City of Chula Vista and Law Crandall, a Division of Law Engineering and Environmental Services, Inc., for Materials Testing and Geotechnicai Consulting Services. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor is hereby authorized and directed to execute said Agreement for and on behalf of the City. Presented by Approved as to form by Resolution 19296 Page 2 PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista, California, this 15'~ day of December, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers: Davis, Moot. Padilla, Salas and Horton NAYS: Councilmembers: None ABSENT: Councilmembers: None ABSTAIN: Councilmembers: None Shirley HoJ~on, Mayor ATTEST: Beverly/~. Authelet, City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO ) CITY OF CHULA VISTA ) I, Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk of Chula Vista. California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 19296 duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council at a regular meeting of the Chula Vista City Council held on the 8'h day of December. 1998. Executed this 15'~ day of December, 1998. RESOLUTION NO. 2000-090 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA INCREASING THE MAXIMUM COMPENSATION FOR THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND LAW CRANDALL, A DIVISION OF LAW ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC., FOR MATERIALS TESTING AND GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTING SERVICES FROM $200,000 TO $400,000 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2000 WHEREAS, on December 15, 1998, the City Council approved Resolution No. 19296 approving a two-year agreement with LAW Crandall to provide materials testing and geotechnical engineering consulting services from January 1, 1999 to December 31, 2000; and WHEREAS, at the tkne said agreement was approved, it was anticipated that the cost for LAW Crandall's services for the two years would be about $200,000; and WHEREAS, unanticipated costs totaling approximately $85,000 were incurred for inspection and testing services performed in 1999 and invoices for services provided by LAW Crandall now total $191,000; and WHEREAS, on January 11, 2000, the City Council, by Resolution No. 2000-014, approved the use of $5 million in Federal STP funds to expedite the City's Overlay Program; and WHEREAS, staffestimates that the materials testing costs required for said overlay will total approximately $200,000 in Fiscal Year 2000-2001, of which it is anticipated that approximately $120,000 will be expended through December 31, 2000; and WHEREAS, an estimated $80,000 is also required for other C1P projects scheduled to be constructed through December 31, 2000, therefore, it necessary to increase the maximum compensation under the existing agreement with Law Crandall fi.om $200,000 to $400,000. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby increase the maximum compensation for the Agreemant between the City of Chula Vista and Law Crandall, a division of LAW Engineering and Environmental Services, Inc. for Materials Testing and Geotechnical Services from $200,000 to $400,000 through December 31, 2000. Presented by Approved as to form by _ Jo~tn P. Lippitff ~ Public Works Director ~/~'ity Attorney Resolution 2000-090 Page 2 PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista, California, this 21st day of March, 2000, by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers: Davis, Moot, Salas, and Horton NAYS: Councilmembers: None ABSENT: Councilmembers: None ABSTAIN: Councilmembers: Padilla ATTEST: sh'~°n, Mayor ) ~ Susan Bigelow, City Clerk 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. 2000-090 was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council at a regular meeting of the Chula Vista City Council held on the 21~ day of March, 2000. Executed this 21 s~ day of March, 2000. Susan Big¢low, City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING ONE-YEAR EXTENSION OF THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND LAW CRANDALL, A DIVISION OF LAW ENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC., FOR MATERIALS TESTING AND GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTING SERVICES FROM AArD INCREASING THE MAXIMUM COMPENSATION FOR THE AGREEMENT TO $750,000 WHEREAS, on December 15, 1998, the city Council approved Resolution No. 19296 approving a two-year agreement with Law Crandall to provide materials testing and geotechnical engineering consulting services from January 1, 1999 to December 31, 2000; and WHEREAS, on March 21, 2000, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2000-090 approving an increase in the maximum compensation for said services from $200,000 to $400,000 through December 31, 2000; and WHEREAS, said agreement includes a provision giving the City the option to extend the original two-year agreement for one additional year from January 1, 2001 to December 31, 2001 upon mutual agreement between the City and the Consultant; and WHEREAS, staff recommends that the city exercise said option based upon Law Crandall's satisfactory performance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby approve a one-year extension of the Agreement between the City of Chula Vista and Law Crandall, a Division of Law Engineering and Environmental Services, Inc. for Materials Testing and Geotechnical Services. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the maximum compensation for the Agreement is hereby increased from $400,000 to $750,000. Presented by Approved as to form by Director of Public Works ,'C~y Attorney H:\home\attorney\reso\law crandallextension COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item /~ Meeting Date 12/5/00 ITEM TITLE: Resolution Accepting bids, waiving inconsequential bid deviation, awarding conlxact for the "Parkway Pool Re-Surfacing / Re-Lamping, in the City of Chula Vista, CA (PR-223)" project to Mission Pools of Escondido in the mount of $407,599.00, awarding Additive Alternate (Section 01030) to Mission Pools of Escondido in the amount of $28,775.00, and authorizing the City Manager to execute said contract SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public Work~ ~// REVIEV~ED BY: City Manager ~,s9 (4/5ths Vote: Yes __ No X ) At 2:00 p.m. on Tuesday, November 28, 2000, the Director of Public Works received sealed bids for the "Parkway Pool Re-Surfacing / Re-Lamping, in the City of Chula Vista, CA (PR-223)" project. This project provides for renovation work within and adjacent to the existing swkanfing pool located at the Parkway Gymnasium site. Parkway Gymnasimn is located at the northeast quadrant of the Fourth Avenue and Park Way intersection in the City of Chula Vista, California. The renovation work to be done generally consists of demolition, installation of new construction, concrete work required for decks and walkways, finish work (plaster and tile) as required for interior of swimming pool, installation of luminaries, some cimulation piping and surge pit. The work also includes all labor, material, equipment, transportation, protection and restoration of existing improvements, and all appurtenances and other work necessary for completion of the project. RECOMMENDATION: That Council accept bids, waive inconsequential bid deviation, award the contract for the "Parkway Pool Re-Surfacing / Re-Lamping, in the City of Chula Vista, CA (PR-223)" project to Mission Pools of Escondido in the amount of $407,599.00, award Additive Alternate (Section 01030) in the amount of $28,775.00 to same, and authorize the City Manager to execute said contract. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable. DISCUSSION: General The proposed project provides for renovations within and adjacent to the swimming pool located at the Parkway Gymnasium site. Parkway Gymnasium is located at the northeast quadrant of the Fourth Avenue and Park Way intersection in the City of Chula Vista, California. In 1997-98, a professional aquatic safety audit was undertaken for the subject swimming pool. The proposed scope of work for this project is based on the recommendations provided from this safety audit. After project construction, the majority of the safety audit recommendations will be satisfied. Page 2, Item Meeting Date 12/5/0~ Originally, the proposed scope of work for the project did not include the replacement of the pool decking; the pool deck replacement was to be done at a later time and as part ora different project, CIP Project No. PR-226. However, during the preparation of the plans and specifications for resurfacing the pool and replacing the underwater lighting, it became apparent that many saw cuts to the deck would be necessary to rewire and replace underwater lighting. These deck cuts would be expensive and upon recommendation from consultant, it was determined to include the deck replacement as part of this project. For cost savings reasons, the City will be replacing the pool decking as part of this project in lieu of a separate project. The services of Arch Pac, Inc. were retained for the preparation of the project's plans and technical specifications. City staff prepared the contract documents and advertised the project. Bidding Process A pre-bid meeting for the project was held on November 17, 2000 to answer any questions the contractors had in an effort to receive the most competitive bids possible. Staff received and opened bids for the project on November 28, 2000. Bids were received from two (2) contractors to perform the work as follows (listed in order of base bid amount): Contractor Base Bid Amount Additive Alternate Base Bid and Additive (Section 01030) Alternate Total 1. Mission Pools of Escondido $407,599.00 $28,775.00 $436,374.00 2. South Coast Pool Plastering $409,000.00 $31,200.00 $440,200.00 The lowest base bid, submitted by Mission Pools of Escondido, is above the architect's estimate of $360,000.00 by $47,599.00 or 13.2%. Due to the specialized knowledge and experience required to perform the work for this project and the aggressive time schedule for construction completion, staff feels that the bid received is satisfactory. It is staff's experience that these types of projects draw a low number of bid proposals. Further, the heightened increase in construction activity in this region accounts for the absence of other bid proposals for a project of this type. Engineering staff checked three references provided by Mission Pools of Escondido. The references were verified and their work has been satisfactory. Their Contractor's License No. 326760 is clear and current. Staff, therefore, recommends awarding the contract to Mission Pools of Escondido in the an~ount of $407,599.00. One (1) bid alternative was included in the bid proposal. The purpose of the bid alternative was to allow the Contractor to bid on additional work specified in the plans and to give the City flexibility in the construction of the project if the budget allowed. The additive alternative consists of the installation of deck lights, standards and fixtures around the swimming pool area. Staff recommends Page 3, Item Meeting Date 12/5/00 accepting and awarding the Additive Alternate (Section 01030) of Mission Pools of Escondido at a cost of $28,775.00 in addition to the total contract base bid price. Inconsequential Bid Deviation At the bid opening, it was deterufined that the bid package/~om Mission Pools of Escondido did not contain the "Bidder's Minority and Women Business Enterprise Information" as required in the bid Proposal Requirements and Conditions. The aforementioned document was subsequently completed and submitted to the City the same day of the bid opening after contact was made by the City to the contractor. It was determined that the document missing from the bid package of Mission Pools of Escondido was not a critical item needed at the time of bid opening as it did not impact the dollar amount or provide the bidder with an unfair advantage and that their bid should be accepted. Staff, therefore, recommends that Council waive the minor and inconsequential bid deficiency and award the contract to Mission Pools of Escondido. Contract Execution In order to expedite the contract schedule for the project, City staff recommends that Council authorize the City Manager to execute the contract. By allowing the City Manager to execute the contract, project construction can begin almost immediately thereafter. Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Goal The bid documents set forth participation requirements per Federal Regulation for meeting the disadvantaged and women-owned business goals. Judith Atwood, Community Development Specialist with City of Chula Vista, has reviewed the bid documents submitted by the two bidders. Her conclusion is that the lowest bidder, Mission Pools of Escondido, meets the Minority and Women Business Enterprise (MBE/WBE) goals (see Attachment "A"). Staff also reviewed the contractor's eligibility status with regard to federal procurement programs. Mission Pools of Escondido is not listed as excluded from Federal Procurement Programs (list of parties excluded from Federal procurement of non-procurement programs as of April 5, 1998). Disclosure Statement Attachment "B" is a copy of the contractor's Disclosure Statement. Environmental Status The City's Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the work involved in this project and has determined that the project is exe~npt under Section 15301, Class l(d) of the California Environmental Quality Act (Existing Facilities). Page 4, Item Meeting Date 12/5/00 Prevailing Wage Statement The funding for this project is through State Grant, Community Development Block Grant (CDBO), Residential Construction Funds and Park Acquisition and Development (PAD) fees. Based on current project funding guidelines, the Contractor is obligated to meet the prevailing wage requirements which were included as part of the bid documents for this project. Prevailing wage scales are those determined by the Federal Department of Labor. Fiscal Impact FUNDS REQUIRED FOR CONSTRUCTION A. Contract Amount (Mission Pools of Escondido) $407,599.00 B. Additive Alternate (Section 01030) $28,775.00 C. Contingencies (approximately 20%) $87,000.00 D. Staff Costs (Design, Inspection, Administration) $10,000.00 TOTAL FUNDS REQUIRED FOR CONSTRUCTION $533,374.00 FUNDS AVAILABLE FOR CONSTRUCTION A. Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) $198,831.00 B. Park Acquisition and Development (PAD) fees $ 137,817.00 C, State Grant $151,690.00 D. Residential Construction Fund $45,036.00 TOTAL FUNDS AVAILABLE FOR CONSTRUCTION $533,374.00 The above action of awarding the contract will authorize a total expenditm'e of $533,374.00 from the budgeted CIP project. It should be noted that various fund appropriations and transfers were performed, per Resolution No. 2000-379 (see Attachment "C'), in order to allocate the necessary funds required for completion of this project. After construction, the existing/routine City maintenance will be reduced. Attachments: A - Letter from Judith Atwood B - Contractor's Disclosure Statement C - Resolution No. 2000-379 H:\HOME\ENGINEER\AGENDA\PR223A I 13.get.doc Memo To: Gregory Tschemh, Assistant Engineer, Land Development From: Judith Atwood, Senior Community Development Specialist Date: 11/30/00 Re: MBE Review of PR 223 I have reviewed the lowest bid estimate from Mission Pools of Escondido and have determined that, as the pdme contractor, Mission Pools of Escondido has made a "good faith" effort to meet the MBE goals. In a recent telephone conversation with Mission Pools of Escondido, it was communicated to me that due to the limited time to submit bid packages, Mission Pools of Escondido was unable to advertise in the trade journals. In an attempt to procure MBE subcontractors, Mission Pools of Escondido solicited MBE contractors via the telephone. This process is deemed acceptable and the project can proceed as scheduled. If you should have any questions regarding this memorandum, please call me at extension 5036. THE CITY OF ~ VISTA DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Pursuant to Council Policy 10 I-01, prior to any action upon matters which will require discretionary action by the Council, Planning Commission and all other official bodies of the City, a statement of disclosure of certain ownership or financial interests, payments, or campaign contributions for a City of Chula Vista election must be filed. Thc following information must be disclosed: 1. List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the property that is the subject of the application or the cone-act, e.g., owner, applicant, contractor, subcon~-actor, material supplier. ~.ABruce Dunn President Jeffery G. Dunn Executive Vice President William Jo Picullel Secretary 2. If any person* identified pursuant to (1) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names of all individuals with a $1000 investment in the business (corporation/partnership) entity. G. Bruce Dunn President Jeffery G. Dunn Executive Vice President William J. Picullel Secretary 3. If any person* identified pursuant to ( 1 ) above is a non-profit organization or trust, list the names of any person serving as director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary or trustor &the trust. N/A 4. Please identify every person, including any agents, employees, consultants, or independent contractors you have assigned to represent you before the City in this matter. Jay Worsham Sr. Project Manager 46 H:\HOME\ENGINEER\ADMIASCONTRACT~R223.DOC 5. Has any person* associated with this contract had any financial dealings with an official** of the City of Chula Vista as it relates to this contract within the past 12 months? Yes No X If Yes, briefly describe the nature of the financial interest the official** may have in this contract. 6. Have you made a contribution of more than $250 within the past twelve (12) months to a current member of the Chula Vista City Council? Yes No X If Yes, which Council member? 7. Have you or any member of your governing board (i.e. Corporate Board of Directors/Executives, non-profit Board of Directors made contributions totaling more than $1,000 over the past four (4) years to a current member of the Chula Vista City Council? Yes No X If Yes, which Council member? 8. Have you provided more than $300 (or an item of equivalent value) to an official** of the City of Chula Vista in the past twelve (12) months? (This includes being a source of income, money to retire a legal debt, gift, loan, etc.) Yes No _X __ If Yes, which official** and what was the nature of item provided? Date:ll/27[O0 {/~ '~'---'~tmc~oor/A licant ? , Sr. project Mgr. Print or type name of Contractor/Applicant * Person is defined as: any individual, firm, co-partnership, joint venture, association, social club, fraternal organization, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate, any other county, city, municipality, district, or other political subdivision, -or any other group or combination acting as a unit. ** Official includes, but is not limited to: Mayor, Council member, Planning Commissioner, Member of a board, commission, or committee of the City, employee, or staffmembers. 47 H:\HOME~ENGINEER~ADMIN~CONTRACT~PR223.DOC -/ RESOLUTION NO. 2000-379 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AMENDING THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (Cna) BUDGET BY APPROPRIATING $65,000 FROM AVAILABLE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDS (CDBG) AND TRANSFERRING $177,957 FROM PARK ACQUISITION AND DEVELOPMENT (PAD) FUNDS PREVIOUSLY APPROPRIATED FOR CIP PROJECTS PR213, PR224, PR226, AND PR227 FOR THE RENOVATION OF THE PARKWAY POOL Vq31EREAS, as part of the Cna Parkway Pool Renovation Project, Council approved funds for the renovation of Parkway Pool in June, 2000; and WHEREAS, the plans have been finalized and have exeeecled the original budget by $242,957; and WHEREAS, in order to bring the swimming pool up to standards, the decking and underwater lighting need to be replaced; and WHEREAS, CIP PR223 was approved for a total of $392,021 fi.om the following: CDBG funds - $217,431; PAD funds - $7,500; PR226 transfer - $15,400; and a State C-rant - $151,690; and WHEREAS, a current estimate of $634,978 has been received identifying an additional $242,957 as needed to complete the project; and WHEREAS, a window of opportunity exists between December 1, 2000 and March 1, 2001, when the pool is closed, for completion of this project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby amend the cna budget by appropriating $65,000 from the available CDBG funds and transferring $177,957 fi.om PAD funds previously appropriated for CB? Projects PR213, PR224, PR226 and PR227 for the renovation of Parkway Pool. Presented by Approved as to form by Andy CamI~ell Jo3~. Kaheny ~ Parks and Recreation Director ~ Attomey Resolution 2000-379 Page 2 PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista, California, this 24~ day of October, 2000, by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers: Davis, Moot, Padilla, Salas, and Horton NAYS: Councilmembers: None ABSENT: Couneilmembers: None Shirley Horto~{, IV~ayor ' ATTEST: Susan Bigelow, City 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. 2000-379 was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council at a regular meeting of the Chula Vista City Council held on the 24t~ day of October, 2000. Executed this 24'h day of October, 2000. Susan Bigelow, City Clerl~' RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING BIDS, WAIVING INCONSEQUENTIAL BID DEVIATION, AWARDING CONTRACT FOR THE ~'PARKWAY POOL RE-SURFACING/ REL~MPING, IN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CA. (PR-223)" PROJECT TO MISSION POLS OF ESCONDIDO IN THE AMOUNT OF $407,599.00, AWARDING ALTEP~NATE (~ECTION 01030) TO MISSION POOLS OF ESCONDIDO IN THE D. MOUNT OF $28,775.00 D_ND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE SAID CONTRACT WHEREAS, at 2:00 p.m. on Tuesday, November 28, 2000, the Director of Public Works received the following two sealed bids for the "Parkway Pool Re-Surfacing/Re-Lamping, in the City of Chula Vista, CA (PR-223)" project: Contractor -- Rase Bid Amount Additive Alternate Base Bid and Additive (Section 01030) ~ternate Total ! 1. Mission Pools of ~407,599.00 $28,775.00 $436,374.00 -- : Escondido 2. South Coast Pool Plastering $409,000.00 $31,200.00 $440,200.00 WHEREAS, the lowest base bid, submitted by Mission Pools of Escondido, is above the architect's estimate of $360,000.00 by $47,599.00 or 13.2%; and WHEREAS, due to the specialized knowledge and experience required to perform the work for this project and the aggressive time schedule for construction completion, staff feels that the bid received is satisfactory; and WHEREAS, Engineering staf~ checked the references provided by Mission Pools of Escondido and their work has been satisfactory, therefore, staff, recommends awarding the contract to Mission Pools of Escondido in the amount of $407,599.00; and WHEREAS, one (1) bid alternative was included in the bid proposal in order to allow the Contractor to bid on additional work specified in the plans and to give the City flexibility in the construction of the project if the budget allowed; and WHEREAS, the additive alternative consists of the installation of deck lights, standards and fixtures around the swimming pool area and staff recommends accepting and awarding the Additive Alternate (Section 01030) of Mission Pools of Escondido at a cost of $28,775.00 in addition to the total contract base bid price; and WHEREAS, it was determined that the bid package from Mission Pools of Escondido did not contain the ~Bidder's Minority and Women Business Enterprise Information" as required in the bid Proposal Requirements and Conditions, however, the aforementioned document was subsequently completed and submitted to the City the same day of the bid opening after contact was made by the City to the contractor; and WHEREAS, it was determined that the document missing from the bid package of Mission Pools of Escondido was not a critical item needed at the time of bid opening as it did not impact the dollar amount or provide the bidder with an unfair advantage and that their bid should be accepted; and WHEREAS, staff, therefore, recommends that Council waive the minor and inconsequential bid deficiency and award the contract to Mission Pools of Escondido; and WHEREAS, in order to expedite the contract schedule for the project, City staff recommends that Council authorize the City Manager to execute the contract so that project construction can begin almost immediately thereafter; and WHEREAS, the bid documents set forth participation requirements per Federal Regulation for meeting the disadvantaged and women-owned business goals and the lowest bidder, Mission Pools of Escondido, meets the Minority and Women Business Enterprise (MBE/WBE) goals; and WHEREAS, staff also reviewed the contractor's eligibility status with regard to federal procurement programs and Mission Pools of Escondido is not listed as excluded from Federal Procurement Programs (list of parties excluded from Federal procurement of non-procurement programs as of April 5, 1998); and WHEREAS, the city's Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the work involved in this project and has determined that the project is exempt under Section 15301, Class lc of the California Environmental Quality Act (Minor Alterations of Existing Public Improvements or Public Structures); and WHEREAS, the funding for this project is through State Grant, Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), Residential Construction Funds and Park Acquisition and Development (PAD) fees and based on current project funding guidelines, the Contractor is obligated to meet the prevailing wage requirements which were included as part of the bid documents for this project Prevailing wage scales are those determined by the Federal Department of Labor. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby accept bids, waive inconsequen- tial deviation, award contract for the ~Parkway Pool Re- Surfacing/Relamping in the City of Chula vista, Ca. (PR-223)" to Mission Pools of Escondido in the amount of $407,599.00, and award Additive Alternate (Section 01030) in the amount of $28,775.00 to same. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the city Manager is hereby authorized to execute said contract on behalf of the City of Chula Vista. Presented by Approved as to form by · JlOt~y ~. Kahen~ John P Lippitt Director of Public Works C Attorney [H:/HOME~A~DORN EY\RESO/Parkway Pool Resurfacing bid (November 29, 2000 (4:50pm)] COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item Meeting Date 12/05/00 ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing Consideration of establishing Utility Underground District No. 132 along Bonita Road from the eastern City limits to Otay Lakes Road and on Otay Lakes Road from Bonita Road to Camino del Cerro Grande/Surrey Drive Resolution Establishing Utility Underground District No. 132 along Bonita Road from the eastern City limits to Otay Lakes Road and on Otay Lakes Road from Bonita Road to Camino del Cerro Grande/Surrey Drive and authorizing the expenditure of Utility Allocation Funds to subsidize private service lateral conversion SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public Works/~ REVIEWED BY: City Manager ~¢ ~' (4/5ths Vote: Yes No X ) On October 24, 2000, by Resolution No. 2000-378, the City Council ordered a Public Hearing to be held on December 5, 2000 to determine whether the public health, safety or general welfare requires the formation of a utility underground district along Bonita Road from the eastern City limits to Otay Lakes Road and on Otay Lakes Road from Bonita Road to Camino del Cerro Grande/Surrey Drive. The purpose of forming the district is to require the utility companies to underground all overhead lines and to remove all existing wooden utility poles within the proposed district. The proposed utility undergrounding district is about 4,350 feet long along Otay Lakes Road and 800 feet along Bonita Road and will be mostly high voltage (65KV) transmission line conversion. This project will cost approximately $2,730,000 for both streets ($2,250,000 for Otay Lakes Road and $480,000 for Bonita Road). SDG&E's allocation funds (Rule 20-A) will be used to cover the cost of the project including reimbursements to affected property owner(s) for their respective underground conversion cost. RECOMMENDATION: That Council: 1. Conduct a Public Hearing on the formation of Utility Underground District No. 132; 2. Approve a resolution forming the district and authorizing the use of approximately $2,730,000 in utility allocation funds to cover the cost of pole removal, undergrounding overhead facilities, and private property conversion reimbursements. BOARD COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable DISCUSSION: The Underground Utility Advisory Committee (UUAC) representative agreed to propose to the City Council the formation of a utility undergrounding district for the conversion of overhead Page 2, Item Meeting Date 12/05/00 utilities along Bonita Road fi.om the eastern City limits to Otay Lakes Road and on Otay Lakes Road from Bonita Road to just east of Carnino del Cerro Grande/Surrey Drive (See Exhibit "A'). Undergrounding of overhead utilities at Bonita Road west of Otay Lakes Road has been completed whereas two phases of undergrounding will be needed to complete Otay Lakes Road from Bonita Road to Ridgeback Drive/Canyon Drive. The first phase of Otay Lakes Road conversion covers this district and is scheduled for 2001, wtfile the second phase, from Camino del Cerro Grande/Surrey Drive to Ridgeback Drive/Canyon Drive, is scheduled in 2003. The Average Daily Traffic (Al)T) counts on Bonita Road east of Otay Lakes Road to the City limits and Otay Lakes Road between Bonita Road and Camino del Cerro Grande/Surrey Drive is approximately 24,700 and 3 I, 190 respectively. Section 15.32.130 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code requires the City Council to set a public hearing to determine whether the public health, safety, and general welfare requires the under- grounding of existing overhead utilities within designated areas of the City. The intent of the public hearing is to give persons the opportunity to speak in favor of or against the formation of a proposed district to underground utilities. The formation of the district will require the utility companies to remove all existing wooden utility poles within the District and to convert all overhead lines and other facilities to underground. All property owner(s) within the proposed district will also be required to convert their service connections to underground. Four utility poles located on a hill approximately 130 feet above Otay Lakes Road north of Camino Elevado are serving several properties along the cul-de-sac on Calle Mesita and Songbird Lane. These utility poles are, in turn, being served from a pole ("service pole") on the west side of Otay Lakes Road. City staff has asked SDG&E about the possibility of rerouting the service feed to these properties using an existing electrical pole distribution on Calle Mesita. If the rerouting ("reverse-feed") of the existing electrical service is not possible at this location, then there is a possibility that these utility lines would remain overhead but the "service pole" will be relocated outside of the district. Staff recommends the formation of this conversion district because: 1. Bonita Road is a major east/west thoroughfare in the northeastern portion of Chula Vista and an entrance into the City. Otay Lakes Road, on the other hand, is a north/south thoroughfare linking the northern part of the City with the new developments to the eastern and southern portion of the City. The undergrounding of existing overhead utilities will contribute to the creation of an aesthetically pleasing major street. 2. This segment of Bonita Road is classified in the General Plan's Circulation Element as a four-lane major street. Otay Lakes Road is classified as a six-lane prime arterial street. 3. Undergrounding has been completed on Bonita Road from Willow Street to Otay Lakes Road and on Otay Lakes Road from Ridgeback Drive/Canyon Drive to Telegraph Canyon Road, thus making the proposed district an extension of an undergrounded section. Undergrounding of the overhead utilities will complete the only remaining portion of Bonita Road that is not undergrounded. Otay Lakes Road will be completely undergrounded in FY03/04 Page 3, Item Meeting Date 12/05/00 The conversion work required from the property owner(s) will involve the trenching, backfilling and installation of conduits from property line to the point of connection. Chula Vista City Council Policy No. 585-1 established a mechanism that assists property owner(s) with the cost of the conversion work from the distribution lines to the structure. This policy provides for the reimbursement of property owner(s) at a rote of $35 per foot, up to a maximum of 100 feet, of trenching for the electric conduits. Property owner(s) will also be reimbursed $300 to $400 for the modification of existing electric meter service panel. The modification of the electric meter service panel will be reimbursed at $300 for commercial and residential properties with less than 200-amp service panel. For other commercial and multi-family dwelling units (apartments and condominiums) with at least 200-amp service panel, the reimbursement amount will be $400. This reimbursement is designed to help property owner(s) defray a portion of the total cost of their respective underground conversion work. Only two customers, the Bonita Golf Course (City-owned and operated) and 201 Camino Elevado, will be affected by this conversion project. The Bonita Golf Course will get reimbursement for its' electrical work while 201 Camino Elevado, which only requires telephone conversion, will not. The maximum reimbursement amount for the Bonita Golf Course, estimated to be approximately $3,900, will be adjusted based on the actual trenching and meter service panel work completed. A public hearing notice, see Exhibit "B", has been mailed to the property owner of 201 Camino Elevado and other property owners and occupants of properties located within the boundary or in the immediate vicinity of the proposed district. FISCAL IMPACT: The cost of pole removal, undergrounding overhead facilities and private property conversion reimbursements as outlined above is estimated to be approximately $2,730,000. SDG&E's allocation funds (Rule 20-A) will cover the estimated cost of the undergrounding project. A new street light installation Capital Improvement Project will be necessary as a result of this undergrounding district. The installation of a new street lighting system will coincide with the undergrounding project and is estimated to cost approximately $164,000. This street lighting project will be submitted for Council's approval during the FY01/02 Capital Improvement Program budget process. Gas Tax Funds will be proposed to cover the cost of the streetlights. All staff costs associated with the formation of this district are not reimbursable from the allocation funds and, therefore, are borne by the general fund. Attachments: Exhibit A - Boundary Map Exhibit B - Copy of Public Hearing Notice File No, 810-20-AY103 H:\HOME\ENGINEER\AGENDA\00a-Otay Lakes UG District 132.rdj.doc CRY OF CHUIA VISTA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEERING DIVISION NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING FORh£4,TION OF UTILITY UNDERGROUND DISTRICT NO. 132 ALONG BONITA ROAD FROM THE EASTERN CITY LIMITS TO OTAY LAKES ROAD AND ON OTAY LAKES ROAD FROM BONITA ROAD TO C.M~[INO DEL CERRO GRA. NDE/SURREY DRIVE. Our records indicate that you may have an interest in the Public Hearing to be held before the City Council on December S, 2000. The City Council meets in the Council Chambers at 276 Fourth Avenue in the Public Services Building. The Council Meeting begins at 4:00 p.m. The purpose of forming the district is to require the utility companies to underground all overhead facilities and remove existing utility poles within the district. In addition, property owner(s), receiving overhead services are required to convert their private utility service connections from overhead to underground. The service conversion work involves trenching, backfilling, conduit installation and modification of existing electric service panel from property line to point of connection, the cost of which is borne by the property owner. However, Chula Vista City Council Policy No. 585-1 established a mechanism that reimburses eli_oible property owner(s) for portions of their electrical service conversion costs. This mechanism is based on the following provisions: 1. Funding is limited to items which the customer traditionally supplies/installs such as trenching, conduit(s) and installation of "Pul1 Can" from property line to point of connection. 2. Funding for installation of a "pul1 Can" shall be $$00, or $400 for 200 amps service panel. 3. Funding shall be $35 per foot, up to a maximum of 100 feet, of electrical trenching, back~flling and conduit installation. A plat showing the District Boundary is enclosed. A list of properties eligible for reimbursement and copies of Resolution No. 2000-378 declaring the City's intention to unde~oround utilities and setting a public hearing are on file in the Office of the City Clerk. The Utility Companies will initiate the design phase immediately following formation of the utility District. Details of the schedule and the construction phase of the project will be provided by the Utility Companies when their design is completed. Should you have any questions regarding the subject item, please contact Roberto D. Juan, Assistant Engineer II, at (619) 691-5227. MUNA CUTHBERT CIVIL ENGINEER File No. 0810-20-AY103 :: t7 -5- H:\HOME'~ENGINEERkADVPLAN\UUDIST\OIr~Bonita to Surrey\Notice of Public Hearing. Rdj.doc 276 FOURTH AVENUE / CHULA VISTA. CALIFORNIA 91910-2631 /(619) 691-5021 Exhibit "B" RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ESTABLISHING UNDERGROUNDUTILITY DISTRICT NO. 132 ALONG BONITA ROAD FROM THE EASTERN CITY LIMITS TO OTAY LAKES ROAD AND ON OTAY LAKES ROAD FROM BONITA ROAD TO CAMINO DEL CERRO GRANDE/SURREY DRIVE AND AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE OF UTILITY ALLOCATION FUNDS TO SUBSIDIZE PRIVATE SERVICE LATERAL CONVERSION WHEREAS, by ~esolution No. 2000-378, a public hearing was called for 4:00 p.m. on Tuesday, the 5th day of December, 2000, in the Council Chambers of the City of Chula Vista at 276 Fourth Avenue in said City, to ascertain whether the public health, safety or welfare requires the removal of poles, overhead wires and associated overhead structures and the underground installation of wires and facilities for supplying electric, communication or similar or associated service within that certain area'of the City more particularly described as follows: All that property lying along Bonita Road from the eastern city limits to Otay Lakes Road and on Otay Lakes Road from Bonita Road to Camino del Cerro Grande/Surrey Drive and enclosed within the boundary as shown on the plat attached hereto as Attachment "A" of subject Underground Utility District. WHEREAS, notice of such hearing has been given to all affected property owners as shown on the last equalized assessment roll, and to the utility companies concerned in the manner and for the time required by law, and WHEREAS, such hearing has been duly and regularly held, and all persons interested have been given an opportunity to be heard. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Chula Vista hereby finds and determines that the public health, safety and welfare requires the removal of poles, overhead wires and associated structures, and the underground installation of wires and facilities for supplying electric, communication or similar associated services, the above-described area is hereby declared an Underground Utility District, and is designated as such in the City of Chula Vista. Attached hereto, marked Exhibit "A", and incorporated herein by reference is a map delineating the boundaries of said District. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the city Council shall, by subsequent resolution, fix the date on which affected property owners must be ready to receive underground service, and does hereby order the removal of all poles, overhead wires and associated overhead structures and the underground installation of wires and facilities for supplying electric, communication or similar associated service within said Underground Utility District. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk is hereby instructed to notify all affected utilities and all persons owning real property within said Underground Utility District of the adoption of this resolution within fifteen days after the date of said adoption. Said city Clerk shall further notify said property 'owners of the necessity that, if they or any person occupying such property desires to continue to receive electric, communication or other similar or associated service, they, or such occupant shall, by the date fixed in a subsequent resolution provide all necessary facility changes on their premises so as to receive such service from the lines of the supplying utility or utilities at a new location, subject to the. applicable rules, regulations and tariffs of the respective utility or utilities on file with the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California as of the date of adoption of this resolution. Such notification shall be made by mailing a copy of this resolution to affected property owners as shown on the last equalized assessment roll and to the affected utility companies. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council hereby finds that the Underground Utility District herein created is in the general public interest for the following reasons: 1. Bonita Road is a major east/west thoroughfare in the northeastern portion of Chula Vista and an entrance into the City. Otay Lakes Road, on the other hand, is a north/south thoroughfare linking the northern part of the City with the new developments to the eastern and southern portion of the City. The undergrounding of existing overhead utilities will contribute to the creation of an aesthetically pleasing major street. 2. The segmen~ of Bonita Road is classified in the General Plan's Circulation Element as a four-lane major street. Otay Lakes Road is classified as a six-lane prime arterial street. 3. Undergrounding has been completed on Bonita Road from Willow Street to Otay Lakes Road from Ridgeback Drive/Canyon Drive to Telegraph Canyon Road, thus making the proposed district an extension of an undergrounded section. Undergrounding of the overhead utilities will complete the only remaining portion of Bonita Road that is not undergrounded. Otay Lakes Road will be completely undergrounded in FY 03/04. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the city Council does hereby authorize the use of approximately $2,730,000 in utility allocation funds to cover the cost of pole removal, undergrounding overhead facilities, and private property conversion reimbursements. Presented by Approved as to form by John P. Lippitt ~he~ Director of Public Works C~ity Attorney 2 COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item / ~> Meeting Date 12/5/00 ITEM TITLE: Resolution Accepting bids, rejecting lowest bid due to deviations in bid proposal, and awarding contract for the "Greg Rogers Park Improvements, in the City of Chula Vista, CA (PR-169)" project to the second lox:vest bidder, Famania Construction, Inc., in the amount of $410,212.00, and authorizing the City Manager to execute said contract SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public Works~[Y 0~// REVIEWED BY: City Manager ~ '~ (4/5tbs Vote: Yes No X ) At 3:00 p.m. on Friday, November 17, 2000, the Director of Public Works received sealed bids for the "Greg Rogers Park Improvements, in the City of Chula Vista, CA (PR-169)" project. This project provides for improvement work within the existing ball field portion of the Grog Rogers Park site. Greg Rogers Park is located on the east side of Oleander Avenue between East Naples Street and East Palomar Street. The improvement work to be done includes grading, excavation and compaction, demolition of existing improvements, associated park and ball field lighting, associated irrigation and landscaping, fencing, hardscape areas, site building work, construction of an ADA accessible parking ama, ADA accessible walkways from the parking lot to the ball fields, retaining walls, and construction of a concession stand/restroom building. The work also includes all labor, material, equipment, transportation, protection and restoration of existing improvements, traffic control, and all appurtenances and other work necessary for completion of the project. RECOMMENDATION: 1. That Council reject the bid submitted by the apparent lowest bidder for the "Greg Rogers Park Improvements, in the City of Chula Vista, CA (PR-169)" project. 2. That Council accept bids and award the contract for the "Greg Rogers Park Improvements, in the City of Chula Vista, CA (PR~169)" project to the second lowest bidder, Famania Construction, Inc. of National City, California, in the amount of $410,212.00, and authorize the City Manager to execute said contract. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable. Page 2, Item Meeting Date 12/5/00 DISCUSSION: General The City Council approved the Greg Rogers Park Master Plan on April 16, 1991. With the implementation of the approved Master Plan, a more usable and functional park for the community will be developed. During Fiscal Year 1999-00, emergency repairs were completed to the existing Greg Rogers Park Little League fields by the Sunbow 1~ developer, Ayres Land Development. These emergency repairs included demolition of the existing four baseball fields, fencing and player's bench areas (dugouts), installation of new chain-link back stops, chain-link baseball field fencing, chain-link dugout fencing, security gates, new concrete pads for the dugouts, new dugout roofs and repairs to the masonry walls in the dugouts. The proposed improvements included with this Capital Improvement Project before City Council today will complete the remainder of the proposed improvements to the existing Little League fields. Additional improvement work for the park is scheduled in the near future. The proposed improvements to Greg Rogers Park include grading, excavation and compaction, demolition of existing improvements, associated park and ball field lighting, associated irrigation and landscaping, fencing, hardscape areas, site building work, construction of an ADA accessible parking area, ADA accessible walkways from the parking lot to the ball fields, retaining walls, and construction of a concession stand/mstroom building. The work also includes all labor, material, equipment, transportation, protection and restoration of existing improvements, traffic control, and all appurtenances and other work necessary for completion of the project. The services of Gillespie Design Group Inc. were retained for the preparation of the project's plans and specifications. To expedite the bidding process, the Project Design and Management section staff utilized the services of Gafcon, Inc., a construction management firm, to advertise the project, distribute documents, and collect and confirm bids on bid opening day. Bidding Process A pm-bid meeting for the project was held on November 10, 2000 to answer any questions the contractors had in an effort to receive the most competitive bids possible. Staff received and opened bids for the project on November 17, 2000. Page 3, Item Meeting Date 12/5/00 Bids were received from ten (10) contractors to perform the work as follows (listed in order of base bid amount): Contractor Base Bid Amount Stevens Constmction $390,000.00 Famania Construction, Inc. $410,212.00 Denboer Engineering & Construction $420,000.00 Golden Springs Construction, inc. $426,045.00 Pullman Engineering, Inc. $443,146.54 __ E.V.Constructors Inc. $451,905.00 Heffier Company, Inc. $481,500.00 Wier Construction Corporation $483,831.00 Geoscene Construction, Inc. $489,923.00 3 -D Enterprises $537,126.00 The original lowest bid, submitted by Stevens Construction, is below the landscape architect's estimate of $450,000.00 by $60,000.00 or 13.3%. However, at the bid opening, it was discovered that the three (3) addenda issued for the project were not included in the bid proposal submitted by said contractor. The bid documents clearly stated that all addenda "must be completed and submitted with the bid". With the exclusion of the addenda required in their bid proposal, the contractor had an unfair advantage over the other contractors bidding on the project and could have withdrawn their bid proposal at any time without consequence to the City. Discussions with the City Attorney's office and Engineering staff concluded with the recommendation that the apparent lowest bid be rejected based on the deficiency of the contractor's bid proposal. A letter was sent to Stevens Construction (see attachment) explaining the status of their bid proposal and the recommendation for rejection. Provisions were also included within the letter allowing the contractor the opportunity to contest the recommendation if they desired; the deadline for contesting was set at November 29, 2000. Based on the disqualification of the original lowest bid for the project, the second lowest bid for the project, submitted by Famania Construction, Inc., was reviewed by City staff for potential award of the contract. The second lowest bid is also below the landscape architect's estimate of $450,000.00 by $39,788.00 or 8.84%. All documents required by the bid proposal were submitted by the subject contractor and their bid package was complete. It is staff's opinion that the bid submitted by Famania Construction, Inc. is responsive. Engineering staff checked three references provided by Famania Construction, Inc. The references were verified and their work has been satisfactory. Their Contractor's License No. 558687 is clear and current. Staff, therefore, recommends awarding the contract to Famania Construction, Inc. of National City, California, in the amount of $410,212.00. Page 4, Item Meeting Date 12/5/00 Contract Execution In order to expedite the contract schedule for the project, City staff recommends that Council authorize the City Manager to execute the contract. By allowing the City Manager to execute the contract, project construction can begin almost immediately thereafter. Disclosure Statement Attached is a copy of the contractor's Disclosure Statement. Environmental Status The City's Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the work involved in this project and has determined that the project is exempt under Section 15302, Class 2 of the California Environmental Quality Act (Minor Alterations of Existing Public improvements or Public Structures). Prevailing Wage Statement This project is funded through CIP funds consisting of Park Acquisition and Development (PAD) fees and Developer Contributions. Based on the current project funding guidelines, no prevailing wage requirements were necessary as part of the bid documents. FISCAL IMPACT: ~FUNDS REQUIRED FOR CONSTRUCTION A. Contract Amount (Famania Construction, Inc.) $410,212.00 B. Contingencies (approximately 20%) $82,000.00 C. Staff Costs (Design, Inspection, Administration) $60,000:00 TOTAL FUNDS REQUIRED FOR CONSTRUCTION $552,212.00 FUNDS AVAILABLE FOR CONSTRUCTION A. Park Acquisition and Development (PAD) fees $152,212.00 B. CIP Funds (Developer Contributions) $400,000.00 TOTAL FUNDS AVAILABLE FOR CONSTRUCTION $552,212.00 The above action of awarding the contract will authorize a total expenditure of $552,212.00 from the budgeted CIP project. After construction, only routine City maintenance will be required. Attachments: Letter to Contractor Contractors' Response Letters Contractor's Disclosure Statement H:\HOME\ENGINEER\AGENDA\PRI69AI I3.get doc CHULA VISTA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEERING DIVISION November 21,2000 File No. 0735-I0-PR-169 Stevens Construction 125 E. 17th Street National City, California 91950 Attention: Mr. Mark A. Stevens GREG ROGERS PARK IMPROVEMENTS, CIP NO. PR-169 On November 17, 2000, the City of Chula Vista received sealed bids for the Greg Rogers Park improvements (PR-169) project. At the bid opening, the bid package from Stevens Construction did not contain Addendum No. 1, 2, and 3 as required in the bid proposal requirements and conditions. The bid documents clearly stated that all addenda must be "submitted w/th the bid". A failure to include the addenda at the bid opening is grounds for rejecting the bid proposal. Based on the bid deficiency described 'above and discussions with the City Attorney's office, we will be recommending that the bid submitted by Stevens Construction be rejected due to the following reasons: 1. The Contractor could have withdrawn their bid proposal at any time without consequence to the City; and 2. The Contractor had an unfair advantage over the other contractors. Stevens Construction has the right to review all documents for clarity. If Stevens Construction wishes to contest the City's recommendation, a written response should be scm to the City by Wednesday, November 29, 2000. Please contact Oreg Tscherch at 619.476.5376 Ext. 3005 or James Holmes at 619.691.5179 for further questions or information. ~/JAMES HOLMES CIVIL ENGINEER Cc: Samir Nuhaily, Senior Civil Engineer Bart Miesfeld, Deputy City Attorney Mary Hofrnockel, Landscape Architect Dan Curley, Building Project Manager t - H:\HOME\ENGINEER~DESIGN~DR I 52~PR169SIevens,get,doc 276 FOURTH AVENUE /CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA 91910-2631 / (619) 691-5021 Stevens ConstructiOn November 28, 2000 Oreg Tscherch, Civil Engineer City of Chula Vista Department of Public Works - Engineering Division 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 Re: City of Chula Vista Greg Rogers Park Contract (CV00-100) Dear Greg, Please be advised that the bid submitted by Stevens Construction for the above referenced project tv inclusive of Addendums #1, 2 and 3. Our bid price of $390,000.00 remains unchanged. We had, and do have, the addendums in our possession; however, we regrettably fa'fled to note that they should have been turned in with the bid. We respectfully request that the city reconsider its recommendation for rejection, as we believe it is in the best interest of the city to complete this project at the lowest possible cost. If you have any further questions regarding our bid, please call our office at (619) 477-7893 or I can be reached on my cellular phone at (619) 954-7278. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Stevens Construction Mark A. Stevens Owner November 20, 2000 Samir M. Nuhaily Senior Civil Engineer City Of Chula Vista Public Works Department/Engineering Depafanent 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, Ca~ 91910 RE: Greg Rogers Park-Bids Dear Sam. ir, I am writing to you about the above mentioned projeet bid opening. As you know the low bidder failed to submit his addendum's 1, 2, & 3 as required by the Cities bid documents on page 3, therefore there bid should be non responsive. It states that "the following documents mnst be completed and submitted with bid". So I ask you before the City considers awarding this project, that you carefully review all bids and make a fair and legal decision. gincerel~/Yours !Oscar 11/20/00 18:39 FAX ~]01 11-2G--2GI~ 3:1 1PIq P'~Sil'4 P. ~ Stevens Construct?n 20, 2000 sglo Uni,nn~r Gma:r lame ~ 58O San Die~, CA ~2122 R~: City ofChula VJata C-n~8 RoStra Padc Contn~ (CV00-100) Plea.ne he advi~ tha~ bid submitted by $tt~,:~_. _ Gommml~on for th~ above project ia jne, lusive of Addendum #1. Our bid ~ of:~t90,000.00 remains lfyou lmv~ any questions regarding out hid. ~ ~ oar offi~ nl (619) 477-7893 or 1 ~ b* ~ on my ctdhalar phol~ a/ (619) 954-7278. Thin,it you for your ~ms/demtion. ' St~ens Construction 125 East 17th Sh'-eet * National City, CA 91950 · (619) 477-7893 - FAX (619) 477-7895 1--28--200 11:02AM kHUM P. 1 f'?,,-- Stevens Construction... Novembor 28, 2000 Greg Tschereh, Civil Engineer City of Chub Vista Depa_rtxnent o£Publlc Works- Engine~i-hig Division 31 $ Fourth Avenue, Suite D Chub Vista, CA 9!910 Pcr your request of November 21, 2000, here is a list o£thre~ re%hr references for jobs of similar scope and size. Thank you again for your consideration. Poway High School Modernkation Project Buildings D~E, & F Contract Price: $430,000.00 Contact: Doug Mann - FacilJtiea Manager, Poway Unified School District (858) 679r2522 West Hills High School Zandings & Screen Walls Project At existing home bleachers Colftract Price: $126,592.00 Contact: Chltck Tucker- Director of Operations, Grossmont Union H.S. District (619) 644~8174 Shoal Creel~ ~ementary School Early Student Services Building Contract Price: $350,000.00 Contact: Dong Mann - Facilities Manager, Poway Unified School District (858) 679-2522. Please do not hesitate to'contact me if you ne~i any additional haformation. Thank you, Stevoas Construction Mark Stevens' Owner 125 East 17th Street · National City, CA 91950 · (619) 477-7893 · FAX (619) 477-7895 THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Pursuant to Council Policy 101-01, prior to any action upon matters which will require discretionary action by the Council, Planning Commission and all other official bodies of the City, a statement of disclosure of certain ownership or financial interests, payments, or campaign contributions for a City of' Chula Vista election must be filed. The following information must be disclosed: 1. ' List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the property that is the subject of the application or the contract, e.g., owner, applicant, contractor, subcontractor, material supplier. 2. If any person* identified pursuant to (1) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names of all individuals with a $1000 investment in tile business (corporation/partnership) entity. 3. If any person* identified pursuant to (I) above is a non-profit organization or trust, list tile names of' any person serving as director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary or trustor of the trust. 4. Please identify every person, including any agents, employees, consultants, or independent contractors you have assigned to represent you before the City in this matter. 5. Has any person* associated with this contract had any financial dealings with an official** of, f~ City of Chula Vista as it relates to this contract ~';ithin the past 12 months? Yes No ~' If Yes, briefly describe the nature of the financial interest the official** may have in this contract, ,-//tv 6. Have you made a contribution of more than $250 within the pas~elve (12) months to a current member of the Chula Vista City Council? Yes No t/' If Yes, which Council member? 7. Have you or any member of your governing board (i.e. Corporate Board of Directors/E~xecutives, non-profit Board of Directors made contributions totaling more than $1,000 over t~ast four (4) years to a current member of tbe Chula Vista City Council? Yes No / If Yes, wbich Council member? 8. Have you provided more than $300 (or an item of equivalent..y, afue) to an official** of the City of Chula Vista in the past twelve (12) months? (This inclu~teg being a source of income, money to retire a legal debt, gift, loan, etc.) Yes No 4~ If Yes, which official** and what was the nature of item provided? ~e o~12o?.~actor/Applicant/ Print or type name of Contractor/Applicant * Person is defined as: any individual, firm, co-partnersh[p, joint venture, association, social club, fraternal organization, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate, any other county, city, municipality, district, or other political subdivision, -or any other group or combination acting as a unit. ** Official includes, but is not limited to: Mayor, Council member, Planning Commissioner, M~mber of a board, commission, or committee of the City, employee, or staff members. RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OP CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING BIDS, REJECTING LOWEST BID DUE TO DEVIATIONS IN BID PROPOSAL, AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR THE ~GREG ROGERS PARK IMPROVEMENTS, IN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CA. (PR-169)" PROJECT TO FAMAi~IA CONSTRUCTION, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $410,212.00, AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MAi~AGER TO EXECUTE SAID CONTRACT WHEREAS, at 3:00 p.m. on November 17, 2000, the Director of Public Works received the following ten sealed bids for the "Greg Rogers Park Improvements, in the City of Chula Vista, Ca. (PR-169)" Project: Contractor Base Bid Amount Stevens Consm~ction $390,000.00 Famania Construction, Inc. $410,212 ~0 Depboer Engineering &~Constmcfion $420,000.00 Golden Springs Construction, Inc. $426,045.00 Pullman Engineering, [nc. $443,146.54 E.V.Constructors Inc. $451,905.00 Heftier Company, Inc. $481,500.00 Wier Construction Corporation $483,831.00 Geoscene Construction, Inc. $489,923.00 3-D Enterprises $537, 126.00 WHEREAS, the original lowest bid, submitted by Stevens Construction, is below the landscape architect's estimate of $450,000.00 by $60,000.00 or 13.3%; and WHEREAS, at the bid opening, it was discovered that the three (3) addenda issued for the project were not included in the bid proposal submitted by Stevens Construction and the bid documents clearly stated that all addenda ~must be completed and submitted with the bid"; and WHEREAS, with the exclusion o~ th~ addenda required in their bid proposal, the contractor had an unfair advantage over the other contractors bidding on the project and could have withdrawn their bid proposal at any time without consequence to the City; and 1 /8 W/4EREAS, discussions with the City Attorney's office and Engineering staff concluded with the recommendation that the apparent lowest bid be rejected based on the deficiency of the contractor's bid proposal; and WHEREAS, a letter was sent to Stevens Construction explaining the status of their bid proposal and the recommendation for rejection and provisions were also included within the letter allowing the contractor the opportunity to contest the recommendation if they desired; the deadline for contesting was set at November 29, 2000; and WHEREAS, based on the disqualification of the original lowest bid for the project, the second lowest bid for the project, submitted by Famania Construction, Inc., was reviewed by City staff for potential award of the contract; and WHEREAS, the second lowest bid is also below the landscape architect's estimate of $450,000.00 by $39,788.00 or 8.84% and all documents required by the bid proposal were submitted and it is staff's opinion that the bid submitted by Famania Construction, Inc. is responsive; and WHEREAS, in order to expedite the contract schedule for the project, City staff recommends that Council authorize the City Manager to execute the contract which will allow project construction to begin almost immediately thereafter; and WHEREAS, the City's Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the work involved in this project and has determined that the project is exempt under Section 15301, Class lc of the California Environmental Quality Act (Minor Alterations of Existing Public Improvements of Public Structures); and WHEREAS, contractors bidding this project were not required to pay prevailing wages to persons employed by them as this project is funded through Park Acquisition and Development (PAD) fees and CIP Funds. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the City of Chula vista does hereby reject the bid submitted by the apparent lowest bidder for the "Greg Rogers Park Improvements, in the City of Chula Vista, Ca. (PR-169)" Project. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council accept bids and award the contract for the "Greg Rogers Park Improvements, in the City of Chula Vista, Ca. (PR-169)" project to the second lowest bidder, Famania Construction, Inc. of National City, California in the amount of $410,212.00. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager of the City of Chula vista is hereby authorized and directed to execute said contract on behalf or.the City of Chula Vista. Presented by Approved as to form by John P. Lippitt Jo~n M. '~a;Jeny Director of Public Works City Attorney [H:I H OM E'~A~-O RN E Y~RE S O/Greg Rogers Park Bid (November 2B, 2000 ( 1:33PM)] 3 COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item No._/~ Meeting Date 12/05/00 ITEM TITLE: ELECTION CHALLENGE REQUEST BY COUNCIL CANDIDATE MIKE DIAZ SUBMITTED BY: Susan Bigelow, CMC/AAE, City Clerk REVIEWED BY: John Kaheny, City Attorney-- SUMMARY: On November 29, 2000, Council candidate Mike Diaz filed a request to challenge the results of the November 7, 2000 election for Council Seat #3. He is alleging that Council candidate Jerry Rindone was not eligible to nm for the Council seat under City of Chula Vista Charter Section 300D. RECOMMENDATION: Council consider such challenge pursuant to Municipal Code Section 2.50.120 and take such action as the Council considers appropriate. DISCUSSION: Municipal Code Section 2.50.100 authorizes any elector of the City to challenge the results ora City election. Municipal Code Section 2.50.110 requires that such challenge be filed with the City Clerk in writing within thirty days after such election. The challenge must be accompanied by sworn statements in the form of an affidavit setting forth the facts upon which the contestant bases his challenge. The City Clerk must place the challenge on the Council agenda at the next regular or adjourned Council meeting. Municipal Code Section 2.50.120 requires the Council to consider such application and accompanying statements and hear any other evidence which may be presented. The City Council may cause the matter to be set for a public heating at the next regular or adjourned meeting following a ten-day notice by publication in the official newspaper and may cause an independent investigation of the facts alleged to be made. The public heating may be continued from time to time. Within thirty days after the contest is filed, or after the conclusion of any heating, whichever is later, the City Council shall determine any such contest and announce such decision in writing and file same with the City Clerk. The City Attorney will provide the City Council with additional written guidance prior to the Council meeting. RECEIVED N0¥30 2:54 CITY OF CHULA ViS /U:FIDA ql' CITY CLERK'S 07F ._ State of California County of San Diego The Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Chula 276 Fourth Avenue Chula V'~-I~a. California 91910 I, Michael A. Diaz. being first duly sworn, state as follows~ I am the complainant to the eligibilit~ of Jerry R. Rindone for the November 7~ 2000, City Council seat 1k3 election At the City Council meeting of October 10. 2000. I addressed the City Council on the issue of Council Candidate Jer~y Rindone being ineligible to run for election to Council in November of 2000. At that time I requested Council to disqualify Mr. Rindone from running for the office and presented facts and several exhibits on behalf of that request. My request was based, in part. on the provisions of Section 300 D of the Charter of the City of Chula Vista That section states in pertinent part: 'No person ... may again seek nomination and election to said offices of Council or Mayor respectively until a pednd of one (1) year from the termination of the second term for Councilmember or Mayor bas elapsed. My request was based on factual information which I presented which dearly showed that Mr. Rindone conducted certain activities related to his campaign in violation of the one year 'term-limits' Charter provision cited in Section 300 At the time of my initial request, the matter was referred to the City Attorney for reV~w and legal comment. On October 16. 2000. City Attorney Kaheny issued a Memorandum of Law to Mayor and Council (Exhibit A). This opinion found, in essence, that there are no provisions in the Municipal Code authorizing ~ City Council to disqualify a candidate for City Council prior to the election. The Council's sole function under its Charter. the California Election Code and the Chula Vista Municipal Code is to judge the conduct of the entire election or its results once the election is conducted. In short, the merits of my request could not be propedy considered until after the election. However. the City Attorney did find that ctearly, the language of the Charter permits the City Council to sit as a fact finder and resolve the issue of Mr. Rindone's eligibility if it is raised in a proper challenge after the election. This letter is a formal challenge to Mr, Rindone's eligibility and request that the City Council to consider the merits of the matter. Specifically, under the City of Chula Vista Charter Section 300 D. Mr. Rindone was not eligible to run for the Councilmernber seat. The Charter 'term limits' language is ve~j dear and specific as to who can seek: and who is prohibited from sc:king, nomination and electron. Mr. Rindone's second term ended on December 8. 1998. This would make him eligible to seek nornina~on and m c~cc~on on~ after December 8. 1999. under the Charter provision. This is the essence of a 'term limits" provision and is clearly the legislative intent of the language, Attached you will find several documents which clearly demon~bal, e that Mr. Rindone was scc~ng nomination and election to the Chula V'~-ta City Council before it was permissible under the Charter to do so. All of these documents have been signed and dated by Mr. Rindone. Exhibit B is a Campaign Bank Account Statement. form 502. This document is signed by Mr. Rindone and was opened November 4, 1999. This financial statement shows Mr Rindone was soliciting campaign funds and accepted his first campaign corrbibution as early as November 4. 1999. Mr. Rindone also accepted two additional contributions on November 26 1999 again, c~ady Prior to being eligible to run for the office. F_.xhib~t C is a Moneta~j Contributions Received Statement~ form 460. This document c~earty shows several campaign contributions received by Mr. Rindone prior to December 8~ 1999. Mr. Rindone then officially made his intention to seek nomination and election on November 4~ 1999. by completing, signing, and dating a FPPC 'Candidate Intention Statement', form 501. (Exhibit D). This document was filed with the City Clerk on November 5. 1999. Again. this was dearly before he was allowed to run for the office by Charter proWSion On November 15~ 1999. Mr. Rindone pulled his papers to seek nomination and election as a Councilmember. He then began to circulate his nomination papers for signature Mr, Rindone obtained his nominations during the period of November 15 through December 8. 1999, (Exhibit E). Mr. Rindone verified that he obtained the nominations during this period and prior to being allowed to do so under the Charter language. In accordance with the City Attorney's Memorandum of Law, a timely request is hereby made for the Chula Vista City council to investigate the facts and make a finding of law on this issue. To further prohibit irreparable harm. it is further requested that. while the matter is being contested. Mr. Rindone not be sworn in to the Council at the upcoming meel~ng of December 6, All the facts stated above are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. Subscribed and sworn to before me. ~ {,~ ~Oo'~- . a Notary Public in and for the above captioned county and state, this 30th day of November, 2000. ? CI'IY OF CHUIA VISI'A OFFICE OF THE CITY A'I-rORNEY MEMORANDUM OF LAW DATE~ October 16, 2000 The Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: John M. Kaheny, City Attorney ~~ SUBJECT: Complaint of Council Candidate Michael Diaz BACKGROUND At the City Council meeting of October 10, 2000, City Council candidate Michael Diaz spoke during public comment and informed the Council that he believed that former Council Member Jerry Rindone was ineligible for election to the Council in November.' He then asked the Council to disqualify Mr. Rindone. He based his remarks on the contents of several documents which he provided to the Council and cited the provisions of Section 300 D. of the Charter of the City of Chula Vista. That section states in part: "No person...may again seek nomination and election to said offices of Council or Mayor respectively until a period of one (1) year from the termination of the second term for Councilmember or Mayor has elapsed.;...". His complaint is based on the assertion that Mr. Rindone conducted certain activities related to his campaign within the one year period. The City Council requested that the City Attorney advise the Council~on the matter. This memorandum is in response to that request. It should be noted that this The Honorable Mayor and City Council October 16, 2000 Page 2 Memorandum of Law only addresses the issue of the City Council's role in this election controversy and it is not intended to provide any candidate with legal advice in regard to this election. ANALYSIS The City of Chula Vista, as a Charter city, has plenary authority over its elections and the qualifications of its' elected officials in accordance with its charter. Cawdrey v. Redondo Beach 15 C.A.4th 1212; 19 Cal.Rptr.2d 179 (1993). Section 902 of the Charter of the City of Chula Vista states, in part: ~'Unless provided by ordinance hereafter ~nacted, all elections shall be held in accordance with the provisions of the Elections code of the State of California, as the same now exists or may hereafter be amended, for the holding of elections in general law cities so far as the same are not in conflict with this Charter.. Charter Section 301 states in part: "The City Council shall judge the qualifications of its members as set forth by the Charter. It shall judge all election returns... These Charter sections flow from Article XI, Section 5 (b) of the california Constitution which specifically authorizes such provisions in city charters. The city of Chula Vista has exercised its authority to enact an election ordinance. Municipal Code Section 2.50.010 seq. In accordance with that ordinance, any elector of the City may challenge the conduct or the results of any municipal election. Municipal Code Section 2.50.110. Such challenge must be filled with the Ci_ty Clerk in writing within thirty days of the election. The Clerk is required to place the challenge on the agenda of the next council agenda. Municipal The HonorabIe Mayor and City Council October 16, 2000 Page 3 Code Section 2.50.110. The Council then must consider the challenge and hear evidence. The Council is also authorized to call a public hearing with lo days notice and cause an independent, investigation to be made if it so desires. Once the Council certifies the election results, any elector of the city can bring an action in Superior Court challenging the results of the election by filing a statement of contest. California Government Code Section 16000 et seq. It should be noted that the contestant is not required under state law' to contest the election at the city Council level, but may file the challenge directly with the Superior Court after the City Council certifies the election results. There are no provisions in the Municipal Code authorizing the city Council to disqualify a candidate for City Council prior to the election. The Council's sole function under its Charter, the California Election Code and the Chula Vista Municipal Code is to judge the conduct of the entire election or its results once the election is concluded. The available case law on this issue is limited but helpful. Clearly the language of the Charter permits the city Council to sit as a fact finder and resolve the issue of Mr. Rindone's eligibility if it is raised in a proper challenge. Polis v. City of La Palma 10 C.A.4th 25, 12 Cal.Rptr. 2d 322 (1992) . The procedures set forth in the Municipal Code preserve to the parties the fundamental essentials of notice and hearing. McGregor v. Board of Trustees of Town of Burlinqame 159 Cal. 144 (1911). HoWever, since the Charter does not specify that the Council's authority is exclusive in this regard, nothing prevents the contestant from appealing the Council's decision to Superior court or by-pass%ng the City's procedure entirely. In re McGee 36 Cal.2 592 (1951). CONCLUSION As no formal challenge has yet been filed in accordance with the Municipal Code it would be premature for this office to render an opinion as to the merits of Mr. Diaz' allegations. If and when a formal challenge is filed with the City Clerk concerning this issue, the Council is obligated under the Code to hear such challenge. If this occurs, this office will be The Honorable Mayor and City Council October 16, 2000 Page 4 ~-- available to respond to a request by the Council for legal advice concernin~ the merits of such challenge, JMK:lgk cc: City Manager City Clerk H:\home\attorney\MOL Diaz \ \ l\ S DECLARATION OF CIRCULATOR (Do not type this section. It MUST be filled out in your own handwriti!1Q.) I" ~(':l.(l..\.{ ~. P,;N.I::JoNiF .~ding~t . . . .. raJlal:edthe petition and witnessed the appended Signatures being written. That according to the best infonnation and belief each srgnature IS the genuine Slgnabne of the person whose name it purports 10 be. The signatures were obtlined between I\J d 11 , I.s- , 19 !l!l-, and B J;-t'~. ? ' 19!1!l.. . I certify (or declare) under the penarty of perjury under the laws of the Stale of California that the foregoing is true and oorrect. Executed by me at r;hv 1"- 1)1~ ,on [).i"C, <1 ,19.!l2- ~,~ 01 """'- State of california County of <7 JI.N AFFIDAVIT OF NOMINEE AND OATH OR AFFIRMATION OF ALLEGIANCE }ss -C /) =? "J r=p. P-y h, J (' N/2E..~Noif.) ..... fYl E:M b~ ~-(L t~ ~ C ('-1-", GtJw cl I Ji',' N' ..,10....,"';;;""") ,,) P-""f.<.'( Ii, 'U 1V<.:::c 1....""""".SIO_~. HiG4- .scHcul-._PAiNC,Pfl-1- . (Prrt cI8$Jgna!>>oo abo Q..,' ~.r-o being duly swom, says that he or She is the abcMHlamed nominee for the office at ... _ . _ . . that he or she will accept the o1fioe In the event of his or her election. that he or she desires his or her name to appear on the ballot as foI1ows: and that he or she desires the folowing designation to appear on the ballot under his or her name: ..... I, do soIem~ swear (or affirm) that I wi! support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the COnstitution of the State of california against all enemies. foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and aUegiance to the Constitution of Ihe United States and the Constitution of the Stale of california; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties upon which I am about to enter. ~I[i:~~ ,ut/M<.P.- 'I ' ffi M-<A (Notaty PlJ:ltic or 0Ih8r official) - CA-- Subsc.ribed and Sworn to Before Me on &eemhv q. 19 qq . Address of candidate: (":HUI--4- 1/,\5 'f-A. / q/c;/o Phone Number where candidate can be reached during daytime hours: -AJ.tt'eoptionotlhocarddate. ONLYONEof1hetoDI;JWing1 ..4tiOl~maybeU5lltd: 1. Words d8signa2ingh e6ec1iYeOly.Q)Ur'II)'. distric:l.st3btorfederaloCfiollwhichthec:ancidate hoIcIs aJ:the limealliingthe nominaticn papet$ towNct\ he or she was eIecI9cI byYOle otthe people. 2. II acancidal8isa c:an:Sctaleforlhe$lllTle:CIIiOBv.11id'IheOl'tihehClld$:lII:lh8timeolfiling1henominationpapms, and..as elecledlotha1 otfiol!I by 11 VOl:e of the people, and CI'lIy Il'llhat event. U'te word "ll'lO.ln'Oent". 3. No more than line 'IWOrdsd8:signa:ling eltherlhe amen!: principal professions. \'OCIIIions;. 0(........."-"01\$ 01 the ClrIdidaIe. or1he prioOpal professions. voc:aIions.. oroa:upaliorts of the c::ancbdate during the C3IBndar year Io.w. . " pntClIJdinrjl the finJ d nonUuIian doa.merU. The use 01 the..onj "Retir8d" byltsell'orBS8pt'8lixis acoeptllbIe. bul:noc IdtBr.-.yOlherwonSorWOrd$ (e.g. "R8tintIr and "Retired AmtyOffioet" is pennissibIe; -U.S.M.C~ R8I:it9cr' is no(). 4. TheplVase.~1ncurnbInI''''01ec::aMidalehoklsotfioebyvll1u801~r . 4>,_... butmaynatus:elhelnTIOdlIiedword "tncumbenr". NOOlnlicDleShalas:sumeades:ignllliOnwl1lc:h WO<<*1 misteadtheVDCetS. (See Seaion 131m. Bec:tionsCoda) Any petsan rugi$tenlCI to VOI8 as 1hlt eIeCIion may ~e B nominalion paper. A card<Sala may Sign his or her own nomination paper. 4 [;u 1-1 A1q ~I tJC;yT j/' L> INFORMATIONAL ITEM December 5, 2000 File: 0780-72-KY181 FROM: The Honorable Mayor and ~uncil David D. Rowlands, Jr., City Manager John P. Lippitt, Director of Public Works IV TO: VIA: SUBJECT: PROPOSED REGIONAL NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM (NPDES) DRAFT MUNICIPAL PERMIT, TENTATIVE ORDER 2001-01 The San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board (SDRWQCB) released the Draft NPDES Permit Order No. 2001-01 for public comment on October 11, 2000. The new permit is to replace the existing NPDES Municipal Permit Order No. 90-42. The following information is a brief summary of issues concerning the proposed new permit and their impact on local agencies and developments within the San Diego County: Pursuant to the Clean Water Act and the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, The City of Chula Vista, as a discharger of storm water to the waters of the United States, has to obtain coverage under the Municipal Permit issued by the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board, and comply with its requirements. Order No. 90-42 is a general permit encompassing all the cities within the San Diego County as well as the County of San Diego and the Port of San Diego. Each agency covered by the general permit is referred to as a Copermittee. The City of San Diego is the Principal Copermittee. Permit No. 90-42 was issued in 1990 to cover a five-year period, and was later extended to the present time. The Tentative Order No. 2001- 01, is scheduled to be adopted on February 14, 2001. Three public workshops have been held by the SDRWQCB on the draft permit, and a public comment period was established from October 11, 2000 until November 30, 2000. The City of Chula Vista provided comments during the specified period. A public hearing is arranged for December 13, 2000, in which the City of San Diego, as the Principal Copermittee will provide a summation of joint Copermittee comments. Page 2 Meeting Date 12/5/2000 In its present form the draft pennit will create more extensive responsibilities and financial undertakings for the City and developers. The administration, monitoring, reporting, enforcement, and maintenance tasks included in the draft permit will impact the City in different ways. One of the most controversial requirements to be included in the new permit is the Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plans (SUSWMP) and Numerical Sizing Criteria. Under these requirements, local governments will have to immediately begin enforcing practices to detain, treat, and infiltrate storm water runoff from development and major redevelopment through the adoption of local ordinances and discretionary review procedures. Moreover, sizing of the Best Management Practices (BMPs) implemented to achieve this goal will need to be based on numerical criteria mandated by the Permit. Best Management Practices (BMPs) are structural devices or landscape designed to remove pollutants and reduce runoff flow. These requirements are expected to have a broad impact on municipalities and new residential, commercial, and industrial projects as well as major re-developments. Another concept that is being developed by SDRWQCB to control storm water pollution and monitor effectiveness of Storm Water Management Plans is the watershed concept. Under this requirement, which is expected to come into effect within a few years, all agencies having jurisdiction in a watershed will be jointly responsible for controlling pollution to the extent that will not exceed water quality standards set for that watershed. This approach will entail cooperation of all agencies in any watershed and implementation of several joint programs. The requirement of Permit No. 90-42 obligated the City of Chula Vista to participate in monitoring dry weather screening within the City, as well as regional wet weather monitoring throughout the County. It also required Chula Vista to follow up with investigations and actions to eliminate any pollution discovered in Chula Vista. Enforcement of cross- jurisdictional violators and regional issues resided with the SDRWQCB. The new permit requires Chula Vista to take a much larger role in monitoring methods of pollution protection (BMPs) implemented by business and industry in Chula Vista and to become the enforcement agency issuing penalties for non-compliance. The City's level of involvement relative to the NPDES will be greatly increased. The permit will require a higher level of field inspection, more intense monitoring, and elevated levels of maintenance. Since the release of the tentative order on October 11, 2000, the Copermittees have been reviewing the order in detail, assessing the cost impacts, and developing strategies to ensure permit compliance. The tentative order, as written, contains requirements that would produce less effective programs and increase the likelihood of third party lawsuits. On November 15 and 21, 2000, the Copermittees held meetings to determine the highest priority collective comments, which covered the following issues in the same sequence as listed by the Copermittees: . Schedule, . Water Quality Outcomes, Page 3 Meeting Date 12/5/2000 . Fiscal Impacts, . Regulation of Special Districts, State, and Federal Lands. . Dry Weather Monitoring Program. . Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan (SUSMP), . Dual Permitting, . Receiving Water Monitoring Program, . Flow Retention, . Notification of Non-compliance, . Maintenance of the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4), and . Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) Support. A copy of the Tentative Order No. 2001-01 is attached for your information (Attachment 1). Chula Vista's comments on the new municipal permit were sent to the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board on November 30, 2000 (please see Attachment 2). Also the City of San Diego, on behalf of all the Copermittees forwarded a letter to the SDRWQCB expressing joint comments and common concerns (please see Attachment 3). Attachment 4 is a list of additional tasks included in the new permit. These tasks will require additional resources including monetary, staff and consultant services. While many questions remain as to exactly how this program will be implemented, it is clear that significant program changes will be needed. Therefore, additional appropriation will be needed to cover the new requirements should this permit be adopted by the RWQCB. Staff will evaluate the extent of additional resources after more detailed information is available. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment 1, Tentative Order No. 2001-01 Attachment 2, City of Chula Vista's Comments on the New Permit Attachment 3, Copermittees' Comments on the New Permit Attachment 4, Additional Tasks included in the New Permit H:\HOME\E~GINEER\ADVPLAN\NPDES\I N FOR MAT I 0 NALI T E Mnpdes.mc.doc ATTACHMENT 1 ,~ \,;; California Regional \\1 ater Quality Control Board San Dieoo Reoion b b ,Yinston H. Hickox Secre;:;.ry!or En.'jror;m/:Il[::;'! [>rlj!f('[Um In\(.:;Tlf;1 Adurco,;s. hllp.//www.swr::b.GI_l;ov/rwqcb9! 91/1 Cbllemllnl Mesa Bouk\"ard. SUIte A. S3.n Dle?o. Califomi;J, ~1:]24-1324 F'h:-me (S58)467.2{J52. FAX (SSE) )1'1-697::' ,~ lV-,~iii ~'~~ (;r~~' DJ\"is (;(J)'fnlOr October ] 1, 2000 Dear San Diego Municipal Copermittees: (Distribution List Attached) TENTATIVE ORDER NO. 2001-01, :\PDES NO. CA0108758, WASTE DISCHARGE REQlJIREMENTS FOR DISCHARGES OF URBAN RUNOFF FROM THE MUNICIPAL SEPARATE STORM SEWER SYSTEM (MS4) DRAINING THE \VA TERSHEDS OF THE COlJ";\;TY OF SAN DIEGO, THE IN CORPORA TED CITIES OF SAN DIEGO COlJ"NTY AND THE SAN DIEGO UNIFIED PORT DISTRICT Enclosed for your review is a copy of Tentative Order No. 200].0], that will require San Diego municipalities to develop and implement programs to manage urban runoff within their jurisdiction and watershed. A corresponding Draft Fact Sheet/Technical Report is also enclosed. The San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board (SDRWQCB) will hold three public workshops to provide interested parties with the opportunity to comment on the Tentative Order prior to any public heating. The public workshops are tentatively scheduled for October ]9, 2000, November 2,2000, and November ]6, 2000. Time and locations for the public workshops will be provided when finalized. A public heating before the SDRWQCB on Tentative Order No. 200]-01 has been tentatively scheduled for the SDRWQCB meeting dated December 13, 2000. The SDRWQCB will hear all public testimony on the Tentative Order at this meeting. The SDRWQCB is tentatively scheduled to consider adoption of the Tentative Order at its meeting dated February ]4, 2001. The official public review and comment period for the Tentative Order will begin October 12, 2000 and close on December 13, 2000. Written comments or testimony should be subniitted to the SDRWQCB as soon as possible, but no later than November 30, 2000. All written comments or testimony received by November 30, 2000 will be provided to the SDRWQCB Members prior to the December 13, 2000 public heating. The SDRWQCB will consider oral statements at the December 13, 2000 public heating. A proposed adoption schedule for Tentative Order No. 2001-01 is attached. California Environmental Protection Agency Recycled Paper ~ hv ~ SJn Diego Municlp~1 Copermiltces ') October II, ~(J(JCJ The Tentative Order is also available for download from the SDRWQCB web site at http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/-rwqcb9. or by mail by providing a name and address, If you have any questions conceming the Tentative Order, please contact Phil Hammer of my staff Jt (8581 627- 3988, Respectfully, ~oJ~ rf\~.r John H Robertus Executive Officer Enclosures: l. ') Distribution List Proposed Adoption Schedule for Tentative Order No, 2001-01 Tentative Order No, 2001-01 Draft Fact Sheet/Technical Report for SDRWQCB Order No, 2001-01 3. 4, s: \storrn \sdpemri t\sdperm99-0 1 \transmi ttal California Environmental Protection Agency o Recycled Paper S~n Diego \1uniClr~1 Copermlttees --""'1- Distrihution List Lloyd B. Hubbs, City of Carlsbad Samir ~uhaiJy, City of Chula Vista Thomas R. O'Toole, City of Coronado Lauraine Brekke-Esparza, City of Del Mar Richard Odiorne. City of El Cajon Roben Acker, City of Encinitas Rolf Gunnarson, City of Escondido Hank Levien, City of Imperial Beach Driss Elwardi, City of La Mesa Charles Stuck, City of Lemon Grove Bunon Myers, National City Peter Weiss, City of Oceanside Niall Fritz, City of Poway Michael uoeruaga, City of San Diego Roben Copper, County of San Diego David Merk, San Diego Unified Pon District Richard Wygant, City of San Marcos Cary Stewan, City of Santee Chandra Collure. City of Solana Beach Mike Basham, City of Vista California Environmental Protection Agency 6 Recycled Paper Octolxr 1 ] , 2()()(J ./ PROPOSED ADOPTION SCHEDULE1 TENTATIVE ORDER NO. 2001-01 San Diego Municipal S10rm Wa1er Permit October 10,2000 (Tue) Draft Permit released (by mail and Internet), Incorporates SWRCB's final SUSMP decision. Includes Public Notice describing full schedule and "process" for permit adoption as shown below, Public Notice of 12/13 Public Hearing published in newspaper (64 days , prior to hearing), Public comment period , opens. Day 0 October 19, 2000 (Thur) 1 s1 public workshop on draft permit. Goal: provide overview of permit to public, Board members may attend, Day 9 November2,2000(Thu0 2nd public workshop on draft permit. Goal: receive oral comments from public, Board members may attend. Day 23 November 16, 2000 (Thur) 3'd public workshop on draft permit. Goal: respond orally to public's oral comments at previous workshops. Board members may attend. Day 37 , November 30, 2000 (Thur) Written comment period closes (last date written comments will be accepted), Day 51 December 13, 2000 (Wed) SDRWQCB CONDUCTS PUBLIC HEARING. Hears all public testimony. Closes public hearing and closes public record(Le., oral comment period closed). -, Day 64 February 14, 2001 (Wed) SDRWQCB CONSIDERS ADOPTION. ..~ t .'; ,I -j Public Comment Period Oct 11 (Wed) -- Dec 13 (Wed) 64 calendar days (written comments: Oct 11-Nov 30, 51 days) 1 1 Dates subject to change. S :storm/debladoption schedulepublicversion.doc .j .j , c..J Tentative Order No. 2001-01 October 17. 2000 Table of Contents Findings.... ... .......................................... ............................................... 1 Directives.... ......... ........................... ......... .............. ............................. ...8 A. Prohibitions - Discharges..... ..... ...... ......................... ........ ....................8 B. Prohibitions - Non-Storm Water Discharges....................,........................ 9 C. Receiving Water Limitations.............. ....................................................1 0 D. Legal Authority.............. ............ ........ ................................. ................ 10 E. Technology Based Standards................................................................ 12 F. Jurisdictional Urban Runoff Management Program.....................................13 -, ; F.1. Land-Use Planning for New Development and Redevelopment Component................................... ............................................ ....13 F.1.a. Revise General Plan.................................................... 13 F.1.b. Modify Development Project Approval Processes............... 14 F.1.b.(1) Conditions of Approval....................................14 F.1.b.(2) SUSMPs......................................................15 F.1.c. Revise Environmental Review Processes Including CEQA Checklists......................................................................... ..20 F.1.d. Conduct Education Efforts Focused on New Development And Redevelopment........ .................... ................................. 20 -, .' F.2. Construction Component........ ........................................... ........ 21 F.2.a. Pollution Prevention.... ........... .......... ........... .............. ..21 F.2.b. Grading Ordinance Update.......................................... 21 F.2.c. Modify Construction and Grading Approval Process.......... 21 F.2.d. Source Identification.. ...... ........................................... 22 F.2.e. Threat to Water Quality Prioritization..............................22 F.2.f. BMP Implementation...................................................23 F.2.g. Inspection of Construction Sites.................................... 23 F.2.h. Enforcement of Construction Sites.................................24 F.2.i. Reporting of Non-compliant Sites.................................. 24 F.2.j. Education Focused on Construction Activities..................24 " ~ , ~ F.3. Existing Development Component............................................ ...24 F.3.a. Municipal (Existing Development)................................... 24 F.3.b. Industrial (Existing Development)....................................27 F.3.c. Commercial (Existing Development)................................ 30 F.3.d. Residential (Existing development)................................. 31 'J j -, J I -' 1 FA. Education Component.............................................................. 32 F.5. Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination Component.....................34 F.5.a. Illicit Discharges and Connections...................................34 Tentative Order No. 2001-01 11 October 17, 2000 F.5.b. Dry Weather Analy1ical Monitoring..... ...... ....................... 34 F.5.c. Investigation / Inspection and Follow-up...........................34 F.5.d. Elimination of Illicit Discharges and Connections................35 F.5.e. Enforce Ordinance.................................................... ...35 F.5.f. Prevent and Respond To Sewage Spills (Including from Private Laterals) and Other Spills....... .....................................35 F.5.g. Facilitate Public Reporting of Illicit Discharges and Connections - Public Hotline.............. ............... .................. ...35 F.5.h. Facilitate Disposal of Used Oil and Toxic Materials.............35 F.5.i. Limit Infiltration From-Sanitary Sewer to MS4.....................35 F.6. Public Participation Component....... ............ .............. ........ ......... 35 F.7. Assessment of Jurisdictional URMP Effectiveness Component..........36 F.B. Fiscal Analysis Component........................:...............................36 G. Implementation of Jurisdictional URMP...................................................36 H. Submittal of Jurisdictional URMP Document.............................................36 I. Submittal of Jurisdictional URMP Annual Report.........................................40 J. Watershed Urban Runoff Management Program........................................41 K. Implementation of Watershed URMP...................................................... 43 L. Submittal of Watershed URMP Document................................................43 M. Submittal of Watershed URMP Annual Report..........................................43 N. All Co permittee Collaboration.... .......... .................................................. 44 O. Principal Permittee Responsibilities...................... ......................... .........45 P. Receiving Waters Monitoring and Reporting Program.................................46 Q. Task and Submittal Summary............................................................... 46 R. Standard Provisions, Reporting Requirements and Notifications...................49 Attachment A - Basin Plan Prohibitions Attachment B - Receiving Waters Monitoring and Reporting Program for Order No. 2001-01 Attachment C - Standard Provisions, Reporting Requirements, and Notifications Attachment D - Glossary Attachment E - Dry Weather Analytical Monitoring Specifications - Urban Runoff .. Tentative Order No. 2001-01 Page 1 of 50 s: \ST 0 R r.r'SDP E R M ITS d pcrrr, 99-0' \P erm 11\5 0 1,1 L: niP crm It. doc Octo:;u 11. 2000 CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD SAN DIEGO REGION TENTATIVE O;:lDER NO. 2001-01 NPDES NO. CA0108758 -, WASTE DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS FOR DISCHARGES OF URBAN RUNOFF FROM THE MUNICIPAL SEPARATE STORM SEWER SYSTEMS (MS4s) DRAINING THE WATERSHEDS OF THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, THE INCORPORATED CITIE:S OF SAN D1E:GO COUNTY, AND THE SAN DIEGO UNIFIED PORT DISTRICT The California Regional Water Ouality Control Board, San Diego Region (hereinafter SDRWOCB1. fines :hat: 1. COPERMITTEES ARE DISCHARGERS OF URBAN RUNOFF: Each of the persons in Table 1 below, hereinafter called Copermittees or dischargers, owns or operates a municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4), through which it discharges urban runoff into waters at the United States within ,he San Diego Region. These MS4s fall into one or more of the following categories: (1) a medium or large MS4 that services a population of greater than 100,000 or 250,000 respectively; or (2) a small MS4 that is "interrelated" to a medium or large MS4; or (3) an MS4 which contributes 10 a violation of a water quality standard; or (4) an MS4 which is a significant contributor of pollutants to waters ot the United States. Table 1. Municipal Copermittees 1. Ci:y of Carls bad 11. City of National City 0 City of Chula Vista 12. City of Oceanside ~. 3. City of Coronado 13. City of Poway 4 Ci:yof Del Mar 14. CilY of San Diego 5. CI:yof EI Cajon 15. City of San Marcos 6. City of Encinitas '6. City of Santee 7. City of Escondido 17. City of Solana Beach 8. City of Imperial Beach ~j 8. City of Vista 9. City of La Mesa 19. Coumyof San Diego 10. City of Lemon Grove 20. San Diego Unified Port District . , i 2. URBAN RUNOFF IS A "WASTE" AND A "POINT SOURCE DISCHARGE OF POLLUTANTS": Urban runoff is a waste, as defined in the California Water Code, that contains pollu,ants and adversely afiects the quality of the waters of the State. The discharge of urban runoff from an MS4 is a "discharge of pollutants from a point source" into waters of the United States as defined in the Clean Water Act. --:-: I " ~l 3. URBAN DEVELOPMENT AND RUNOFF CAUSES RECEIVING WATER DEGRADATION: Urban runoff discharges from MS4s are a leading cause of receiving water quality impairment in the San Diego Region and throughout the United States. As runoff flows over urban areas. it picks up harmful pollutants such as pathogens, sediment, fertilizers, pesticides, heavy metals, and petroleum products. These pollutants often become dissolved or suspended in urban runoff and are conveyed and discharged to receiving waters, such as streams, lakes, lagoons, bays, and the ocean without treatment. Once in receiving waters, these pollutants ] ! I~~tativ" Order No. 2001-01 Page 2 of 50 _. ST 0 R M\S 0 P ~ n:.~ ii\Sc!pcrm9S-[; 1",Pcr m j t'.S Dr./! u n j Perm j 1. doc October 11. 2000 ~arm aqua!i':; life primarily thro'Jgh tOI.I:ity and hab::e:.i de';J,"adatlon. rurthermore, the ;Jollutan!s C2.1 enter the ;000 chain Ci.;IC may eventually 8:;:e:- t~f: tissues of iIS,~ ana hL.:ma:ls. There is a s:rong direct correlation between "urbanization" and "impacts to receiving water quality". In general, the more heavily de'/eloped the area, the greater the impacts to receiVing waters from urban runoff. ~. URBAN DEVELOPMENT INCREASES POLLUTANT LOAD, VOLUME, AND VELOCITY OF RUNOFF: During urban de'velopment tvJO important changes occur. First, natural vegetated pervious gro:md cover is converted to imoervious surfaces such as paved highways, streets, rooftops, and parking lots. Natural vegetated soil can both absorb rainwater and remove pollutants providing a very effective natural purification process. Because pavement and ~oncrete C3C, neither absorb water nor remove pollutants, the natural purification sharacteristlCS of the land are lost. Secondly, urban development creates new pollution sources as human population density increases and brings with It proportior,ately higher levels of car emissions, car maintenance wastes, municipal sewage, pesticides, household hazardous wastes, pet wastes, trash, etc. which can ei:her be washed or directly dumped into the MS4. As a result of these two changes, the runoff leaving the developed urban area is significantly greater in volume, velocity and pollutant load than the pre-development runoff from the same area. 5. WATER QUALITY DEGRADATION INCREASES WITH PERCENT IMPERVIOUSNESS: The increas&d volume and velocity of runoff from developed urban areas greatly accelerates ,ne erosion of downstream natural channels. Numerous studies have demonstrated a direct sorrelation oetween the degree of imperviousness of an area and the degradation of its receiving water quality. Significant declines in the biological integrity and physical habitat of streams and other receiving waters have been found to occur with as little as a 10% conversion from natural to impervious surfaces. (Developments of medium density single family homes range between 25 to 60% impervious). Today"% impervious coverage" is believed to be a reliable indicator and predictor of the water quality degradation expected from planned new development. 6. URBAN RUNOFF IS A HUMAN HEALTH THREAT: Urban runoff contains pollutants, which :hreaten human health. Human illnesses have been clearly linked to recreating (Le., swimming, s~rfing, etc.) near storm drains flowing to coastal beach waters. Such flows from cr8an areas on en result in the posting or ciosure of local beaches. Pollutants transported to receiving waters by urban runott can also enter the food chain. Once in the food ohain they can "bioaccumulate" In the tissues of invertebrates (e.g., mussels, oysters, and lobsters) and fish which may be eventually consumed by humans. Furthermore, some pollutants are also known to "biomagnify". This phenomenon can result in pollutant concentrations in the body fat of top predators that are millions of times greater than the ooncentrations in the tissues of their lower trophic (food chain) counterparts or in ambient waters. 7. POLLUTANT TYPES: The most common categories of pollutants in urban runoff include total suspended solids, sediment (due to anthropogenic activities); pathogens (e.g., bacteria, viruses, protozoa); heavy metals (e.g., copper, lead, zinc and cadmium); petroleum products and polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons; synthetic organics (e.g., pesticides, herbicides, and PCBs); nutrients (e.g., nitrogen and phosphorus fertilizers), oxygen-demanding substances (decaying vegetation, animal waste), and trash. Ter,:ative Oreer ~Jo. 2001-01 Page 3 of 50 s: .SiC;:l.r.1\SDP~ Rr,';1T'.s:::i~crm99-01 \Pcrmit'.SDt.1ur. iPermit.doc October 11, 2000 5 URBAN STREAMS AS AN MS4 COMPONENT: HistoriC and current oevelopment make usa 8' natural drainage patterns and features as conveyances for urban runoff. Urban streams ..:s<:::d in this ma:1ner are pan of the municiDaiities MS4 regardless of whether they are narurdl. cc,an-made. or partially modified features. In these cases. the urban stream is both an MS4 ana a receiving water. i g, URBAN RUNOFF CAUSES BENEFICIAL USE IMPAIRMENT: Individually and in combination. :he discharge of pollutants and increased t10\\'5 from MS4s can cause or threaten to cause a ':::ondition of pollution (i.e., unreasonable irr.;:Jairment of \"Jater quality ter designated beneficiai CS8S), contamination, or nuisance. The discharge of pollutants from MS4s can cause the concentration of pollutants to exceed applicable receiving water quality obJectives and impair or threaten to impair designated beneficial uses. 10. COPERMITTEE:S IMPLEMENT URBAN RUNOFF MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS (URMPs): Copermittee implementation of Urban Runoff Management Programs (URMPs) designed to reduce discharges oi pollutants and flow into and from MS4s to the maximum extent oracCicable :lvio:P) can protect receiving water quality by promoting attainment of water quality objectives necessary to support designated beneficial uses. To be most eifective, URMPs must contain both structural and non-structural best management practices (BMPs). 11. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMPs): Pollutants can be eifectively reduced in urban runoff by the application oi a combination of pollution prevention, source control. and !reatment control BMPs. Source control BMPs (both structural and non-structural) minimize ;r,e contact between pollutants and flows (e.g., rerouting run-on around pollutant sources or keeping pollutants on-site and out of receiving walers). Treatment control (or structural) BMPs remove oollutants irom urban runoif. ~ 12. POLLUTION PRE:VENTION: Pollution prevention, the initial reduction/elimination oi pollutant generation at its source, is the best '1irst line of defense" ior Copermittees and should be used in conjunction with source control and treatment control BMPs. Pollulan!s that are never generated do not have to be controlled or treated. .,3. ;:jECE:!VING WATER LIMITATIONS; Compliance with receiving water limits based on applicable water quality objectives IS necessary 10 er,sure that MS4 discharges will not cause or contribute to violations of water quality objectives and the creation oi conditions oi pollution. ~ 14. RECEIVING WATER LIMITATION COMPLIANCE STRATEGY: Implementation oi BMPs cannot ensure attainment of receiving water quality objectives uneer all circumstances; some BlviPs may not prove to be as effective as anticipated. An iterative process oi BMP .:ievelopment, implementation, monitoring, and assessment is necessary to assure that an Urban Runoif Management Program is suiflciently comprehensive and effective to achieve compliance With receiving water quality objectives. , ] 15. COPERMITTEE:S' RESPONSIBILITY FOR ILLICIT DISCHARGES FROM THIRD PARTIES: As operators oi MS4s, the Copermittees cannot passively receive and discharge pollutants irom third parties. By providing iree and open access to an MS4 that conveys discharges to the waters of the United States, the operator of an MS4 that does not prohibit and/or control discharges into its system essentially accepts '1itle" for those discharges. J 16. CO PERMITTEES' RESPONSIBILITY BASED ON LAND USE AUTHORITY: Utilizing their land use authority, Copermittees authorize and profit irom the urban development which generates the pollutants and runoff that impair receiving waters. Since the Copermittees utilize their legal authority to authorize urbanization, they must also exercise their legal authority to ensure that the resulting increased pollutant loads and ilows do not iurther degrade receiving waters. ] ] Ter.tative Order No. 2001-01 Page 4 of 50 s; \Si"ORM',S 0 P E RM1T\Sd perm99-0 1 ,Perm I t\5 Dr.' unJ Perm it.doc October 11, 2000 17, THREE PHASES OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT: Uman develooment has three major o~ases: (1) land use planning for new development: (2) cor.struction; and (3) the "use" or eXisting development phase. Because the Copermr;tees authorize. permit, and profit from each of these phases. and because each pnase has a profound impact on water quality. the Copermittees have commensurate responsibilities to protect water quality during each phase. In other words. Copermittees are held responsible for the short and long-term water quality oonsequences of their land use planning. construction. and existing development decisions. 18. PLANNING PHASE FOR NEW DEVELOPMENT: Because land use planning and zoning is where urban development is conceived, it is tne phase in which the greatest and most cost- effective opportunities to protect water quality exists. When a Copermittee incorporates policies end prinCiples designed to sateguard water resources Into ItS General Plan and development project approval processes. it has taken a far-reaching step towards the preservation of local water resources for future generations. 19. CONSTRUCTION PHASE: Construction activities are a significant cause of receiving water impairment. Siltation is currently the largest cause of river impairment in the United States. Sediment runoff rates trom construction sites greatly exceed natural erosion rates of undisturbed lands causing siltation and impairment of receiving waters. In addition to reouiring implementation of the full range of BMPs. an effective construction runoff program must include local plan review. permit conditions. field inspections. and enforcement. 20. EXISTING DEVELOPMENT: The Copermittees' wet weather monitoring results collected during lne past decade, as well as volumes of other references in tne literature today, confirm s'Jbstantial pollutant loads to receiving waters in runol! from existing urban develooment. Implememation of jurisdictional and watershed URIvlC's. which include extensive controls on existing deveiopment, can reduce pollutant loadings over the long term. 21. CHANGES NEEDED: Beceuse the urbanization process is a direct and leading cause of water quaiity degradation in this Region, fundamental changes to existing policies and practices about urban development are needed ii the beneficial uses of San Diego's natural water resources are to be protected. 22. DUAL REGULATION OF INDUSTRIAL AND CONSTRUCTION SITES: Discharges of runoff ;rom industrial and construction sites in this Region are subject to dual (state and local) regulation. (i) All industries and construction sites are subject to the local permits, plans, and ordinances of the municipal jurisdiction in which it is located. Pursuant to this Order, local (slOrm water. grading, construction, and use) permits, plans, and ordinances must (a) prohibit the discharge of pollutants and non-storm water into the MS4; and (b) require the routine use of BMPs to reduce pollutants in site runoff. (2) Many industries and construction sites are' also subject to regulation under the statewide General Industrial Storm Water Permit or statewide General Construction Storm Water Permit'. These statewide general permits are adopted by the State Water Resources Control Board and enforced by the nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards throughout California. Like the Copermittees' local permits and ordinances. the statewide General Industrial and Construction Permits also (a) prohibit the discharge' of pOllutants and non-storm water; and (b) require the routine use of BMPs to reduce pollutants in site runoff. "" 1 The "s~tewide General Industrial Storm Water Permit" refers to State Water Resources Control Board Water Quality Order No. 97-03-DWQ National Pollutant Discharge ~limjnation System General Permit No. CAS000001, Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Industrial Activities Excluding Construction Activities. The "statewide General Construction Storm Water Permit" refers to State Water Resources Control Board Order No. 99-08-DWQ National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System General Permit No, CAS000002, Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges of Storm Water Runoff Associated with Cor:struction Activity. Ten:ative Order No. 2001-01 Page 5 of 50 s: \5" 0 R ur.s D P E i=l T,' IT.Sd ~erm 95-0 1 \?erm it,,$ 0 r.' L: r. i P cr;n it. d oe Oc:ober 11, 2030 ~,0SCl~nizlng :hat jo~h authorrties share a cammor, ;;031, the feoeraJ s:orm vJater regula1ICJr~s 2: .::C: C~=j 122.25 (3.;,0 ilS prear;--,:)ie) cail Tur :r:e dual ~'~,:;~em to 8;-.sure ~he most f)~iective c.;e,slgnt of Industrial and construction site discharges. Under this dual system, each C'1uclGlpal Copermlttee IS responslbie tor enlorcing ItS local permits, plans, and ordinances within its jurisdiction. Similariy, the SDRWOCB is responsible for enforcing both statewide general permits and this Order Within the San Diego Region. 23. EDUCATION: Education is the foundation of every effective URMP and the basis ior c~2nges in behavior at a societal level. Education of municipal pJanning, inspection, and r;',ain:enance deDanment statis is especially critical to ensure :hat in~house staffs understanj now their actiVities impact water quality, how to accompiish their Jobs while protecting water oc"lity, and their specific roles and responsibilities for compliance with this Order. Public education, designed to target various urban land users and other audiences, is also essential ;0 Inform the public of how individual actions impact receiving' water quality and how these im~acts can be minimized. 24. ENFORCING LOCAL LEGAL AUTHORITY: Enforcement of local urban runoff related ordinances, permits, and plans is an essential component of every URMP and is specifically required in the federal storm water regulations and this Order. Routine inspections prOVIDe an e:;ectlve means by which Copermittees can evaluate compliance with their permits and o,dinances. Inspections are especially important at high-risk areas for pollutant discharges such as induslrial and construction sites. When industrial or construction site discharges occur in violation ot local permits and ordinances, tne SDRWOCB looks first to the municipaiity that has authorized the discharge tor ap;Jropria18 actions (typically education followed by enforcement where educalion has been unsuccessful). If the municipality has demonstrated a good faith effort to educate and enforce but remains unsuccessful, the SDRWOCB will then step in to enforce the applicable statewide general :>ermit. If the municipality has not demonstrated a good faith enforcement sTiort, the SDRWOCB may initiate enforcement action against both the industrial or construcIion Discharger (under the statewide general permit), as well as against the au:horizing municipal Copermittee Tor violations OT this Order. Each Copermittee must also ;Jrovide the first level of enforcement against illegal discharges irom other land uses it has authorized, such as commercial and residential developments. 25. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: Public participallon during the URMP development orocess is necessary to ensure that all siakeholder interests and a variety of creative solutions are considered. j J 26. TOXICITY: Urban runoff discharges from MS4s often contain poilutants that cause toxicity, (i.e., adverse responses of organisms to chemicals or physical agents ranging irom mortality to ;Jhysiological responses such as i".-,::>aired reproduction or growth anomalies). The waler quality obiectives for toxicity provided in the Water Ouality Control Plan, San Diego Basin, Region 9, (Basin Plan), stale in part "All waters shall be free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life.. _. The survival of aquatic life in surface waters subjected to a waste discharge or other controllable water quality factors, shall not be less than that for the s?me water body in areas unaffected by the waste discharge..." Urban runoff discharges irom MS4s are considered toxic when (1) the toxic effect observed in an acute toxicity test exceeds zero Toxic Units Acute (TUa=O)i or (2) the toxic effect observed in a chronic toxicity test exceeds one Toxic Unit Chronic (TUc=1). j '1 j 27. FOCUS ON MAN-MADE POLLUTANTS AND FLOWS: The iocus of this Order Is on the control of urban runoJi pollutants and flows which are either generated or accelerated by -, Tentative Order No. 2001-01 Page 6 of 50 S: .57:) R fJi\S D? E R 1,1IT,Sd;)(:~rm 9 3-0 1 \P c~m i t\5 8 r.1 u n j Perm it. doc October 11,2000 ~'Jman activities. This Order is not meant to control background or r',atural!y occurring ~ollutants and Ilows. 28. COMMON WATERSHEDS AND CWA SECTION 303(d) IMPAIRED WATERS: The Copermittees discharge urban runoff into lakes, drinking water reservoirs, rivers, streams, c,eeks, bays, estuaries, coastal lagoons, the Pacific Ocean. and tributaries thereto within ten of the eleven hydrologic units (watersheds) comprising the San Diego Region as shown in Table 2 below. During its downstream course, urban runoif is conveyed through lined and unlined (natural, manmade, and partially modified) channels, all of which are defined as components of the Copermittees' MS4. Some of the receiving water bodies, which receive or convey urban runoff discharges, have ::,een designated as impaired by the SDRWOCB and USEPA in 1998 pursuant to Clean Water Act section 303(d). Also shown below are the watershed management areas (WMAs) as defined in the SDRWOCB report, Watershed Management Approach, January 2000. Tabie 2. Watershed Management Areas (WMAs) , SDRWQCB 303(d) POLLUTANT(S) ! i WATERSHED HYDROLOGIC MAJOR SURFACE WATER OF CONCERN OR COPERMITTEES I MANAGEMENT UNIT(S) BODIES WATER QUALITY I I AREA (Vlr~A) EFFECT I Santa Margarita Santa Margarita Santa Margarita River and 1. Coliform Bacteria 1. County at San Diego River 1902.0Q) Estuarv. Pacific Ocean 2. "Jutrients San Luis Rey River San LUIS Rey San Luis Rey River and 1. Coliform Bacteria 1. City of Escondida (903.00) Estuary, Pacific Ocean 2. Nutrients 2. City of Oceanside I 3. City of Vista 4. County of San Die88 , Carls:J2.j Carls:a:j (904.00) Batiquitos Lagoon 1. Coliform Bacteria ,. City of Carls Dad j i San Elljo Lagoon 2. Nutrients 2. City of Encinitas , Agua Hedionda Lagoon 3. Sediment 3. City of Escondido , , , Buena Vista Lagoon 4. City of Oceanside , And Tributary Streams 5. City cf San IJlarcos Pacific Ocean 6. City of SOlana Seaer! i 7. City of Vista I i 8. County of Sa:l Die:o ! San Die:;Jui;:Q ::i.1'Jsr San Diegulto (905.00) San Dieguito River and 1. Coliiorm Bacreria 1. City of Del Mar i Estuary, Pacific Ocean 2. City of Escondida 3. City of POW8}1 4. City of San Diego 5. City of Solana Beach 6. County of San Dis:Jo lv1isSioj'l 3ay Perlasquitcs (906.00) Los Penasquitos Lagoon ,. Coliform Bacteria ,. Gityof Del Mar i Mission Bay: Pacific Ocean 2. rJletaJs 2. City of Poway 3. Nutrients 3. City of San Diego I 4. Sediment . Countv of San Dieo:J ! -. i San Dieg8 .=liver San Diego (9Q7.00) San Diego River, Pacific 1. Coliform Bacteria 1. City of d Cajon I I Ocean 2. City of La Mesa ! 3. City of pcway i 4. City of San Diego i i 5. City of Santee 6. County of San Dieco San Die:;J:J 3ay Pueblo San Diego San Diego Bay 1. Coliform Bacteria 1. City of ChuJa VisIa (908.00) Sweetwater River 2. Metals 2. City of Coronado Sweetweter (909.00) Otay River 3. Toxicity 3. City of EI Cajon I Otay (910.00) Pacific Ocean 4. Benthic Community 4. City of Imperial , Degradation Beach ! 5. City of La Mesa i 6. City of Lemon Grove 7. City of National City 8. City of San Diego I 9. County of San Diego . 1 O.San Diego Unified I Port District Tentative Order lb. 2001-01 Page 7 of 50 S: $7 Q M; 1/lIS D? ERr,' ITIS d pc rm 99-01 ,;::>crm iLS DI,1 ~ n I Perm it. doc October 11. 2000 SDRWQC3 I I 303(d) POLLUTANT(S) \\' ATERSHED HYDROLOGIC r.~AJOR SURFACE 1v'/ATER OF CONCERN OR COPERrmTTt::ES fI.Ar.JAGE1IIEtn UNIT(S) BODIES WATER QUALITY AREA (WI"A) EFFECT I Tij:Juna Rlvf!r Tijuana (9i 1 .00) Tljuana River anc: Estuary 1. Coliform Bacteria 1. City of lr.-lpulCli I Pacific OceoJn 2. Low Dissolved Oxygen Beach 3. Metals 2. City of San Diego 4. Nutnents 3. County of San 0103;;0 5. Pesticides I I 5 Synthetic Organics ! I 7 Total Dissoived Solids i a. Trash - 29. CUMULATIVE POLLUTANT LOAD CONTRIBUTIONS: Because they are interconnected, eacn 1v184 wltnin a watershed contributes to the cumulative pollutant loading, volume, and velocity 01 uroan runol! and the ensuing degradation 01 downstream receiving water bodies. Accordingly, Ie, lane 1/i84s contribute to coastal impairments. . 30. LAND US'" PLANNING ON A WATERSHED SCALE: Because' urban runoff does not recognize poiitical boundaries, "watershed-based" land use planning (pursued collaboratively by neighboring local governments) can greatly enhance the protection of shared natural water resources. Such piannlng enables multiple jurisdictions to work together to plan for both development and resource conservation that can be environmentally as well as economically sustainable. 31. INT"'RGOVERNMENT AL COORDINATION: Within their common watersheds it is essential ior the Copermittees to coordinate their water quality protection and land use planning activities to achieve the greatest protection of receiving water bodies. Copermittee coordination with other watershed stakeholders. especially Caltrans and the Department of Defense, is also critical. t:stablishment of a management structure, within which the Copermitlees subject to this Order, will iund and coordinate those aspects oj their joint obligations will promote implementation of Urjan Runoff Management Programs on a watershed and regional basis in the most cost effective manner. 32. WAST'" REMOVAL: Wasle and pollutants which are deposited and accumulate in MS4 drainage structures will be discharged from these structures to waters of the United States unless they are removed. These discharges may cause or contribute to, or threaten to cause or contribute to, a condition of pollution in receiving waters. Once removed, such accumulated wastes must be characterized and lawfully disposed. 33. TOXIC HOT SPOTS: Urban runoff is a significant contributor to tne creation and persistence of Toxic Hot Spots in San Diego Bay. California Water Code section 13395 requires regional boards 10 reevaluate waste discharge requirements (WDRs) associated with toxic hot spots. The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) adopted the Consolidated Toxic Hot Spot Cleanup Plan in June 1929. The Plan states: "The reevaluation [of WDRs associated with toxic hot spots] shall consist ot (1) an assessment of the WDRs that may influence the creation or further pollution of the known toxic hot spot, (2) an assessment of which WDRs need to be modified to improve environmental conditions at the known toxic hot spot, and (3) a schedule for completion of any WDR modifications deemed appropriate." 1 j 34. CHANGING THE STORM WATER MANAGEMENT APPROACH: In contrast to the conventional "conveyance" approach, a more natural approach to storm water management seeks to filter and infiltrate runoff by allowing it to fiow slowly over permeable vegetated surfaces. By "preserving and restoring the natural hydrologic cycle", filtration and infiltration can greatly reduce the volume/peak rate, velocity, and pollutant loads of urban runoff. The greatest opportunities for changing from a "conveyance" to a more natural management approach occur during the land use planning and zoning processes and when new development projects are under early design. Tentative Order No. 2001-01 Page 8 of 50 s: STORr!. .s::'?:::?r..1IT"S=;:;<::i~?~-~ 1 .PE:~:T1lt S::r,'l:.JnIPer:Tllt.cl::J:: October 11. 2000 35. INF!L TRATION AND POTENTIAL GROUNDW ATER CONT AMI NATION: Any dralcage feature that infiltrates runoff ::>cses some risk of potentia! groundwater cO;ltar:1i:lation. ,A,lthough dependent on se"Jeral factors, the risks typically associated with the infiltration of runoff (especially from residenti21 ;and use areas) are not significant. The risks associated with infiltration can be managed by many techniques, including (1) designing landsca::Je drainage features that promote infiltration of runoff, bUl do not "injecf' runoff (injection bypasses the natural processes of filtering and transformation that occur in the soil); (2) taking reasonable steps to prevent the illegal disposal of wastes; and (3) ensuring that each drainage feature is adequately maintained in oerpetuity. Minimum conditions needed to protect groundwater are specified in section F.l.::J. of this Order. 36. ANTI DEGRADATION: Conscientious implementation of URMPs that satisfy the requirements comained in this Order will reduce the likelihood that discharges from MS4s will cause or contribute ~o unreasonable degradation of the quality of receiving waters. Therefore, this Order is in conformance with SWRCB Resolution No. 68-16 and the federal antidegradation policy described in 40 CFR 131.12. 37. CEQA: The Issuance of waste discharge requirements for the discharge of urban runoff from MS4s to waters of the United States is exempt from the requirement for preparation of environmental documents unoer the California EnVIronmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code, Division 13, Chapter 3,921000 et seq.) in accordance with the CWC S 13389. 38. PUBLIC NOTICE: The SDRWQCB has notified the Copermitlees, all known interested parties, and the public of iIS intent to consider adoption of an order prescribing waste discharge requirements that would serve to renew an NPDES permit for the existing discharge of urban runoff. 39. PUBLIC HEARING: The SDRWQCB has, at a public meeting on December 13,2000, held a public hearing and heard and considered all comments pertaining to the terms and conditions of this Order. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Copermitlees, in order to meet the provisions contained in Division 7 of the California Water Code and regulations adopted thereunder, and the provisions of the Clean Water Act and regulations adopted thereunder, shall each comply with the following: A. PROHIBITIONS - DISCHARGES. 1. Discharges into and from MS4s in a manner causing, or threatening to cause, a condition of pollution, contamination, or nuisance (as defined in CWC 9 13050), in waters of the state are prohibited. 2. Discharges from MS4s which cause or contribute to exceedances of receiving water quality objectives for surface water or groundwater are prohibited. 3. Discharges into and from MS4s containing pollutants which have ~ot been reduced to the maximum exient practicable (MEP) are prohibited. 4. Aoolicable to New Develooment and Sionificant Redevelopment Onlv: Post-development runoff which is greater in peak rate or velocity than pre-development runoff from the same site is prohibited. Post-development runoff containing pollutants loads which cause or contribute to an exceedance of receiving water quality objectives or which have not been reduced to the maximum exient practicable is prohibited. Discharges of post-development runoff into a Clean Water Act section 303( d) water body containing any pollutant (for which the water body is already impaired) in levels exceeding predevelopment levels (for those same pollutants) is prohibited. Tentative Order f"o. 2001-01 Page 9 of 50 5;'.STO ::U.l ,S:J;::-!::.R r..1iT\SdpN;i.S9-01 \?crrn it\S Of,' uni ?crlr,i..d8C October 11. 2000 5. 1;--, aCGit:on to Hoo,e above prorllbilions, cJischarges fro:-n fvlS4s are subject to aJ! Basin Pian pro.'1ibitlclns c::e:! in Attachment A to this Order. 3. PROHIBiTIONS -- NON-STORM WATER DISCHARGES 1 1. E~::~I Copermittee shal! effectively prohibit E..!! types of non-storm \\'ater discharges into its fv'lunicip81 Se~arate Storm Sewer System (MS4) unless such discharges are either authOrized 8y a separate I.JPCiES permit: or not prohibited In accordance_with B.2. and B.3. below. 2. "'.;rsuant tD 40 CFR 122.26(d)(2)(iv)(6)(1), the tollDwlng categories of non-stDrm water Discharges need only be prDhibifed irom entering an MS4 If such categDries Df discharges are idemiiied by ,he CO;Jermil1ee as a significanf SDurce of pDllutants tD waters ot the United States: , ., ~i'Jerted stream flows; ",ising ground waters; UncDntaminated ground water iniiltratiDn [as defined at 40 CFR 35.2005(20)] tD MS4s; Uncontaminated pumped grDund water; Foundation drains; Springs; g. Water trom crawl space pumps; ,1. Footing drains; i. Air cDnditiDning cDndensation; j. Flows from riparian habitats and vvetlands; f.. VV2ter line flushing; !. Landscape irrigation; m. Discharges from potable water sources other than water main breaks; ". Irrigation water; o. Lawn watering; Individual residential car washing; and Dechlorinated swimming pool discharges. c. j d. e. T. ., J , I 3. 1 I I j J. ~ ..,. When a discharge category above is identified as a significant source of pollutants to waters oi tre United States, the Copermittee shall either: a. Prohibit the discharge category from entering its MS4; OR b. Not prohibit the discharge category and implement, or require the responsible parTy(ies) 10 implement. BfvlPs which will reduce pollutants to the MEP; AND FDr each discharge category not prohibited. the Copermittee shall submit the following information to the SDRWOCB within 180 days of adoption at this Order: (1) The non-storm water discharge category Hsted above which the Copermittee elects not to prohibit: and (2) The BMP(s) for each discharge category listed above which the Copermittee will implement. or require the responsible party(ies) to implement, to prevent or reduce pollutants to the MEP. J 4. Fire Fighting Flows: BMPs must be implemented to reduce pollutants from non-emergency iire fighting flows (i.e., fiows from controlled or practice blazes) identified by the Copermil1ee to be significant sources oi pollutants to waters of the United States. Emergency fire fighting flows (i.e., flows necessary for the protection at Iiie or property) do not require BMPs and need not be J , J Tentative Order No. 2001-01 Page 10 of 50 S: \STO R r.~ ,5 DP E RMIT\Sd perm99-0 1 \Perm I LS DrJl u n i Perm It. d DC October 11. 2000 ::lmhibiied. 5. Dry Weather Analytical Monitoring and Non-Storm Water Discharges: Each Copermitt8e S02,: examine all dry weather analytical monllorlng results collected in accordance with section F.5. and Attachment E of this Order to identify water quality problems which may be the result of any non- ~rohibited discharge catego:y(ies) identified above in l">Ion-Storm Water Discharges to MS4s Prohibition B.2. Follow-up investigations shall be conducted as necessary to identify and control any non-prohibited discharge catego:y(ies) list8d above. Non-prohibited discharges listed in B.2. above whish contain pollutants which cannot be r8duced to the maximum extent practicable by the implementation of BMPs shall be prohibited on. a categorical or case by case basis. C. RECEIVING WATER LIMITATIONS 1. SIscharges from MS4s that cause or contribute to the violation of water quality standards (designated beneficial uses and water quality objectives develdped to protect beneficial uses) are crohibited. 2. Each Copermittee shall comply with Part C.1. of this Order through timely implementation of control measures and other actions to reduce pollutants in urban runotf discharges in accordance with the Jurisdictional Urban Runoff Management Program (Jurisdictional URMP) and other requiremems of tnis Order including any modifications. The Jurisdictional URMP shall be designed to achieve compliance with Part C.1. of this Order. If exceedance(s) of water quality standards persist notwithstanding implementation of the URMP and other requirements of this Order, the Copermltiee shall assure compliance with Part C.1. of this Order by complying with the following procedure: _. Upon a determination by either the Copermiltee or the SDRWOCa that MS4 discharges are causing or contributing to an exceedance of an applicable water quality standard, the Copermittee shall promptly notify and thereafter submit a report to the SDRWOCB that describes BMPs that are currently being implemented and additional BMPs that will be Implemented to prevent or reduce any pollutants that are causing or contributing to the exceedance of water quality standards. The report may be incorporated in the annual update to the Jurisdictional URMP unless the SDRWOCB directs an earlier submittal. The report sr,all include an implementation schedule. The SDRWOCB may require modifications to the repe,,; u. Submit any modifications to the report required by the SDRWOCB within 30 days of notificmio1; c. Within 30 days following approval of the report described above by the SDRWOCB, the Copermitiee shall revise its Jurisdictional URMP and monitoring program to incorporete the approved modified BMPs that have been and will be imolemented, the implementation schedule, and any additional monitoring required; d. Implement the revised Jurisdictional URMP and monitoring program in accordance with the approved schedule. So long as the Copermiltee has complied with the procedures set forth above and are implementing the revised Jurisdictional URMP, the Copermiltee does not have to repeat the same procedure for continuing or recurring exceedances of the same receiving water limitations unless directed by the SDRWOCB to do so. 3. Nothing in this section shall prevent the SDRWOCB from enforcing any provision of this Order while the Copermiltee prepares and implements the above report. D. LEGAL AUTHORITY 1. Each Copermiltee shall establish, maintain, and eniorce adequate legal authority to control pollutant discharges into and from its MS4 through ordinance, statute, permit, contract or similar Tentative Order No. 2001-01 Page 11 of 50 s: \5 TO R r.~ .s:J? ER r.~ InSdperm99-0 1 \Perm i 1\S OM un i Perm it. Cloc Octo:,er 11. 2000 C'.Sa~S. This legal authority must. at a minimum. authorize the Copermlrtee to: _. Control the contribution of pollutants In discharges of runoff associated with inc'Jstrial and construction activity to its MS4 and control the quality of runoff from Industrial and construction sites. This reqUIrement applies both to Industrial and construction sites which have coverage under the statewide general industnal or construction storm water permils, as vJel1 as to those sites which do not. Grading ordinances shall be upgraded and enforced as necessary to comply with this Order. J. Prohibit!'.!! illiCit discharges including but not limited to: (1) Sewage; (2) Discharges of wash water resulting from the hosing or cleaning of gas stations, auto repair garages. or other types of automotive services facilities; (3) Discharges resulting from the cleaning, repair, or maintenance of any type of equipment, machinery. or facility including motor vehicles, cement-related equipment, and po,1-a- potty servicing. etc.; (4) Discharges of wash water from mo:,ile operations such as mobile automobile washing, steam cleaning, power washing, and carpet cleaning, etc.; (5) Discharges of wash water from the cleaning or hosing of impervious suriaces in municiDal, industrial, commercial, and residential areas including parking lots, streets, sidewalks, driveways, patios, plazas, work yards and outdoor eating or drinking areas, etc.; (6) Discharges of runoH from material storage areas containing chemicals, fuels, grease, oii, or other hazardous materials; (7) Discharges of pool or fountain water containing chlorine, biocides, or other Chemicals; discharges of pool or fountain filter backwash water; (8) Discharges of sediment, pet waste, vegetation clippings, or other landscape or construction-related wastes; and (9) Discharges of food-related wastes (e.g., grease, fish processing, and restaurar,t kitchen mat and trash bin wash water, etc.). c. Prohibit and eliminate illicit connections to the MS4; d. Control the discharge of soills, dumping, or disposal of materials other than storm water to ilS MS4; e. Require compliance with conditions in Copermittee ordinances, permits, contracts or orders (i.e., hold dischargers to its MS4 accountable for their contributions of pollutants and flows); i. Utilize enforcement mechanisms to require compliance with Copermittee storm water ordinances, permits, contracts, or orders; g. Control the contribution of pollutants from one portion of the shared MS4 to another portion of the MS4 through interagency agreements among Copermittees (and other owners of the MS4 such as Caltrans or Department of Defense); Tentative Order No. 2001-01 Page 12 of 50 S: \STO R f.',-S DP E R M Ins d perm 99-01 \Pc:'"i:'1 iLS:J M un i Perm it. d DC October 11, 2000 n. Carry out all inspections. surveillance. and monit0r1:1g necessary to determine compliance ana 10ncompliance with local ordinances and permits and with this Order, including the prohibition on illicit discharges to the MS4. Tnls means the Copermittee must have authority to enter, sample, inspect, review and copy records, and require regular reports trom industrial facilities discharging into its MS4, including construction sites; and I. Require the use of best management practices (BMPs) to prevent or reduce the discharge of pOllutants to MS4s. 2. Within 90 days of adoption of this Order, each Copermittee shall provide to the SDRWOCB a statement certified by its chief legal counsel that the Copermlttee has adequate legal authority to implement and enforce each of the requirements contained in 40 CFR 122.26(d)(2)(i)(A-F) and tnis Order. This statement shall include: a. Identification of all departments within the jurisdiction that conduct urban runoff related activities, and their roles and responsibilities under this Order. Include an up to date organizational chart specifying these departments and key personnel. b. Citation of urban runoff related ordinances and the reasons they are enforceable; c. Identification of the local administrative and legal procedures available to mandate compliance with urban runoff related ordinances and therefore with the conditions of this Order; d. Description of how these ordinances are implemented and appealed; and e. Description of whether the municipality can issue administrative orders and injunctions or ii it must go through the court system for enforcemen' actions. _. TECHNOLOGY BASED STANDARDS Each Copermittee shall implement, or require implementation of, best management practices to ensure that the following pollutant discharges into and from its Iv1S4 are reduced to the applicable technology based standard as specified below: Table 3. Technology Based Standards2 I APPLICABLE POLLUTANT DISCHARGE DESCRIPTION PERFORMANCE FROM STANDARD Inoustrial Activity owned bv the Catege>rical Industry in 40 CFR 122.26 BATIBCT (pursuant COJerrnittee to Statewide Genera! Industrial Permit) Industrial Activitv All other industrV MEP CO:1struc!ion Activity o\vned bv I Greater than or Equal to 5 Acr€s {or less than 5 acres SAT BeT (pursuant the Coosrmittee and Part of a Larger Common Plan at Sale or to Statewide General Development) Construction Permit) Construction Activitv All Other construction M-P ~, I All Other Land Use Activities ME? Other Sources MS4s I All dischar es trom MS4s M~P :~ -.l. ., ,.j 2 Pursuant to t1is Order, each Copermittee shall ensure that pollutants in runoff from industrial and construction sites within its jurisdiction have been reduced to the ME? standard before entering its MS4. The industrial and construction site dischargers themselves however must ensure that pollutants in runoff leaving their sites have been reduced to the BAT/BCT standard pursuant to either the statewide General Industrial or Construction Storm Water Permit. Runoff trom industrial and construction sites owned by municipalities and subject to either the General Industrial or Construction Storm Water Permits, must meet the BAT/BCT standard. Tentative Order No. 2001-01 ;:>age 13 of 50 s: \5 Te R r .~'.S!J? E RM IT\5 d perm ~;-O 1 \P cr m i r.s Dr,' u n i Per iT! it. d DC October 11. 2000 ;:. JURiSDICTIONAL UR3AN RUNOF;: rfoANAGEM:::NT PROGRAM' Eac:l Copermittee shall t<-~ke appropriate actions to reduce discharges of pollutants and runoff :10'/\1 ci~~:r:'~' eac~ of the three major phases of u:'ban development, i.e., the planning, construction, and eXlstir1g development (or use) p~ases. Each Copermittee shall implement a Jurisdictional Urban Runoff Management Program (Jurisdictional URr,"p) that contains the components shown below as described in Sections ;:.1. through ;:.8: F.1. Land-Use Planning for New Development and Redevelopment Component F.2. Construction Component F.3. Existing Development Component a. Municipal b. Industrial c. Commercial d. Residential FA. Education Component F.5. Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination Component, F.6. Public Participation Component F.7. Assessment of Jurisdictional URMP Effectiveness Component F.B. Fiscal Analysis Component F.1. Land-Use Planning for New Development and Redevelopment Component ::ach Copermirtee shall minimize the short and long-term impacts on receiving water quality from new development and redevelopment. In order to reduce pollutants and runoff flows from new development and redevelopment to the maximum extent practicable, each Copermittee shall at a minimum: F."1.2 Revise General Plan F.1.D I~odity Development Project Approval Processes F.1.c Revise Environmental Review Processes Including CEQA Checklists F.1.d Conduct Education Efforts Focused on New Development and Redevelopment F.1.a. Revise General Plan .., ::ach Copermlrtee shall incorporate water quality and watershed protection principles and policies into the General Plan or equivalent plan (e.g., Comprehensive, Master, or Community Plan) to direct land-use dec;sions and require implementation of consistent water quality protection measures for all cevelopmen: projects. These principles and poiicies shall be designed to protect natural water bodies, reduce impervious land coverage, slow runoff, and where ieasible, maximize opportunities tor infiltration ot rainwater into soil. Such water quality and watershed protection principles and policies shall include for example: :) (1) Minimize the amount of impervious surfaces and directly connected impervious surfaces in areas of new development and redevelopment and where feasible maximize on-site infiltration of runoff. , I i .J (2) Implement pollution prevention methods supplemented by pollutant source controls and treatment. Use small collection strategies located at, or as close a's possible to, the source (i.e., the point where water initially meets the ground) to minimize the transport ot urban runoff and pollutants ottsite and into an MS4. "l " j I '. (3) Preserve, an'd where possible, create or restore areas that provide important water quality benefits, such as riparian corridors, wetlands, and buffer zones. Encourage land acquisition Tentative Order No. 2001-01 Page 14 of 50 s: \S70 R r.~ ',5 D PER M IT..sd ;:>c~m 99.0 1 \Perm ir,S DI.~ un i Perm it. doc October 11. 2000 of sue;; areas. (4) Umlt disturbances of natural water bodies and natural drainage systems caused by develo;Jment including roads. highways. and bndges. (5) Prior to making land use deCisions. utilize methods available to estimate Increases In pollutant loads and flows resulting from projected future development. Require incorporation of structural and non-structural BMPs to mitigate the projecfed increases In pollutant loads and flows. (6) Avoid development ot areas that are particularly susceptible to erosion and sediment loss; or establish development guidance that identifies these areas and protects them from erosion and sediment loss. (7) Reduce pollutants associated with vehicles and increasing traffic resulting trom development. Coordinate local traffic management reduction efforts with the San Diego County Congestion Management Plan. (8) Implement the San Diego Association of Government's (SANDAG's) recommendations as found in the Water Quality Element of its Regional Grow1h Management Strategy. (g) For new development and significant redevelopment only: The post-development runoff rates and velocities from a site shall not exceed the pre-development runoff rates and velocities from the same site. Post-development runoff from a site shall not contain pollutant loads which cause or contribute to an exceedance or receiving water quality objectives or which have not been reduced to the maximum extent practicable. Post-development runoff discharges into a Clean Water Act section 303(d) water body shall not contain any pollutant (for which the water body is already impaired) in ievels exceeding pre-development levels (for those same pollutants). :=.1.b. Modifv Develooment Proiect Aooroval Processes Prior to project approval and issuance of local permils, Copermittees shall review each Individual proposed project plan and require measures to ensure that pollutants and runoff from the development will be reduced to the maximum extent practicable and will not cause or contribute to an exceedance of receiving water quality objectives. Each Copermittee shall further ensure that all developmem will be in comDliance with Copermittee storm water ordinances, IDeal permits, all other applicabie ordinances and requirements, and this Order. (1) Condftions of Approval Each Copermittee shall include conditions of approval in local permits to ensure that pollutant discharges and runoff flows from development are reduced to the maximum extent practicable and that receiving water quality o:Jjectives are not violated throughout the life ot the project. Such conditions shall, at a minimum: (a) Require project proponent to implement pollution prevention and source control BMPs for all development projects. (b) Require project proponent to implement site designnandscape characteristics where feasible which maximize infiltration, provide retention, slow runoff, and minimize impervious land coverage for all development projects. (c) Require project proponent to implement buffer zones for natural water bodies. (d) Require industrial applicants subject to California's statewide General NPDES Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Industrial Activities (Except Construction), (herein?fter General Industrial Permit), to provide evidence of coverage under the General Industrial Permit. Tentative Order No. 2001-01 Page 15 of 50 S: \57 0 R M'.$:::l P E ~ M IT,S d ;::>c.m 99-0 i \Perm It'.SO r.' u niP erm it. d DC Oct:Jber 11. 2000 ; (e) Require p~oject proponent to ensure its grading or other construction act,VI:,8S CT,~E;' the ~raVISlons specified in Seclion F.2. of this Order. (1) Require project proponent to en$;Jre long.terrn maintenance of all post-ccms~rucllc)i, BMPs in perpetuity. (g) Require project proponent to ensure that the post-development runoff rates and velocities irom a site do not exceed the pre-development runoff rates and velocities trom the same site. Require project proponent to ensure that post-development runotf pollutants loads from a site have been reduced to the maximum extent practicable and do not cause or contribute to an exceedance of water quality objectives. Require [Jfoject proponent to ensure that post-develoDment runoff Into a Clean Water Act section 303(d) water body containing any pollutant (for which the water body is already Impaired) does not exceed pre-development levels (for those same pollutants). (2) Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plans (SUSMPs) Within 365 days of adoption of this Order, the Copermirtees shall collectively develof:' 3 model Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) to reduce pollutants &:J runoff fiows from all new development and significant redevelopment projects falling under the priority project categories or locations listed in section F.1.b.(2)(a) below. Within 180 days of approval of the model SUSMP in the public process by the SDRWOCB, each Copermittee shall aoopt its own local SUSMP, and amended ordinances consistent with the approved model SUSMP, and shall submit both (iocal SUSMP and amended ordinances) to the SDRWOCB. -, .~ Immediately following adoption of its local SUSMP, each Copermirtee shall ensure that all new development and significant redevelopment projects falling under the priority project categories or locations listed in F.1.b.(2)(a) beiow meet SUSMP requirements. The SUSlviP requirements shall apply to all priority projects or phases of priority projects, including those with apDroved tentative maps, which have not yet begun grading or construction activitiE;s. -, I j ~ (a) Priority Development Project Categories - SUSMP requirements shall apply to all neel development and significant redevelopment projects falling under the prionty project categories or locations listed below. Significant redevelopment is defined as the creation or addition of at least 5,000 square feet oi impervious surfaces on an alre2dy developed site. Significant redeveiopment includes, but is not limited to: the exoansion of a buiiding footprint or addition or replacement of a structure; strUCTural development including an increase in gross floor area and/or exterior construction or remodeling; replacement of impervious suriace that is not part of a routine maintenance aClivity; 2.nJ land disturbing activities related with structural or impervious surfaces. Where significant redeveiopment results in an increase of less than fifty percent ot the impervious surfaces of a previously existing development, and the existing deveioDment was not subject to SUSMP requirements, the numeric sizing criteria discussed in section F.1.b.(2)(c) appiies only to the addition, and not to the entire development. j i. I-Iome subdivisions of 100 housing units or more. This category includes single- family homes, multi-tamily homes, condominiums, and apartments. ii. Home subdivisions of 10-99 housing units. This category includes single-family homes, muiti-family homes, condominiums, and apartments. Hi. Commercial developments greater than 100,000 square feet. This category IS defined as any development on private iand that is not for heavy industrial or residential uses where the land area for deveiopment is greater than 100,000 square feet. The category includes, but is not limited to: hosphals; laboratories <;ind other medical facilities; educational institutions; recreational facilities; commercial nurseries; multi-apartment buildings; car wash facilities; mini-malls ] c Tentative Order No. 2001-01 Page 16 of 50 s: '.ST 0 M ;.~ .S DP E F; M 11\5 d pc~m 99.0 1 \P cr;r, i L5 :::n.' un i P erm i 1. d oc October 11, 2000 and other business cOf71plexes: SOJpD:rg malis; hotels: office buildings: ~~bl,c wa.ehouses: and other light i:ldus~rra! ;c=..c:lities. :v. Automotive repair shops. This category :s defined as a facility that is categorized in anyone of the followlog Standard Industnal Classification (SIC) codes: 5013, 5014, 5541, 7532-7534, or 7536-7539. v. Restaurants. This category is defined as a facility that sells prepared foods and drinks for consumption, including stationary lunch counters and refreshment stands selling prepared foods and drinks for immediate consumption (SIC code 5812), where the land area for development is greater than 5,000 square feet. vii. vi. All hi!lside development greater than 5,000 square feet. This category is defined as any development which creates 5,000 square feet of impervious surtace which is located in an area vllth known erosive soil conditions, where the development will grade on any natural slope that is twenty-five percent or greater. Environmentally Sensifive Areas: All development and redevelopment located within or directly adjacent to or discharging directly to an environmentally sensitive area, which either creates 2,500 square feet of impervious surface on a proposed project site or increases the area of imperviousness of a proposed project site to 10% or more of its naturally occurring condition. Environmentally sensitive areas include but are not limited to all Clean Water Act Section 303(d) impaired water bodies; areas designated as Areas of Special Biological Significance by the State Wafer Resources Control Board (Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin (1994) and amendments); water bodies designated with the RARE beneficial use by the State Water Resources Control Board (Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin (1994) and amendments); areas designated as preserves or their equivalent under the Multi Species Conservation Program within the Cities and County of San Diego; and any other equivalent environmentally sensitive areas which have been identified by the Copermiltees. "Directly adjacenf' means situated within 200 feet of the environmentally sensitive area. "Discharging directly to" means outflow from a drainage conveyance system that is composed entirely or predominantly of flows from the subject development or redevelopment site, and not commingled with flows from adjacent lands. ;- viii. Parking lots 5,000 square feet or more or with 15 or more parking spaces and potentially exposed to urban runoff. Parking lot is defined as a land area or facility for the temporary parking or storage of motor vehicles used personally, for business, or lor commerce. ix. Street, roads, highways, and freeways. This category includes any paved surtace used for the transportation of automobiles, trucks, motorcycles, and other vehicles. X. Retail Gasoline Outlets. Retail Gasoline Outlet is defined as any facility engaged in selling gasoline. (b) BMP Requirements - The SUSMP shall include a list of recommended pollution prevention, source control, and structural treatment BMPs. The SUSMP shall require all new development and significant redevalopment projects falling under the above priority project categories or locations to implement a combination of BMPs selected from the recoml1)ended BMP list, including at a minimum (1) pollution prevention BMPs, (2) Tentative Order No. 2001-01 Page 17 of 50 S: \5 TOR ;.1.5 D? S R r,~ IT.Sa;:,c ,m 99-(: 1 \?crm it'S DIJI u niP c r;n j:. doc Oc10ber 11. 2000 source control SfVi?s, and (3) s:ructural treatment aMPs. The Bh.1Ps s~:a![, a: c. minl:l1Ui1: Maintain pre-development peak storm water runotf discharge rates ano velocities; ii. Conserve natural areas; iii. Minimize storm water pollutants of concern (through implementation of pollution prevention and source control BMPs). Identification of pollutants of concern should include conSideration of any pollutants for which the developmen!"s receiving water bodies are listed as impaired under Clean Water Act section 303(d), any pollutant associated with the land use type of the development, any pollutant commonly associated With urban runoff, and increased runoff flow rate from the development and its potential downstream impacts; Remove pollutants ot concern from urban runoff (through implementation oi structural treatment BMPs); Minimize directly connec1ed impervious areas; Protect slopes and channels from eroding; Include storm drain stenciling and signage; Include properly designed outdoor material storage areas; Include properly designed trash storage areas; Include proof of a mechanism for ongoing long-term BMP maintenance; Include additional water quality provisions applicable to individual priority project categories; Be designed to maximize their pollutant removal capabilities; Be implemented as close to pollutant sources as possible and prior to runoif discharges into the MS4 or other receiving waters; Ensure that post-development runoff does not contain pollutant loaes which cause or contribute to an exceedance of water quality objectives or which h2ve not been reduced to the maxim urn ex1ent practicable; and ensure that post-development runoff into a Clean Water Act section 3C3(e) water body containing any pollutant (for which the water body is already impaired) does not contain those same pollutants in levels exceeding pre- development levels. IV. v. vi. vii. viii. ix. x. xi. xii. xiii. , XIY. xv. (c) Numeric Sizing Criteria - The SUSMP shall require structural treatment BMPs to be implemented at all priority development projects. In addition to meeting the BMP requirements listed in item F.1.b.(2)(b) above, all structural treatment BMPs tor a single priority development project shall collectively be sized to comply with the tollowing numeric sizing criteria: Volume Volume-based BMPs shall be designed to mitigate (iniiltrate, filter, or treat) elthec: i. The volume ot runoff produced from a 24-hour 85th percentile storm event, as determined trom the local historical rainfall record (0.6 incn approximate average for the San Diego County area);3 or ii. The volume of runotf produced by the 85'h percentile 24-hour rainiall event, determined as the maximized capture storm waler volume for the area, from the formula recommended in Urban Runoff Qualitv Manaoement. WEF Manual of Practice No. 23/ASCE Manual ot Pracrice No. 87. (1998); or 3 This volume is not a single voiume to be applied to all of San Diego County. The size of the, 85th percentile storm event is different for various parts of the COUflty. The Copermittees are encouraged to calculate the 8S,h percentile storm event for each of their jur:sdictions using local rain data pertinent to their particular jurisdiction. The 0.6 inch standard is a rough average for the county and should only be L:sed where appropriate rain data is not available. Tentative Order No. 2001-01 Page 18 of 50 s: \ST 0 R fll.S QP E R M IT\Sdpcrm99-01 \Perm i t'.s D M u n i Perm it. d oc October 11. 2000 III. The volume of annual runoff bas8d on unit basin storage volume, to acrlieve 90o~ or more volume treatr.1ent ~y the method recommended In California Stormwater Best Manaoement Practices Hand:,ook - Industrial/Commercial. (1993); or IV. The volume of runoff, as determined from the local hlstoncal rainfall record, that achieves approximately the same reduction in pollutant loaes and flows as achieved by mitigation ot the 85" percentile 24-hour runoff event; OR Flow Flow-based BMPs shall be designed to mitigate (infiltrate, filter, or treat) either: i. The maximum tlow rate of runoff produced from a rainfall intenSity of 0.2 inch of rainfall per hour; or II. The maximum flow rate of runoff produced by the 851h percentile hourly rainfall intensity, as determined from the local historical rainfall record, multiplied by a factor of two; or III. The maximum flow rate of runoff, as determined from the local historical rainfall record, that achieves approximately the same reduction in pollutant loads and flows as achieved by mitigation of the 851h percentile hourly rainfall intensity multiplied by a factor of two. (d) Equivalent Numeric Sizing Criteria - The Copermittees may develop any equivalent numeric siZing criteria or performance-based standard for post-construction structural treatment BMPs as part of the model SUSMP. Such equivalent sizing criteria may be authorized for use in place of the above criteria. In the absence of development and subsequent authorization of such equivalent numeric sizing criteria, the above numenc sizing criteria requirement shall be implemented. (e) Pollutants of Concern - As part of the model SUSMP, the Copermiltees shall develop a procedure for pollutants of concarn 10 be identified for each new development or significant redevelopment project. The procedure shall include, at a minimum, consideration of (1) receiving water quality (including pollutants for which receiving waters are listed as impaired unaer Clean Water Act section 303(d)); (2) land use Type of the development project and pollutants associated with that land use type; (3) pollutants expected to be presant on site; and (4) changes in flow rates and volumes resulting from the development project and sensitivity of receiving waters to changes in flow rates and volumes. (I) Implementation Process - As part of the model SUSMP, the Copermiltees shall develop a process by which SUSMP requirements will be implemented. The process shall identify at what point in the planning process development projects will be raquired to meet SUSMP requirements. The process shall also include identification of the roles and responsibilities of various municipal departments in implementing the SUSMP requirements, as well as any other measures necessary for the implementation of SUSMP requirements. (g) Restaurants Less than 5,000 Square Feet - New development and significant redevelopment restaurant projects where the land area development is less than 5,000 square feet shall meet all SUSMP requirements except for structural treatment BMP and numeric sizing criteria requirement F.1.b.(2)(c) above. A restaurant is defined as a facility that sells prepared foods and drinks for consumption, including stationary lunch counters. and refreshment stands selling prepared foods and drinks for immediate Tentative Order No. 2001-01 Page 19 of 50 s: \510 R r .'-.S D;:' E R fl..; i'T"\Sd pe:-rr. 99-0 1 \P crr:l itS 8r..'1 u n i? c"m it. d oc October 11, 2000 CQc,scmptlon (SIC Code 5812). (h) V'J21'/er ?rovlslon - A CopE:rrnjttee may provide tor a proj8CI to be ViI'3lveo irOf;j In\:: reo~lrement of implementing structural treatment BMPs (F.1.b.(2)(c)) If Infeaslbll'v CclCl be es:ablished. .6, waiver of Infeasibility shall only be granted by a Copermittee vlhcJn ai! available structural treatment Bl-APs have been considered and rejected as infeasible. Copermittees shall notify the SDRWOCB within 5 days of &ach waiver issued and sha!1 inclcde the name of :he person granting each waiver. As part of the model SUSlv1P, lhe Copermirtees shall develop a program to require project proponents who have received waivers to transfer the savings in cost, as determined by the Copermittee(s), to a storm water mitigation fund. This program shall be implemented by all Copermiitees which choose to provide waivers. Funds shall only be used on projects to improve urban runolt quality within the watershed of the waived project. The waiver program shall, at a minimum,:identify: i. The entity or entities fhaf will manage the storm water mitigation fund (I.e., assume full responsibility for) II. The range and types of acceptable projects for which mitigation funds may be expended; iii. The entity or entities that will assume full responsibility for each mitigation project including its successful completion IV. How the dollar amo~nt of fund contributions will be determined. (I) InfllIration and Groundwater Protection - At a minimum, use of infiltration structural treatment BIv1Ps shall meet the following conditions: I. Use of infiltration structural treatment BMPs shall not cause or contribute to an exceedance of groundwater w?ter quality objectiv&s. ii. Urban runolt shall undergo pr~::'satment such as sedimentation or filtration prior to infiltration. ill. .'\11 dry weather flows shall be diverted from infiltration devices. IV. Pollution pravention and source control BMPs shall be implemented at a level appropriate to protect groundwater quality at sites where infiltration structural treatment BMPs are to be used. v. Infiltration structural trsatment BMPs shall be adequately maintained to maximjze tJo11utant removal capabilities. vi. The vertical distance from the base of any infiltration structural treatment 8M? to the seasonal high groundwater mark shall be at least 10 feet. vii. The soil through which infiltration is to occur shall have physical and chemical characteristics (such as appropriate cation exchange capacity, organic content, clay content, and infiltration rate) which are adequate for proper infiltration durations and treatment of urban runoff for the protection of groundwater beneficial uses. viii. Infiltration structural treatment BIv1Ps shall not be used for areas of ind~strial or light industrial activity; areas subject to high vehicular traffic (25,000 or greater average daily traltic on main rcadway or 15,000 or more average daily traffic on any intersecting roadway); automotive repair shops; car washes; fleet storage areas (bus, truck, etc.); nurseries; and other high threat to water qualiTY land uses and activities as designated by each Copermittee. ix. Infiltration structural BMPs shall be located a minimum of 100 feet hOllzontally from any water supply wells. Tentative O,aer No. 2001-01 Page 20 of 50 s: '.5T 0 R I. ~ '.S:J? ERr.:: IT,Sc jJcr:":":99-0 1 \?crm i: '.S~IJl u n j Perm i t. doc October 11, 2000 ;: J .':. =:evise =~J,~CJ1nient21 Revlev; Processes Includina CEOA Checklists I~) Revise cuccent enviwnmen:al review pwcesses and Caiifornia Environmentai Quality Act (CEQA) initial study checklists to include requirements for evaluation of water quality effects and identification of appropriate mitigation measu,es. The CEQA initial study checklist shall include questions addressing increased pollutants and flows from the proposed pwject such as: (a) Would the pwposed pwject mcull in an increase in pollutant discha'ges to ceceiving waters? Consider water quality parameters such as temperature, dissolved oxygen, tu,bidity and other typical storm wa1er pollutants (e.g., heavy metals, patnogens, petroleum derivatives, synthetic organics, sediment, nutrients, oxygen-demanding substances, and l,ash). (b) Would the proposed project result in significant alte,ation of ceceiving water quality dUring or following construction? (c) Would the pwposed project result in inneased inpervious suriaces and associated increased cunoff? (d) Would the pwposed pwject create a significant adverse enviwnmental impact to d,ainage patterns due to changes in runoff flow rates or volumes? (e) Wouid the pwposed pwject result in increased erosion downstream? (f) Is the pwject tributary to an already impaired water body, as listed on the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list. If so, will it result in an increase in any pollutant for which the water body is already impaired? (g) Is Project tributary to other enviwnmentally senSitive areas? If so, will it exacerbate already existing sensitive conditions? (h) Wouid the pwposed pwject have a potentially significant enviwnmental impact on suc:ace water quality, to either marine, fresh, or wetland waters? (i) Would the proposed pwject have a potentially significant adverse impact on gwund water quality? (j) Will the proposed project cause or contribute to an exceedance of applicable suriace or gwundwater receiving water quality objectives or degradation of beneficial uses? (k) Will the pwject impact aquatic, wetland, or riparian habitat? F.1.d. Conduct Cducation Efforts Focused on New Develooment and Redevelooment (1) Internal: fJlunicipal Staff Each CODermlttee shall implement an education pwgram to ensure that its planning and development review staffs have an understanding ot: (a) Federal, state, and local water quality laws and regulations applicable to development projects; (b) The connection between land use decisions and short and long-term water quality i",:cacis (i.e., impacts from land development and urbanization); and (c) How impacts to receiving water quality resulting from development can be minimized (Le., through implementation of various source control and structural BMPs). (2) External: Project Applicants, Developers, Contractors, Property Owners As eariy in the planning and development process as po'ssible, each Copermittee shall implement a program to educate project applicants, developers, contractors and property owners on the following topics: (a) Federal, state, and local water quality laws and regulations applicable to development pwjects; (b) Required federal, state, and loca! permits pertaining to water quality; -,cntative Ordcr No. 2001-C1 Page 21 of 50 s: \ST 0 q i, :'3:J?::: R r.r. IT\S d D erm 9 9-0 1 "P corm i t\S 0 M u niP ~rm I t. d oc Octo:Jcr ~ 1. 2000 (c) \\'z;:a c~allty impac~s of urbanizatlCln: and (d) r\~'2:hJods fDr mlnlm:zl:lQ the impac:s at dE;\lf;ID;Jment Oil re.:;eivlng vy'a~sr C....;2j:::. F.2. Construction Component E"sh Copermi:tee shall implemenl a Construction Component of its Jurisdictional URMP to reduce pJl!utants in runoff from construction sites during all construction phases. At a minimum the construction component shall address: F.2.a. F.2.b. F.2.c. F.2.d. F.2.e. F.2.t. F.2.g. F.2.h. F.2.i. F.2.j. Pollution Prevention Grading Ordinance Update Modify Construction and Grading Approval Process Source Identification Threat to Water Quality Prioritization BI,~P Implementation Inspection of Construction Sites ::nforcement of Construction Sites Reporting of Non-compliant Sites Education Focused on Construction Activities F.2.a. Pollution Prevention (Construction) ::ach Copermiitee shall implement pollution prevention methods in its Construction ComDon8nt a"d shall require its use by construction site owners, developers, contractors, and other r8sponsible ;::arties. r.2.b. Gradino Ordinance Uodate (Construction) ::ach Copermitte8 shall review and update its grading ordinances as necessary for comDliance wl:h I:s storm water ordinances and this Order. The updated grading ordinance shall require oollullon prevention, source control, and structural treatment BMPs to be implemented during all construction 2~tivities, including for example: (i) Erosion prevention; (2) Seasonal restrictions on grading; (3) Slope sTabilization reouirements; (4) Phased grading; (5) Revegetation as early as feasible; (6) Preserva,ion of natural hydrologic features; (7) Preservation of riparian buffers and corridors; (8) Maintenance of all source control and structural treatment BMPs; and (9) Retention of sediment and other construction pollutants on site. F.2.c Modiiv Construction and Gradina Aooroval Process (Construction) Prior to approval and issuance of local construction and grading p8rmits, each Copermittee shall review all individual proposed construction and grading plans and require measures to ensure that pollutants from the site will be reduced to the maximum extent oraciicable and will not cause or contribute to an exceedance of water quality objectives. Each Copermittee shall further enSJre lhat 2.:; grading aild construction activities will be in compliance with applicable Copermittee ordinances (e.g., storm wa,er, grading, construction, etc.) and other applicabl8 requirements, including this Order. Tentative Order No. 2001-01 Page 22 of 50 s: \5T OR M\S DPE R M 11'\5 dpcrm 99-0 1 \Perm I t\S:l rA u n i Perm I t.doc October 11. 2000 i -,) Conditions ~I Approval Include conditions 01 approval in local grading and c~nstructlon permits to ensurE: that pollutant discharges are reduced to the maximum extent practicable and water quality objectives are not violated during the construction phase. Such conditions shall include lor example: (a) Require project proponent to develop and implement a plan to manage storm waler and non-storm water discharges lrom the site at all times; (b) Require project proponent to cOincide grading with seasonal dry weather periods: (c) Require project proponent to emphasize erosion prevention as the most imporlant measure lor keeping sediment on site dUring construction; (d) Require project proponent to utilize sediment controls as a supplement to erosion prevention for keeping sediment on-site during construction, and never as the single or primary method; (e) Require project proponent to minimize areas that are cleared and graded to only the porlion of the site that is necessary for construction; (f) Require project proponent to minimize exposure time of disturbed soil areas; (g) Require project proponent to temporarily stabilize and reseed disturbed soil areas as rapidly as possible; (h) Require project proponent to permanently revegetate or landscape as early as feasible; (i) Require project proponent to stabilize all siopes; and OJ Require project proponents subject to Calilornia's statewide General NPDES Permit lor Storm Water Discharges Associated With Construction Activities, (hereinafter General Construction Permit), to provide evidence 01 existing coverage under the General Construction Permit. F.2.d. Source Identilication (Construction) Each Copermiltee shall annually develop and update, prior to the rainy season, a watershed based inventory of all construction sites within its jurisdiction regardless 01 sile size or ownership. This requirement is appiicable to all construction sites regardless 01 whether the construction site is subject to the Calilornia statewide General NPDES Permit for Storm Water Discharges p.ssociated With Construction Activities (hereina1ter General Construction Permit), or other individual NPDES permit. The use 01 an automated database system, such as Geographical Information System (GIS) is highly recommended, but not required. F.2.e. Threat to Water Qualitv Prioritization (Construction) (1) To establish priorities for construction oversight activities under this Order, the Copermiltee shall prioritize its watershed-based inventory (developed pursuant to F.2.d. above) by threat to water Duality. Each construction site shall be ciassified as high, medium, or low threat to water quality. In evaluallng threat to water quality each Copermiltee shall consider (1) soil erosion potential; (2) site slope; (3) project size and type; (4) sensitivity of receiving water bodies; (5) proximity to receiving water bodies; (6) non-storm water discharges; and (7) any other relevant factors. (2) A high priority construction site shall at a minimum be delined as a site meeting anyone of the following criteria or equivalent criteria: (a) 50 acres or more; (b) Grading will occur during the wet season; (c) Highly erosive soils; (d) Hillside development; and Tentative Order No. 2001-01 Page 23 of 50 S: \$ TO R r.~ .$::;::>':: H M IT\Sd !}e;m 95-01 \Perm i t\S 0 r.' u n j Perm it. do c October 1" 2000 (e) Inbu;ary to a Clean Water Act section 303(d) impaired water body or ocher envIronr.len~2I1y sensitive area (as defined in seciion F.1 ,b.(2)(CllVii of this O;'c'?;;). r.2.~. 3r,.~p Imolementation (Construction) (1) Each Copermittee shall designate a set of minimum BMPs ior high, medium, and low threat to water quality construction sites (as determined under section F.2.e). BMPs are to be implemented year round. '2) Each Copermittee shall implement, or require the implementation of, the designated minimum BMPs (based upon the sife's-lhreat to water quality rating) at each construction site within its jurisdiction year round. If panicular minimum BMPs are infeasible at any speciiic Site, each Copermittee shall implement, or require the implementation of, other equivalent BMPs. Each Copermittee shall also implement or require any additional site specific BMPs as necessary to comply with this Order, including BMPs which are more stringent :han those required under the statewide General Construction Permit. (3) Each Copermittee shall implement, or require the implementation of, BMPs year round; however, BMP implementation requirements can vary based on wet and dry seasons. (4) Each Copermittee shall implement, or require implementation of, additional controls for construction sites tributary to Clean Water Act section 303(d) impaired water bodies, coastal lagoons. or other environmentally sensitive areas as necessary to comply with this Order. r.2.g. Insoection of Construction Sites (Construction) I~) Each Copermittee shall conduct construction site inspections for compliance with its ordinances (grading, storm water, etc.), permits (construction, grading, etc.), ana thiS Order. Inspections shall include review of site erosion control and BMP implementation plans. (2) Each Copermittee shall establish inspection frequencies and priorities as determined by the threat to water quality prioritization aescribed in F.2.e above. During the wef season (i.e., October 1 through April 30 of each year), each Copermittee shall inspect, at a minimum, each High Priority construction site, either: (a) Weekly OR (b) Monthly for any site that the responsible Copermittee cenifies in a written statement;o the SDRWQCB all of the following (cenified statements may be submitted to the SDRWQCB at any time for one or more sites): i. Copermittee has record of construction site's Waste Discharge Identification Number (WDID#) documenting construction site's coverage under the statewide General Construction Perm if; and ii. Copermittee has reviewed the constructions site's Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP); and iii. Copermiliee finds SWPPP to be in compliance with all local ordinances, permits, and plans; and iv. Copermittee finds that the SWPPP is being properly implemented on site. At a minimum, Medium and Low Priority construction sites shall be inspected by Copermittees twice during the wet season. All construction sites shall be inspected by the Copermittees as needed during the dry season (i.e., May 1 through September 30 of each year). Tentative Order No. 2001-01 Page 24 of 50 s: \ST 0 Rr.r.S D? ERr II IT\Sc perm95-0 1 \Perm i l\S D I.~ u n j Perm it. doc October 11. 2000 /2) Based u~on site inspection findings, each Cop8rml:tee shall Implement all fOllOW-Up actions necessary to comply with this Order, F.2.h. Enforcement of Construction Sites IConstruction', Each Co permittee shall enforce its ordinances (grading, storm water. etc.) and permits (construction, grading, etc.) at all construction sites as necessary to maintain compliance with this Order. Copermittee ordinances or other regulatory mechanisms shall include sanctions to ensure compliance. Sanctions shall include for example: Non-monetary penalties, jines, bonding requirements, and/or permit denials for non-compliance. F.2.i. Reportino of Non-compliant Sites (Construction) Each Copermittee shall provide oral notification to the SDRWOC8 of non-compliant sites within its jurisdiction within 24 hours of the incidence of noncompliance, as required under section R.1 (and 8.7 of Attachment C) of this Order. Such oral notification shall be followed up by a written report to be submitted to the SDRWOCB within 5 days of the incidence of non- compliance as required under section R.1 (and 8.7 of Attachment C) of this Order. Sites are considered non-compliant when one or more violations of local ordinances, permits, plans, or this Order exist on the site. - F.2.j. Education Focused on Construction Activities (Construction) (1) Internal: Municipal Staff Each Copermittee shall implement an education program to ensure that its construction, buiiding, and grading review staffs and inspectors have an understanding of: (a) Federal, state, and local water quality laws and regulations applicable to construction and grading activities. (b) The connection between construction activities and water quality impacts (i.e., impacts from land development and urbanization). (c) How erosion can be prevented. (d) How impacts to receiving water quality resulting from construction activities can be minimized (i.e., through implementation of various source control and structural BMPs). (e) Applicable topics listed in section F.4. of this Order. (2) External: Project Applicants, Contractors, Developers, Property Owners, and other Responsible Parties Each Copermittee shall implement an education program to ensure that project applicants, contractors, developers, property owners, and other responsible parties have an understanding of the topics outlined in section F.2.j.1. above of this Order. F.3. Existing Development Component Each Copermittee shall minimize the short and long-term impacts on receiving water quality from all types of existing development. . F.3.a. Municipal (Existing Development) Each Copermittee shall implement a Municipal (Existing Development) Component to prevent or reduce pollutants in runoff from all municipal land use areas and activities. At a minimum the municipal component shall address: F.3.a.(1) Pollution Prevention Tentative Order No. 2001-01 Page 25 of 50 S: \STO rl r,1 ',:; D? ERr,' IT\$ d perm 95-0 ~ \?e,.., i t',S DrJi u n i Perm I 1. de.:: October 11. 2000 ~ F.3.a,(2) F.3.2.(3) F.3.a.(4) F.3.a.(S) F.3.a.(6) F.3.a.(7) F.3.a.(8) Source loen:ijic2.1iO:l Tr\~G2t to ''/>1 ater Ouality :;~I:y:!:z2ti':m 8MP Implementation Maintenance of !'/lunlcipal Separate Storm Sewer System Management of Pesticides, Herbicides, and Fertilizers Inspection of Municipal Areas and Activities Enforcement of M:";:licipal Areas and Activi!ies ~ , F.3.a.(t) Pollution Prevention (Municipal) Each Copermi1\ee shall implement pollution vevention methods in its Municipal (Exlst:ng Development) Component and shall require its use by appropriate municipal depamnents and personnel. F.3.a.(2) Source Identification (Municipal) Each Copermiltee shall develop, and update annually, a watershed based inventory of the name, address (if applicable), and description of all municipal land use areas and activities which generate pollutants. The use of an automated database system, such as Geographical Information System (GIS) is highly recommended when applicable, but not required. 'j -; F.3.a.(3) Threal to Water Quaiity Prioritization (Municioal) (a) To establish priorities for oversight of municipal areas and activities required under this Order, each Copermittee shall prioritize each watershed inventory in F.3.a.2. above by threat to water quality and update annually. Each municipal area and activity shall be classified as high, medium, or low threat to water quality. In evaluating threat to water quality, each Copermiltee shall consider ("I) type of municipal area or actiVity; (2) materials used; (3) wastes generated; (4) pollutant discharge potential; (5) non-storm water discharges; (6) size of facility or area; (7) proximity to receiving water bodies; (8) sensitivity of receiving water bodies; and (9) any other reievant factors. .i i -' -, i , (b) At a minimum, the high priority municipal areas and activities shall include ihe iollowing: -. , , 2 I J J j l j ~ I i. ii. III. Roads, Streets, Highways. and Parking Facilities. Flood Management Projects and Flood Comrol DeVices. Areas and activities tributary to a Clean Water Act section 303(d) imoaired water body or other environmentally sensitive area (as definej in section F.1.b.(2)(a)vii of this Order). Municipal Waste Facilities. . Active or ciosed municipal landfills; . Publicly owned treatment works (including water and wastewater treatment plants) and sanitary sewage collection systems; . Municipal separate storm sewer systems: . Incinerators; . Solid waste transfer facilities; . Land application sites; . Uncontrolled sanitary landiil!s; . Corporate yards including maintenance and storage yards for materials, waste, equipment and vehicles; . Sites for disposing and treating sewege sludge; and . Hazardous waste treatment, disposal, and recovery facilities. Other municipal areas and activities that the Copermiltee determines may -contribute a significant pollutant load to the MS4. iv. v. Tentative Order No. 2001-01 Page 26 01 50 s: \5TO RI.' '.snp ERrJlIT\Sdperm 99.0 1 \Perm iLS OM un i Perm It. doc October 11. 2000 ;:.3.a.(4) BMP 1C"',olecnentation If,1unicloal) (a) Eacn Copermittee shall desigc,ate a set of minimum BlvlPs for high, medium. and lov,' threat to water quality municipal areas and activities (as determined under section F.3.a.(3)). The designated minimum BMPs for high threat to water Duality municipal areas and activities shall be area or activity specific as appropriate. (b) Each Copermittee shall implem8nt, or require the Implementation of, the designated minimum BMPs (based upon the threat to water quality rating) at each mUnicipal area or activity within its jurisdiction. If particular minimum BMPs are infeasible for any specific area or activity, each Copermittee-shall implement, or require implementation of other equivalent BMPs. Each Co permittee shall also innplement any additional BMPs as are necessary to comply with this Order. i. Each Copermittee shall evaluate feaSibility of retrofitting existing structural flood control deVices and retrofit where needed. (c) Each Copermittee shall implement, or require implementation of, any additional controls for municipal areas and activities tributary to Clean Water Act section 303(d) impaired water bodies, coastal lagoons, or other environmentally sensitive areas as necessary to comply with this Order. ;:.3.a.(5) Maintenance of MLmicioal Seoarate Storm Sewer Svstem !Municioal) (a) Each Co permittee shall implement a schedule of maintenance activities af all structural controls designed to reduce pollutant discharges to or from its MS4s and related drainage structures. (b) Each Copermittee shall implement a schedule of maintenance activities for the municipal separate storm sewer system. (c) The maintenance activities must, at a minimum, include: i. Inspection and removal of accumulated waste (e.g. sediment, trash, debris and other pollutants) between May 1 and September 30 of each year; ii. Additional cleaning as necessary between October 1 and April 30 of each year; iii. Record keeping of cleaning and the overall quantity of waste removed; iv. Proper disposal of waste removed pursuant to applicable laws; v. Measures to eliminate waste discharges during MS4 maintenance and cleaning activities. F.3.a.(6) Manaoement of Pesticides. Herbicides. and Fertilizers !Municioal) The Co permittees shall implement BMPs to reduce the contribution of pollutants associated with the application, storage, and disposal 01 pesticides, herbicides and feniiizers from municipal areas and activities to MS4s'. Important municipal areas and activities include municipal facilities, public rights-of-way, parks, recreational facilities, golf courses, cemeteries, botanical or zoological gardens and exhibits, landscaped areas, etc. Such BMPs shall include, at a minimum: (1) educational activities, permits, certifications and other measures for municipal applicators and distributors; (2) integrated pest management measures that rely on non-chemical solutions; (3) the use of native Tentative Order No. 2001-01 Page 27 of 50 S: \STO R r." .s ~ i' E R M 11'\5:i perm 99-0 1 \Pt rm i~ \$ DfJl u niP er m i 1. doc October 11, 20CJ veget2tion: (4) scheduies 70r irrigation and chemical aopiication; and (5) tne C;!:SC!:2:-, ~;;:.: pr088r disposal or unused pesticides. heroic:ues. and ';8mlizers. F.3.a.(7) Insoection of Municloal Areas and Activities !lAunicioal) At a minimum. each Copermlttee shall insoect high prIOrity municipal areas and actlvlt,ss annually. Based upon site inspection findings, each Copermlttee shall implement all foIIO\'.'-up actions necessary to comply with tr,is Order. ., ;:.3.2.(8) Enforcement of Municioal Areas and ActiVities {Municioali Each Copermittee shall enforce its storm water ordinance ior all municipal arsas and activities as necessary to maintain compliance With this Order. F.3.b. Industrial (Existing Development) !::ach Copermlttee shall implement an Industrial (Existing Development) Component to reduce poll~tants In runoff from all industrial sites. At a minimum the industrial component shall address: c F.3.b.(1) F.3.b.(2) F.3.b.(3) F.3.b.(4) F.3.b.(5) F.3.b.(6) F.3.b.(7) F.3.b.(8) Pollution Prevention Source Identification Threat to Water Quality Prioritization BMP Implementation Monitoring of Industrial Sites Inspection of Industrial Sites Enforcement Measures for Industrial Sites Reporting of Non-compliant Sites F.3.b.(1) Pollution Prevention (Industrial) Each Copermlttee shall implement pollution prevention methods in Its industrial (Existing Development) Component and shail require its use by industry. F.3.b.(2) Source Id9ntification (Industrial) Each Copermittee shall deveiop and update 5nnually a watershed-based inventory of 2i! industrial sites within its jurisdiction regardless of site ownership. This requirement :s applicable to all Industrial sites regardless of whether the industrial site ;s suolect the Caliiornla statewide General NPDES P9rmitfor Storm Water Discharges Associat9d Witn industrial Activities, Except Construction (hereinafter General Industrial Permit) or other individual NPDES permit. Th9 inventory shall include the following minimum information for 9ach industrial site: name; address; and a narrative description including SIC codes which best reflects the principal products or services provided by each facility. The use of an automated database system, such as Geographical Information System (GIS) is highly recommended, but not required. I J F.3.b.(3) Threat to Wat9r Qualitv Prioritization !Industrial) 1 1 (a) To establish priorities for industrial oversight activities under this Order, the Copermittee shall prioritize each watershed-bas9d inventory in F.3.b.(2) above by threat to water quality and update annually. Each industrial site shall be classified as high, medium, or 1 , " Tentative Order No. 2001-01 Page 28 of 50 s: '.STO R M'.S:':>P E R r-..., lTISd pcrm98-0 1 \Perm it\S D r.1 u r. j Perm i I. doc October 11, 2000 I~w lc,'aal to water quality. In evaluating threat to water quality eacn Copermiltee snail c:JC$I:Jer (I) type of industrial activity (SiC Coce); (2) materiais used in inaustrial processes; (3) wastes generatGU; (4) po!lutant discharge potential; (5) non-storm water discharges; (6) size of facility; (7) proximity to reseivlng water bodies; (8) sensitivity of receiving water bodies; (9) whether the indJslrial site IS subject to the statewide General Industrial Permit; and (10) any other relevant tactors. (b) At a minimum the high priority industrial sites shall include industrial facilities that are subject to section 313 of Title III of the Superfund Amenoments and Reauthorization Act ot 1986 (SARA); industrial facilities tributary to a Clean Water Act section 303(d) impaired water body or other environmentally sensitive area (as defined in section F.1.b.(2)(a)vii of this Order); facilities subject to the statewide General Industrial Permit; and all other industrial facilities that the Copermittee determines are contributing significant pollutant loading to its MS4. regardless of whether such facilities are covered under the statewide General Industrial Permit or other NPDES permit. r.3.b.(4) BMP Imolementation (Industrial) (a) Each Co permittee shall designate a set of minimum BMPs for high, medium. and low threat to water quality industrial sites (as determined under section F.3.b.(3)). The designated minimum BMPs for high threat to water quality industrial sites shall be industry and site specific as appropriate. (b) Each Copermittee shall implement, or require the implementation of, the designated minimum BMPs (based upon the site's threat to water quality rating) at each industrial site within its jurisdiction. If particular minimum BMPs are infeasible at any specific site, each Copermittee shall implement, or require implementation of. other equivalent BMPs. Each Copermittee shall also imoiement or require any additional site specific BMPs as necessary to comply with this Order including BMPs which are more stringent than those required under the statewide General Industrial Permit. (c) Each Copermittee shall implement. or require implementation of, addifional controls for industrial sites tributary to Clean Water .!Ict section 303(d) impaired water bodies, coastal lagoons. or other environmen;ally sensitive areas as necessary to comply with this Order. F.3.b.(5) Monitorino of Industrial Sites IIndustrial) (a) Each Co permittee shall conduct, or require industry to conduct, a monitoring program for runott from each high threat to water quality industrial site (Identified in F.3.b.(3) above). (b) At a minimum, the monitoring program shall provide quantitative data from two storm events per year on the following constituents: i. Any pollutant listed in efiluent guidelines subcategories where applicable; II. Any pollutant for which an ettluent limit has been esfablished In an existing NPDES permit for fhe facility; iii. Oil and grease or Total Organic Carbon (TOC); iv. pH; . v. Total suspended solids (TSS); vi. Specific conductance; and vii. Toxic chemicals and other pollutants that are likely to be present in storm water discharges. ientative Order No. 2001-01 Page 29 of 50 s: \57 0 R r.~.5:';::> E R rJllT,Sd pe~rn 95-0 1 \Perm i t.S 0 [,11 u niP crTT'oIt. doc October 11, 2000 :=.3.j.(5) InS:J9:::0n of Industnai Sites (Indus~rj21) (2.) Eac~ Copermlttee snail conduc: indusiriai site Inspec:lons for cOl7ipltance wi~h i:s ordinances. permits, and this Order. Inspections shall Include review at 8MP impiementatlon plans. (b) ::ach Copermlt1ee shall estabiish inspeclion frequencies and ;Jriorities as determined bv the thrsat to water quality prioritization described in F.3.b.(3) above. Each Copermittee she.Il '~SDect high priority industrial siles, at a minimum: Annually OR II. Si-annually for any site that the responsible Copermittee certifies in a written statement to the SDRWQCB all of the following (cenified statements may be submitted to the SDRWQCB at any time for one or more sites): . Copermittee has record of industrial siTe's Waste Discharge Identification Number (WDID#) documenting industrial site's coverage under the statewide General Industrial Permit; and . Copermittee has reviewed the industrial site's Storm WaTer Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP); and . Copermittee finds SWPPP to be in compliance with all local ordinances, permits, and plans; and . Copermittee finds that the SWPPP is being properly implemented on site. E:ach Copermit1ee shall inspect medium and low threat to water quality industrial sites as needed. (c) Based uoon site inspection findings, each Copermittee shall implement all follow-up aCTions necessary to comply with this Order. (d) To the extent that the SDRWQCB has conducted an inspection of a high priority industrial she during a particular year, the requirement for the responsible Copermlttee to insDect this site dUring the same year will be satisfied. =.3.b.(7) E:niorcernent of Industrial Sites (Industria!) Each Copermittee shail enforce its storm water ordinance at all industrial sites as necessary to maintain cDmoliance with this Order. Copermittee ordinances or other reguiatory mechanisms shall include sanctions to ensure compliance. Sanctions shall include tor example: Non-monetary penalties, tines, bonding requirements, and/or permit denIals for non-compliance. r.3.tJ.(8) Reoortinc at Non-comoliant Sites !Industrial) Each Copermittee shall provide oral notification to the SDRWQCB ot non-compliant sites within its jurisdiction within 24 hours at the incidence of noncompliance, as required under section R.1 (and B.7 of Attachment C) of this Order. Such oral notification shall be followed up by a written report to be submitted to the SDRWQC8 within 5 days of the incidence of non-compliance as required under section R.1 (and 8.7 of Attachment C) of this Order. Sites are considered non-compliant when one or more violations of local ordinances, permits, plans, or this Order exist on the site. Tentative Order No. 2001-01 Page 30 of 50 s: \STO R f.~.S J? ER r.nITIS d perm :;'9-0 1 \Perm if.S Dr.' u n i Per m 1 1. doc October 11, 2000 r.3.c. Commercial (Existing Development) ::2en Copermittee shall implement a Commercial (Existing Development) Component to r~~"ce ooiiutants In runoff from commercial sites. F,t a minimum the commercial component sr,al! address. F.3.c.(1) r.3.c.(2) F.3.c.(3) F.3.c.(4) F.3.c.(5) Pollution Prevention Source Identification BMP Implementation Inspection of Commercial Sites and Sources Enforcement of Commercial Sites and Sources '. ;:3.e.(1) Pollution Prevention (Commercial) Each Copermittee shall implement pollution prevention methods in its Commercial (Existing Development) Component and shall require its use by commerce. :=.3.c.(2) Source Identification (Commercial) Each Copermittee shall develop and update annually an inventory of the following high priority threat to water quality commercial sites/sources: (a) Automobile mechanical repair, maintenance, fueling, or cleaning; (b) Airplane mechanical repair, maintenance, fueling, or cleaning; (c) Boat mechanical repair, maintenance, fueling, or cleaning; (d) Equipment repair, maintenance, lueling, or cleaning; (e) Automobile and other vehicle body repair or oainting; (f) Mobile automobile or other vehicle washing; (g) Automobile (or other vehicle) oarking lots and storage facilities; (h) Retail or wholesale fueling; (i) Pest control services; U) ::ating or drinking establishments; (k) Mobile carpet, drape or furniture cleaning; (I) Cement mixing or cutting; (m) Masonry; (n) Painting and coating; (0) Botanical or zoological garoens and exhibi:s; (p) Landscaping; (q) Nurseries and greenhouses; (r) Golf courses, parks and other recreational areas/facilities; (s) Cemeteries; (t) Pool and fountain cleaning; (u) Marinas; (v) port-a-Potty servicing; (w) Other commercial siies/sources that the Copermittee determines may contribute a significant pollutant load to the MS4; and (x) Any commercial site or source tributary to a Clean Water Act section 303( d) impaired water body or other environmentally sensitive area (as defined in F.1.b(2)(a)vii of this Order). The use of an automated database system, such as Geographical Information System (GIS) is highly recommended, but not required. Tentative Order No. 2001-01 Page 31 of 50 s: \ST 0 R r.1 ,$ DP E RT.~ ITlS d ~crm 99-0 1 \P~:"1Tl i ~\S D rJl!J n I?e rm i L do c October 11. 2000 .=.3.c.(3) BMP Irr.::>lement2tlon (COmm8rCial) (2) Eac:-, Copermittee shall desigr;2te a set of minimum Biv'1Ps for the high t)riori~y Hlrec:: :c. water quality commercial sites/sources (listed cbove in section F.3.c.(2)). The designa~ed minimum BIv1Ps for the high threat to water quality commercial sites/sourcFs shall be site and source specific as appropriate. (b) Each Copermlttee shall implement. or require tr,e implementation of, the designated minimum BIv1Ps at each high onority threat to water quality commercial site/source within its jurisdiction. If particular minimum BMPs are infeasible for any specltic site/source, each Copermittee shall implement, or require the implementation of, other equivalent Blv1Ps. Each Copermittee shall also implement or require any additional site specific BIv1Ps as necessary to comply wl:h this Order. (c) Each Copermit1ee shall implement, or require implementation of, additional controls for commercial sites tributary to Clean Water Act section 303(d) impaired water bodies. coastal lagoons, or other environmentally sensitive areas as necessary to comply with this Order. F.3.c.(4) Insoection of Commercial Sites and Sources (Commercial) Each Copermittee shall inspect high priority commercial sites and sources as neeoed. Based upon site inspection findings, each Copermittee shall implement all follow-up actions necessary to comply with this Order. ".3.c.(5) Enforcement of Commercial Sites and Sources (Commercial) ~ Each Copermit1ee shall enforce its storm water ordinance for all commercial sites and sources as necessary to maintain compliance with this Order. , ".3.d. Residential (Existing Development) EOacn Copermit1ee shall implement a Residential (Existing Development) Component to prevent or reduce pollutants In runoff from all residential land use areas and activities. At a minimum the residential component shall address: F.3.d.(I) F.3.d.(2) F.3.d.(3) F.3.d.(4) Pollution Prevention Threat to Water Quality Prioritization BMP Implementation Entorcement of Residential Areas and .l\ctivities F.3.d.(1) Pollution Prevention (Residential) Each Copermlltee shall include oollutlon prevention methods in its Residential (Existing Development) Component and shall encourage their use by all residents. J F.3.d.(2) Threat to Water Qualitv Prioritization (Residential) 1 , J Each Copermit1ee shall identify high priority residential areas and activities. At a minimum, these shall include: ] J . Automobile repair and maintenance; . Automobile washing; . Automobile parking; . Home and garden care activities and product use (pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers); Tentative Order No. 2001-01 Page 32 of 50 s: \5TO A 1.r.S D? E R rAIns d ;:>crm9S-0 1 \P erm i~'.SDM un i Perm ILdoc October 11. 2000 . Disposal 0: household hazardous waste (e.g., paln;s, cleaning proauc!s); . Disposal 01 pet waste; . Disposal of green waste; . Any other residential source that the Copermittee determines may contribute a significant pollutant load to the MS4; and . Any residence tributary to a Clean Water Act section 303(d) impaired water body or other environmentally sensitive area (as defined in F.1.b.(2)(a)vii of this Order). c.3.d.(3) BMP Imolementation (Residential) (a) Each Copermittee shall designate a set of minimum BMPs for high threat to water quality residential areas and activities (as required under section F.3.d.(2)). The designated minimum BMPs for high threa! to water quality municipal areas and activities shall be area or activity specific. (b) Each Copermittee shall require implementation of the designated minimum BMPs for high threat to water quality residential areas and activities. If particular minimum BMPs are infeasible for any specific site/source, each Copermittee shall require impiementation of other equivalent BMPs. Each Copermittee shall also implement, or require implementation of, any additional BMPs as are necessary to comply with this Order. ,.' (c) Each Copermittee shall implement, or require implementation of, any additional controls for residential areas and activities tributary to Clean Water Act Section 303(d) impaired water bodies, coastal lagoons, or other environmentally sensitive areas as necessary to comply with this Order. F.3.d.(4) Enforcement of Residential Areas and Activities !Residential) Each Copermittee shall enforce its storm water ordinance for all residential areas and activities as necessary to maintain compiiance with this Order. FA. Education Component Each Copermirtee shall implement an Education Component using all media as appropriate to (1) measurabiy increase the knowledge of the target communities regarding MS4s, impacts of urban runoff on receiving waters, and potential BMP solutions for the target audience; and (2) to measurably change the behavior of target communities and thereby reduce pollutant releases to MS4s and the environment. At a minimum the education component shall address the following target communities: . Municipal Departments and Personnel . Construction Site Owners and Developers . Industrial Owners and Operators . Commercial Owners and Operators . Residential Community, General Public, and School Children . Quasi-Governmental Agencies/Districts (I.e., educational institutions, water districts, sanitation districts, etc.) FA.a. AU Target Communities At a minimum the Education Program for each target audience shall contain information on the following topics where applicable: . Stafe and Federal water quaiity laws ientalive O~der No. 2001-01 Page 33 of 50 -,. S TOR r,' ',.S J?::: P. fJ'. IT\Sd ~c r:T: 99-0 1 \Perm i 1'.5 DrJl u niP e~m I:' d OC October 11. 2000 , 'i . H8quirements of local m;.miciDal nermrts and ord'lnances (e.g., storm ''':a~~'r :.;:-':-: grading ordinances ane permits) . Impacts of urban runoff on receiving waters . Watershed concepts (i.e., stewardship, connec:ion between inland activltl"'s a"o coastal problems, etc.) . Distinction between MS4s end sanitary sewers . Imponance of good housekeeping (e.g., sweeping impervious sunaces instead of hosing) . Pollution prevention and safe alternatives . Household hazardous waste collection . Recycling . 3MPs: Site specific, structural and source control . BMP maintenance . Non-storm water disposal alternatives (e.g., all wash waters) . Pet and anirnal waste disposal . Proper solid waste disposal (e.g.. garbage, tires. appliances, furniture, vehicles) . Equipment and vehicle maintenance and repair . Public reponing mechanisms . Green waste disposal . Integrated pest managernent . Native vegetation . Proper disposal of boat and recreational vehicle waste . Traffic reduction. alternative fuel use . IN ater conservation 1 , , , , , , r.4.b. Municipal, Construction, Industrial, Comrnercial, and Ouasi-Governrnental (education2l institutions, water districts, sanitation districts, etc.) Comrnunities i ".: In addition to the topics listed in FA-a. above, the Municipal, Construction, Industrial, Commercial, and Quasi-Governmental (Educational Institutions, Water Districts, Sanitation Districts) Communities shall also be educated on the following topics where apolicacie: J . Basic urban runoff training for all ~ersonnel . Additional urban runoff training for aDpropriate personnel . Illicit Discharge Detection and Eiimination observations and follow-up during daily work activities . Lawful disposal ot catch basin and other MS4 cleanout wastes . Water quality awareness for Emergency/First Responders . California's Statewide General NPDES Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Industrial Activities (Except Construction). . California's Statewide General NPClES Perrnit ior Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction l\ctivities . SDRWQCB's General NPDES Perrnit for Groundwater Dewatering . 401 Water Quality Certification by the SDRWQCB . Statewide General NPDES Utility Vault Permit (NPDES No. CAG990002) . SDRWOCB Waste Discharge Requirements tor Dredging Activities . Local requirements beyond statewide general permits . Federal, state and local water quality regulations that affect development projects . Water quality impacts associated with land development . Alternative materials & designs to maintain peak runoff values . How to conduct a storm water inspection . Potable water discharges to the MS4 . Dechlorination techniques . Hydrostatic testing ) Tentative Order No. 2001-01 Page 34 of 50 S:\STo?r.~ .SoPERMlnsdperm99-01 \Pcrmlt'.SDt.1un i?crmit.doc October 11. 2000 . Spill response, cO:ltainment, & recov~~ . Preventive malnte:lance . How to do your Job and protect water quality rA.c. Residential, General Public, School Children Communities In additiOn to the topics iisted in F.4.a. above, the Residential, General Public, and School Children Communities shall be educated on the following topics where applicable: . Public reporting information r\2sources . Residential and charity car-washing . Community activities (e.g., "Adopt a Storm Drain, Watershed, or Highway" Programs, citizen mOnitoring, creekloeach cleanups, environmental protection organization activities, etc.) F.5. Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination Component Each Copermlttee shall implement an Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination Component containing measures to actively seek and eliminate illicit discharges and connections. At a minimum tne Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination Component shall address: F.5.a Illicit Discharges and Connections F.5.b Dry Weather Analytical Monitoring F.5.c Investigation / Inspection and follow-up r.5.d Elimination of Illicit Discharges and Connections ;::.5.e ::nforce Ordinance F.5.f Prevent and Respond To Sewage Spii:s (Including from Private Latera!s) and Other Spills F.5.g Facilitate Pubiic Reporting of Illicit Discharges and Connections - Public Hotline F.5.h Facilitate Disposal of Used Oil and Toxic Materials F.5.i Limit Infiltration From Sanitary Sewer to MS4 F.5.a. Illicit Discharoes and Connections Each Copermittee shall implement a program 10 actively seek and eliminate illicit discharges and connections into its MS4. The program shall address all types of illicit discharges and connections excluding those non-stcrm water discharges not prohibited by the Copermittee in accordance with Section B. of this Order. F.5.b. Drv Weather Analvtical Monitorinq Each Copermittee shall conduct dry weather analytical monitoring of MS4 outfalls within its jurisdiction to detect Illicit discharges and connections in accordance with Attachment E of this Order. F.5.c. Investication / Insoection and Follow-Uo Each Copermittee shall investigate and inspect any portion of the MS4 that, based on dry weather analytical monitoring results or other appropriate. information, indicates a reasonable potential for illicit discharges, illicit connections, or other sources of non-storm water (including non-prohibited discharge(s) identified in Section B. ot this Order). Each Copermittee shall establish criteria to Identify portions of the system where such follow-up investigations are appropriate. Tentative Order No. 2001-01 Page 35 of 50 s: \ST 0 R fJl,S DP E R fJIJT\Sd perm 9:'-0 1 \P Cfr:l i! .S ~ r:. ~:11 P c~m i~. d::J C October 11. 2000 r.5.d. Eiimina~lon 8f illicit D:scharoes and Connections Each Coperml:1ee shall eliminate all detected illicit discharges. discharge sources, and connections immediately. F.5.e. Enforce Ordinances 1 Each Copermittee shall implement and enforce its ordinances, orders, or other legal authority to orevent illicit discharges and connections to Its MS4. Each Copermlttee shall also Implement and enforce its ordinance. orders, or other legal authority to eliminate detected illlea discharges and connections to it MS4. F.5.i. Prevent and Resoond to Sewaoe Soills (Includino from Private Laterals) and Other Spil!s Each Copermittee shall prevent, respond to, contain and clean up ~sewage and other spills that may discharge into its MS4 from any source (including private laterals). Spill response teams shall prevent entry of spills into the MS4 and contamination of surface water, ground water and soil to the maximum extent practicable. Each Copermittee shall coordinate spill prevention, containment and response activities throughout all appropriate departments. programs and agencies to ensure maximum water quality protection at all times. 1 f J Each Copermittee shall develop and implement a mechanism whereby it is notified of all sewage spills from private laterals into its MS4. Each Copermittee shall prevent, respond TO, contain and clean up sewage from any such notification. ~ , I J F.5.g. Faciiitate Public Reportino of Illicit Discharaes and Connections - - Public Hotline 1 .1 i Each Co permittee shall prom me, publicize and facilitate public reporting of illicit discharges or water quality impacts associated with discharges into or from MS4s. Each Copermittee shall facilitate public reporting through development and operation of a public hotline. Public hoilines can be Copermittee-specific or shared by Copermittees. All storm water hotlines shall be capable of receiving reports in both English and Spanish 24 hours per day / seven days pee week. Cooermittees shall respond to and resolve each reported incident. All reported incidents, and how each was resolved, shall be summarized in each Copermittee's individual Jurisdictional URMP Annual Report. ~ I i J 'j F.5.h. Facilitate Disoosal of Used Oil and Toxic Malerials l I , , ; Each Copermittee shall facilitate the proper management and disposal of used oil, toxic materials, and other household hazardous wastes. Such facilitation shall include educational activities, public information activities, and esmblishment of collection sites operated by the Copermitteeor a private entity. Curbside collection of household hazardous wastes is encouraged. c F.5.i. Limit Infiltration From Sanitarv Sewer to MS4/ Provide Preventive Maintenance of Both J Each Copermittee shall implement controls and measures to limit infiltration of seepage from municipal sanitary sewers to MS4s. Such controls shall include overall sanitary sewer and MS4 system surveys and thorough, routine preventive maintenance of both. F.6. Public Participation Component ) Each Copermittee shall incorporate a mechanism for public participation in the implementation of the Jurisdictional URMP. 1 j Tentative Order No. 2001-01 Page 36 of 50 S: ',$ TO R r.' ',S ~?E R MIT\Sd perm 9 9.0 1 \PcrminS OM un I ?erm I 1. doc October 11,2000 F.7. Assessment of Jurisdictional URMP Effectiveness Component a. As part of its individual Jurisdictional URMP, each Copermittee shall develop a long-term strategy lor assessing the effectiveness of its Individual Jurisdictional URMP. The long-term assessment strategy shall identify specific direct and indirect measurements that each Copermlttee will use to track the long-term progress of its individual Jurisdictional URMP towards achieving improvements in receiving water quality. Methods used for assessing effectiveness shall include for example surveys. pollutant loading estimations, and receiving water quality monitoring. The long-t8rm strategy shall aiso diSCUSS the role of monitOring data in substantiating or refining the assessment. b. !-.s part of its individual Jurisdictional URMP Annual Report, each Copermittee shall include an assessment ot the effectiveness of its Jurisdictional URMP using the direct and indirect assessment measurements and methods developed in its long-term assessment strategy. c. Individual Jurisdictional URMP Annual Reports shall also include each Copermittees' self- assessment oj its "status of compliance" with this Order. SpeCifically, each Annual Report shall specify its self-assessment of its "percent compliance with each component of its Jurisdictional URMP" (sections F.1.-F.8.), as well as the Copermittees' self-assessment of its "overall percent compliance" with this Order in its entirety. F.B. Fiscal Analysis Component ::ach Copermittee shall secure the resources necessary to meet the requirements of this Order. .:"5 part of its Individual Jurisdictional URMP, each Copermittee shall develop a strategy to conduct a fiscal analysis of ifs urban runoff management program in its entirety. In order to demonstrate sufficient financial resources to implement the conditions Oi this Order, each Copermittee shall conduct an annual fiscal analysis as part of its individual Jurisdictional URMP Annual Report. This analysis shall, for each fiscal year covered by this Order, evaluate the expenditures (such as capital, operation and maintenance, education, and administrative expenditures) necessary to accomplish the activities of the Copermittee's urban runoff management program. Such analysis shall include a description of the source(s) of funds that are proposed to meet the necessary exoenditures, including iegal restrictions on the use of such funds. G. IMPLEMENTATION OF JURISDICTIONAL URMP Each Copermittee shall have completed full implementation of all requirements of the Jurisdictional URMP section of this Order no later than 180 days after adoption of this Order, with the exception of the requirements included in the Land-Use Planning for New Development and Redevelopment Component of the Jurisdictional URMP section of this Order. Each Copermittee shall have completed full implementation of all requirements of the Land-Use Planning for New Development and Redevelopment Component of the Jurisdictional URMP section of this Order no later than 365 days after adoption of this Order. H. SUBMITTAL OF JURISDICTIONAL URMP DOCUMENT The written account of the overall program to be conducted by each Copermittee within its jurisdiction during the five-year life of this Order is referred to as the "Jurisdictional URMP Document". 1. Individual- Each Copermittee shall submit to the Principal Permittee an individual Jurisdictional URMP document which describes all activities it has undertaken or is undertaking to implement the requirements of each component of the Jurisdictional URMP section F. of this Order. Individual Jurisdictional URMP documents shall be submitted in two parts. a. The first submitt,al of the individual Jurisdictional URMP document shall address the requirements of the entire Jurisdictional URMP section of this Order, with the exception of the Tentative Order No. 2001-01 Page 37 of 50 s: \STO Rr .~.S::l? t:: R f.' iT\S c pc~m 99-0 1 \Perm i LSDrJl u n i Perr:l it. d DC October 11, 2000 Land-Use P:anning for New Development and rieaeveJopment Component I;.S . S8C:'O:-:S =-= - r:.8.) A: a rr:lnir.1um, the first submittal or the Indivldu21 Junsdictional URtv1P cJC:~~iE;;,: .::;~~;~: contain the tollowlng Information for the following comoonents: Ii) Construction Comoonent " i (a) Which pollulion prevention methods will be required for implementation and how they will be required (b) Updated grading ordinances (c) ." description of the modified construction and grading approval process (d) Updated conditions of approval in10cal grading and construction permits (e) A completed watershed-based inventory of all construction sites (f) ." completed prioritization of all construction sites based on threat to water quality (g) Which BMPs will be implemented, or reqUired to be implemented, for each priority category (h) How BMPs will be 'mplemented, or required to be implemented, tor each priority category (i) Planned inspection frequencies for each priority category OJ Methods for Inspection (k) A description of enforcement mechanisms and how they wiil be used (I) A description of how non-compliant sites will be identified and the process for notifYing the SDRWQCB, including a list of current non-compliant sites (m) A description of the construction education program and how it will be implememed (2) Municipal (Existing Development) Component -j (a) Vi/hich pollution prevention methods will be required for implementation and how :~:ey will be required (b) A completed watershed-based inventory of all municipal land use areas and activities (c) A completed prioritization of all municipal areas and activities based on threat to water quaiity (d) Which BMPs will be implemented, or required to be implemented, for each priorilv category (e) How BMPs will be implemented. or required to be implemented, for each priority category (f) Municipal maintenance actiVities and schedules (g) Management strategy for pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizer use. (h) Planned inspection frequencies ior the high priority category (i) Methods for inspection (j) A description of enforcement mechanisms and how they will be used ~ .J (3) Industrial (Existing Development) Component (a) Which pollution prevention methods will be required for implementation and how they will be required (b) A completed watershed-based inventory of all industrial sites (c) A completed prioritization of all industrial sites based on threat to water quaiity (d) Which BMPs will be imolemented. or required to be implemented, for each priority category (e) How BMPs will be implemented, or required to be implemented, for each priority category (f) A description of the monitoring program to be conducted, or required to be conducted (g) Planned inspection frequencies for each priority category (h) Methods for inspection (i) A description oi enforcement mechanisms and how they will be used Tentative Order No, 2001-01 Page 38 of 50 s: \STO A 1.1\$:::J? E R IJIIT\Sdperm99.01 \Pcrm I t\S D r.1 u n i Perm it.:::l DC October 11. 2000 (j) A descriotlon of how non-compliant sites will be idenllfle:! and the p,ocess for notifYing the SDRWOCa, Incl'Jding a list of cucrent non-compliant sites (4) Commercial (Existing Development) Component (a) Which pollution prevention methods will ~e reqJlred for Implementation an:! how they will be required (b) A completed watershed-based Inventory of high priority commercial sites (c) Which BMPs will be implemented, or required to be implemente:!, for high priority sites (d) How BMPs will be implemented, flr required to be implemented, ior high priority sites (e) Planned inspection frequencies for high priority sites (f) Methods ior inspection (g) A description of enforcement mechanisms and how they will be used (5) Residential (Existing Development) Component (a) Which pollution prevention methods will be encourage:! ior implementation and how they will be encouraged (b) A completed inventory of high priority residential areas and activities (c) Which BMPs will be implemented, or required to be implemented, for high priority areas and activities (d) How BMPs will be implemented, or required to be implemented, for high priority areas and activities (e) A description of enforcement mechanisms and how they will be used (6) Education Component (a) A description oi the content, iorm, and frequency oi education efforts for each target community (7) Illicit Discharges Detection and Elimination Component (a) A description of the program to actively seek and eliminate illicit discharges and connections (b) A description of dry weather analytical monitoring to be conducted to detect iliicit discharges and connections (see Attacnment E) (c) A description of investigation and inspection procedures to fOllOW-UP On dry weathe, analytical monitoring results or other information which indicate potential ior illicit discharges and connections (d) A description of procedures to eliminate detected illicit discharges and connections (e) A description of enforcement mechanisms and how they will be used (f) A description of methods to prevent, respond to. contain, and clean up all sewage (including spills from private latera!s) and other spills in order to prevent entrance into the MS4 (g) A description of the mechanism to receive notification of spills from private laterals (h) A description of efforts to faciiitate public reporting of illicit discharges and connections, including a public hotline (i) A description of efforts to facilitate proper disposal oi used oil and other toxic materials U) A description of controls and measures to be implemented to limit infiltration of seepage from sanitary sewers to MS4s (k) A description of routine preventive maintenance activities on the sanitary system and MS4 I ; ! Tentative Order No. 2001-01 Page 39 of 50 s: 'IS -;- 0 R t. ~ ,S S?E R i.' 1T',SC ;:>C:Tl99-0 'I \P ~rm I :\5 !::n.~ U:l i P c~m it. G DC Octooer 11. 20GO (3) ?~biiC Participation Corr.ponent (a) A cies::::riptio:l of how pcblic participa::ion ',1,1 ii I be included In the Imolemeri:2.:'O:l '); :he Juc:sulctional URM? (9) Assessment of JUrisdictional URMP Effectiveness Component ~ (a) A desc:lption of strategies to be used for assessing the long-term efiectiveness of the individual JUrisdictional URMP. -, (1 O)Flscal Analysis Component (a) A description of the strategy to be used to conduct a fiscal analysis of the urban runoff ril2nagement program. t. The second submittal 01 the individual Jurisdictional URMP document shall address the requ,cements of the Land-Use Planning for New Develooment and Redevelooment Component of the JUrisdictional URMP section F.l. of this Order. At a minimum, trle second submittal of the individual Jurisdictional URMP document shall contain the following information tor the following components: '" -0 (1) General Plan (or equivalent plan) revisions, specifying water protection policies (2) Condi;ions of project approval in local development ;:>ermits (3) Participation efforts conducted in the development of the Model SUSMP (4) EnVIConcnental review processes and CEQA initial study checklist revisions (5) A description of the planning education program and how it will be implemented C. .J ~ " ~. Each Co permittee shall sUClmit to the Principal Permittee each part of its individual Jurisdiclional URMP document by the dates specified by the Principal Permittee. In addition to sLJmittal of the two parts of the Jurisdictional URIviP document, each Cooermittee shall submiT to lhe SDRWQC3 its own adopted local SUSMP consistent with the approved Ivlodel SUSIviP, as described in section F.1.b.(2). of this Order. Each Copermittee's own local SUSi,1P, along with its amended ordinances, shall be submitted to the SDRWQC3 witnin ~ 80 days of the SDRWQCB's approval of the Model SUSMP. 2. Unified - The Principal Permittee Shall submit the unified Jurisdictional URMP document to the SDRWQC3. The unified Jurisdictional URMP document shall be submitted in two paels. a. The first unified Jurisdictional URMP document submittal shall address the requirements of the entire Jurisdictional URtvlP sections F.2 - r.8. of this Order, with the exception of the Land-Use ?Ianning for New Development and Redevelopment Component. The first unified Jurisdictional URMP document submittal shall contain a section covering common activities conducted collectively by the Copermittees, to be written by the Principal Permittee, and the twenty individual Jurisdictional URMP documents. The Principal Permittee shall submit the iirst unified Jurisdictional URMP document to the SDRWQCB within 180 days of adoption of this Order. b. " .J 1 1 ~ J The second unified Jurisdictional URMP document submittal shall address the requirements of the Land-Use Planning for New Development and Redevelopment Component of the Jurisdictional URMP section of this Order. The second unified Jurisdictional URMP document submittal shall contain a section covering common activities conducted collectively by the Copermittees, to be written by the Principal Permittee, and the twenty individual Jurisdictional URMP documents. As part of the second unified Jurisdictional URMP document, the Principal Permittee shall be responsible for the development and writing of a stand alone Model SUSMP dooument meeting the requirements of section F.1.b.(2). of this Order. The Principal Permittee Tentative Order No. 2001-01 Page 40 of 50 s: \5TO R!.~',S DP E R fJ1IT\Sd perm 99-0 1 \P erm i 1.5 01.' u n I Perm I L doc October 11. 2000 shall suomi: tee second 'Jni"ed JurisDictional URtl,? doc~ment. Including the Mooel SUSMP, to the SDP,VJOC3 wltnln 365 days of adoption of tr,IS OrDer. 3. Universal Repor:ing Requirements ,;11 individual and unified Jurisdictional URf~P document submittals shall include an executive summary, introduction, conclusion, recommendations, and signed certified statement. I. SUBMITTAL OF JURISDICTIONAL URMPANNUAL REPORT 1. ;,ndivldual - Each Individual Jurisdictional URMP Annual Report shall be a documentation of the activities conducted by each Copermittee during the past annual reporting period. Each JUrisdictionai UriMP Annual P,eport shall, at a minimum, contain the following: a. Comprehensive description of all activities conducted :,y the Copermittee to meet all requirements of each component of the Jurisdictional URMP section of this Order; F,1. Land-Use Planning for New Development and Redevelopment Component F.2. Construction Component F.3. Existing Development Component (Including Municipal, Industrial, Commercial, Residential, and Education) FA, Education Comoonent F.5. Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination Component F.6. Pu:,lic Participation Component F.7. Assessment of Jurisdictional URMP Effectiveness Component F.B. Fiscal Analysis Component :'. Each Cooermittee's accounting of all: (1) Reports of illicit discharges (i.e., complaints) and how each was resolved (indicating referral source); (2) Inspections conducted; (3) ::niorcement actions taken; an:: (4) Ed"cation enorts conducted. c. Public oar1icipation mechanisms utiliz9d during the Jurisdictional URMP implementation process; d. Proposed revisions to the Jurisdictional URMP; 9. A summary of all urban runon related data not included in the annual monitoring report (e.g., special investigations); " Annual expenditures from previous year and budget for upcoming year; g. Identification of management measures proven to be effective in reducing urban runoff pollutants and flow; h. Identification of management measures proven to be inefiective in reducing urban runoff pollutants and flow; i. Identification of water quality improvements or degradation; and j. Self-assessment of Copermittees' "percent compliance with each component of its Jurisdictional URMP" and "overall percent compliance with this Order" in its entirety. Tentative Order No. 2001-01 Page 41 of 50 s: '.STO R rA,S D? E R M IT\Sdperrr. 99~01 \P crm i I\S or.", u n J Perm i L d DC October i 1. 2000 2. UCl"eo - The urlf,eo JUrlsdlClior,al URMP Annual Repon sr,all contain a section cavec,ng cocr,~c,- 2C::\/i,;-=:5 conc...;c:ec:: collectively by the Copermlttees. to be written by :h8 Prlnc\pal ?ermlttf:~; z..:-;~: ,.. [Nenty indiVidual Jerlsdictlonal URMP Anneal Fie ports. ::ach Copermlt'ee shall submit t0 toe ?cincipal Permittee an individcal Jurisdictior;al URMP Annual Report by the date specified by the Princioal Permirtee. The Principal Permittee shall submit a unified Jurisdictional URMP Annual R2pOrt to the SDRWOCB by January 31,2002 and every January 31 thereafter. The repOr1in] oeriod lor these annual reports shall be the previous fiscal year. For example, the report submitted January 31,2002 shall cover the reporting period July 1,2000 to June 30, 2001. 3. Universal Reporting Requirements All Individual and unified Jurisdictional URMP submittals shall include an executive summary, in:roduction, conclusion, recommendations, and signed certified statement. J. WATERSHED URBAN RUNOFF MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 1. ::ach Copermittee shall collaborate with other Copermittees within its watershed(s) as shown in laDle 4. below to identify and mitigate the highest priority water quality issues/pollutants in th" watershed(s). 2. ::ach Copermiitee shall collaborate with all other Copermittees discharging urban runoff into the same watershsd to develop and implement a Watershed Urban Runoff Management Program (Watershed URMP) for the respective watersned. Each Watershed URMP shail, at a minimum comaln the following: a. An accurate map of the watershed (preferably in Geographical Information System [GIS] format) that identifies all receiving waters (including the Pacific Ocean); all Clean Water Act section 303(d) impaired receiving waters (including the Pacific Ocean); land uses; MS4s, major highways; jurisdictional boundaries; and inventoried commercial, construction, industrial, municipal sites, and residential areas. b. An assessrnent of the water quality of all receiving waters in the watershed based upon (1) existing water quality data; and (2) annual watershed water quality monitoring that satisfies tne watershed monitoring requirements of Attachment B ; C. .An identification and prioritization of major water quality problems in the watershed caused or contributed 10 by MS4 discharges and the likely source(s) of the problem(s); d. An implementation time schedule of short and long-term recommended activities (individual and collective) needed to address the highest priority water quality problem(s). For this seCTion, "short~term activities" shall mean those activities that 2re to be compieted during the liie of this Order and "long-term activities" shall mean those activilies that are to be completed jayond ihs life of this Order; e. An idemification of the Copermittee(s) responsible for implementing each recommended activity, including time schedule ior implementation; 1. A mechanism for public participation throughout the entire watershed URMP process; g. A watershed based education program; ] h. A mechanism to facilitate collaborative "watershed-based" (i.e., natural resource-based) land use planning with neighboring local governments in the watershed. Tentative Order No. 2001-01 Page 42 of 50 s: \5 TO R r,tj"S DP E R r.~ IT\Sd ocrm99.0 1 \P erm i t\5 Dr,.~ u n i Perm it.d DC October 11. 2000 An implemeniation schedule for collaborat:ve watershed-based land use planning ~o b~~I:-1 :;0 later than January 2005. J. Long-term strategy for assessing the eifectiveness of the Watershed URMP. The long-te,m assessment strategy shall identify specific direct and indirect measurements that wiilt,ack the long-term progress of Watershed URMP towards achieving improvements in receiving water quality. Methods used for assessing etfectiveness shall Include for example: surveys, pollutant loading estimations, and receiving water quality monitoring. The long-term strategy shall also discuss the role of monitoring data in substantiating or refining the assessment. Table 4. Copermittees by Watershed I WATERSHED URBAN HYDROLOGIC UNIT I I RESPONSIBLE RUNOFF MAJOR RECEIVING WATER COPERMITTEE(S) MANAGEMENT OR AREA . I BODIES PROGRAM 1. County of San Diego Santa Margarita River Santa Margarita HU Santa Margarita River and 1902.00\ Estuary, Pacific Ocean ,. Ci:y of Escondida San Luis Rey River San Luis Rey HU San Luis Rey River and ESl~ary, 2. City of Oceanside 10'03.00) Pacific Ocean 3. City of Vista ,. CounlV 01 San Dieoo I 1. City of Carlsbad Carlsbad Caris bad HU (904.00) Satiquitos Lagoon 2. City of Encinitas San Elijo Lagoon o. City oi Escondida Agua Hedionda Lagoon , City oi Oceanside Buena Vista Lagoon '. I ~ Ci~y .:Jf San Marcos I and Tributary Streams D. City of Solana Beach Pacific Ocean 7. City of Vis,a : I 5. County of San OieclO I ,. City of Dei Mar San Dieguito River San Dieguito HU San Dieguito River and Es;ua;y' 2. City of Escondida (9Q5.o0) Pacific Ocean _. City of Poway 4. City of San Diego I 5. City of Solana Beach _. County of San Die'::o I ! I 1. City 01 Del Mar Penasquitos Mi~amar Reservoir Los Penasquitos C,eek i , 2. City of Poway HA (905."i 0) Los Penasquitos Lagoon I I 3. City of San Diego Poway HA (906.20) Pacific Ocean , County of San Dieno I 1. City of San Diego I Mission Say I SO""PS H~ (906.30) I Mission Bay rv1i,amar HA(906.40} Pacific Ocean Tecolote HA (906.50l I 1. City of EI Cajon San Diego River San Diego HU San Diego River I 2. City of La Mesa (9:17.00) Pacific Ocean 3. City of Poway I 4. City of San Diego I 5. City of Santee o. Coumv of San Dieco 1. City of Chuta Vlsta San Diego Bay Pueblo San Diego HU San Diego Bay I 2. City of Coronado 1908.00) Sweetwater Rjver 3. City of EJ Cajon Sweetwater HU Otay River I 4. City of Imperial Seaeh (909.00) Pacific Ocean : 5. City of La Mesa Olay HU (910.00) I o. City of Lemon Grove 7. City of National City I B. City of San Diego 9. County of San Diego 10. San Diego Unified Port District 1. City of Imperial Beach Tijuana River Tijuana [911.00) Tjjuana River and Estuary 2. City of San Diego Pacific Ocean 3. County of San Diego . The Lead Watershed Copermittee for each watershed is highlight Tentative Order No. 2001-01 Page 43 of 50 S :\STORI/"S::'? =Rr.11T\SdPCi~ 25.0 ~ \Pcr:o-,;:.S ~I.I, u n iF-crml:.doc October 11, 2000 K. Ir~PL"r~ENTATION OF V/ATERSHcD URMP E2.c:-J Scqsrmiitee sr,8.ii rl2.V9 co~pieted 1ull implementa:ior. of all requirements of the Wate:,shE:d URr~? section of this Order no later than January 31,2003 unless otherwise specified, I L. SUSf,lITTAL OF WATERSHED URM? DOCUr~"NT Tile w~,;ten account of the overall vlatershed program to be conducted by each Copermittee dUring ti18 recnalning life of this Order is referred to as the "Watershed URMP Document". The Watersheo URIJ,? ,s conducted concurrentiy with the Jurisdictional URIv1p4 1, E::ch Watershed Specific UHMP document shall state how the member Copermittees within eacn v:atsrshed Will deveiop and implement the requirements of the Watershed URMP section J. of thiS ::leder. The Copeemlttees responsible for each of the nine Watershed URMPs are specified in Table 4 above. The Lead Watershed Copermittee for each watershed is highlighted. Each Lead 'Natershed Copermlttee shall be responsible for producing its respective Watershed URMP doc~ment, as well as for coordination and meetings amongst all member watershed Copermittees. Each Lead Watershed Copermittee is further responsible for the submittal of the Watershed URMP oocument to the Principal Permittee by the date specified by the Principal Permittee. (1) :2) (3) I (.1) .1 'C) '0 ." is) ! (7) (8) is) a. Each Watershed specific URMP document shall include: A completed watershed map A water quality assessment and watershed monitoring needed Priorit;Z2.1ion of water quality problems Recommended activities (short and long term) Indivld~a! Copermittee implementation responsibilities and time schedules for impiemen~ation A descripTion of watershed public participation mechanisms A description of watershed education mechanisms A description of the mechanism and implementation schedule for watershed-based land use planning A strategy ior assessing the long-term efiectiveness of the Watershed URMP 2. Unified - The unified Watershed URIv1P document shall contain a section covering common activities cQn~ucted collectively by the Copermittees, 10 be written by the Principal Permittee, and the nine Watershed Specific UHfv1P documents. The Principal Permittee shall submit the unified Watershed URMP document to the SDRWQCB by January 31, 2003. 3. Universal Reporting Requiremems. All individual and uniiied Watershed URMP submittals shall include an executive summary, intiOd~ction, conclusion, recommendations, and signed certified statement. M. SUBMiTTAL OF WATERSHED URMP ANNUAL REPORT 1. Watershed Specific - Each Watershed Specific URfv1P Annual Report shall be a documentation of the activities conducted by watershed member Copermittees during the previous annual reporting "l .J 4 As each Copermittee t,ansitions from conducting its management program only within its jurisdiction to conducting it also throughout the entire watershed (with neighboring Copermittees), it is expected that many activities will continue on a jurisdictional level (e.g., enforcement of local ordinances and permits). Implementation of the Watershed URMP is not meant to replace, :Ju~ to expand im;:>lementation of the Jurisdictional URMP. 'For this reason, it is necessary to report management activities on both levels. This can be accomplished either by submitting both a Jurisdictional URMP Annual Report and a Watershed VRMP Annual Report or by submitting a single Watershed URMP Annual Report that contains MO separate sections (Le., watershed activities and jurisdictional activities). InformatioA need only be reported once (to the extent something is covered in the Watershed URfl.1P Annual Report, it need not be covered again the JurisditionaJ URMP Annual Report). J l .J ! Tentative Order No. 2001-01 Page 44 of 50 S: IS TO R t.r.SOPER rJlIT'.Sdpc~ii199-o1 \Perm it',SO M u n j? erm it.doc October 11, 2000 ;)::::-;00 :0 meet t:i8 requirements of all components of the Watershed URMP section of tn:s Order. ::2.C;1 VVCltershed URrVlP Annual Report shall. at a minimum. contain the foilowlng: a. Comprehensive description of all activities conducted by the watershed member Copermittees to meet all requirements of each component of Watershed URMP section J. of this Order 8. Public participation mechanisms utilized during the Watershed URMP implementation process; c. Mechanism for watershed based land use planning; o. Assessment of effectiveness of Watershed URMP; e. Proposed revisions to the Watershed URrvlP; f. A summary of watershed effort related data not included In the annual monitoring report (e.g., special investigations); and g. Identification of water quality improvements or degradation. 2. Unified - The Unified Watershed URMP Annual Report shall contain a section covering common activities conducted collectively by the Copermittees, to be written by the Principal Permittee, and the nine Watershed Specific URMP Annual Reports. Each Lead Watershed Copermittee shall submit to the Principal Permittee a Watershed Specific URMP Annual Report by the date specified by the Principal Permittee. The Principal Permittee shall submit the Unified Watershed URMP Annual i1eport to the SDRWOCB by January 31,2004 and every January 31 thereafter. The reporting period ior these annual reports shall be the previous fiscal year. For example, the report submitted Jan"ary 31,2004 shall cover the reporting period July 1,2002 to June 30, 2003. - 3. Universal Reporting Requirements All individual and unified Watershed URMP submittals shall inc!ude an executive summary, introduction, conclusion, recommendations, and signed certified statement N. ALL COPERMITTEE COLLABORATION 1. each Copermittee shall collaborate with all other Copermittees regulated under this Order to address common issues, promote consistency among Jurisdictional Urban Runoff Management Programs (Jurisdictional URMPs) and Watershed Urban Runoff Management Programs (Watershed Ui1MPs), and to plan and coordinate activities required under this Order a. Management Structure - All Copermittees shall jointly execute and submit to the SDRWOCB no later than 180 days after adoption of this Order, a Memorandum of Understanding, Joint Powers Authority, or other instrument of formal agreement which at a minimum provides a management structure for the foliowing: . Designation of Joint Responsibilities . Decision making . Watershed activities; . Information management of data and reports, including the requirements under this Order; and . Any and all other collaborative arrangements for compliance with this Order. b. All Copermittees shall jointly develop a standardized format(s) for all reports required under this Order (e.g., annual reports, monitoring reports, fiscal anaiysis reports, and program effectiveness reports, etc.). The standardized reporting format{s) shall be used by all Copermittees and shall include protocols for electronic reporting. The Principal Permittee shall submit the standardized format(s) to the SDRWOCB no later than 180 days after adoption of this. Order. ~ Tentative Order.No. 2001-01 Page 45 of 50 s: \STO R 1.".$ D? E R M IT'.S a perm 99-0 1 \P crm i 1'.S D1J1 u n I Perm i 1. 00 c October i 1, 2000 O. PRINCIPAL PERMITTEE RESPONSIBILITIES The ?~I.'1CIDal PeriT',ittee snail be the City of San Diego. The Principal PE:itTJittee shail. at a mlril:TIU~:i: 1. Ser'Je as liaison between the Copermittees and the SDRWOCB on general permit issues. 2. Ensure coordination of permit activities among the Co~ermlttees and facilitate coliaboration on the development and implementation of programs required under this Order; 3. Integrate individual Copermittee documents and reports required under this Order into single unified documents and reports for submittal to-the SDRWOCB as described below. It a reporting cste falls on a non. working day or State holiday, then the report is to be submitted on the follOWing working day. a. Unified Jurisdictional URMP Document - The Principal Permittee shall submit the unified Jurisdicticnal URMP document 10 the SDRWOCB. The iirst part of the unified Jurisdictional URMP document (as described in section H.2.a.) shall be submitted within 180 days of adoption of this Order. The second part of the unified Jurisdictional URMP document (as described in section H.2.b.) shall be submitted Within 365 days of adoption of this Order. The Principal Permittee shall be responsible for producing the sections of the unified Jurisdictional URMP document submittals covering common activities conducted by the Copermittees. As part of the second unified Jurisdictional URMP document submittal, the Principal Permittee shall be responsible for the development and writing of a stand alone Model SUSMP document meeting the requirements of section F.1.b.(2). of this Order. The Princioal Permittee shall also be resoonsible for collecting and assembling the individual Jurisdictional _ URMP document submittals covering the actiVities conducted by each individual Copermlitee. J. Unified J~:isdictional URMP Annual Reports - The Principal Permittee shall submit unified Jurisdictional URMP Annual Reports to the SDRWOCB by January 31 of each year, beginning on January 31,2002. The reporting period for these annual reports shall be the previous fiscal year. For example, the reoort submitted January 31,2002 shall cover the reporting period July 1,2000 to June 30, 2001. The Princioal Permittee shall be respo~sible for producing the section of the unified Jurisdictional URMP Annual Reports covering common activities conducted by the Copermittees. The Principai Permittee shall also be responsible for collecting and assembling the individual Jurisdictional URMP Annual Reports covering the activities conducted by each individual Copeimittee. c. Unified Watershed URMP Document - The Principal Permittee shall submit the unified Watershed URMP document to the SDRWOCB by January 31,2003. The Principal Permittee shall be responsible ior producing the section of the unified Watershed URMP document covering common activities conducted by the Copermittees. The Principal Permittee shall also bE> responsible for collecting and assembling the watershed specific Watershed URMP documents covering the activities conducted by each individual Copermittee. 1 .j , J d. Unified Wa;ershed URMP Annual Report - The Principal Permittee shall submit unified Watershed URMP Annual Reports to the SDRWQCB by January 31 of each year, beginning on January 31, 2004. The reporting period for these annual reports shall be the previous fiscal year. For example, the report submitted January 3, 2004 shall cover the reporting period Juiy 1, 2002 to June 30, 2003. 1 i The Principal Permittee shall be responsible for producing the section of the unified Watershed URMP Annual Reports covering common activities conducted by the Tentative Order No. 2001-01 Page 46 of 50 S: \STOR M'.S D? E RM rnSdpcrm99~01 \Pcrm it\S :ir!::.; n i? crm i~. d DC October 11, 2000 Copermittees. The ?r:nclpc: ?erl"Tllttf:8 51"',2.11 also 88 responsible for collecting and ctssembling :he watershed s~ecj~ic VJatershed UP.fJiP AnilL:ai Re;Jor~s covering thE: Qc:~\.',:i8S conducted by each individual Copermittee. e. Receiving Waters Monitoring and Reporting Program - The Principal Permittee shall be responsible for the writing and submittal of the Previous 1,10nitoring and Future Recommendations Report. The report shall be submitted to the SDRWQCB within 180 days oj adoption of this Order. f. Receiving Waters Monitoring and Reporting Program - The Principal Permittee shall be responsible tor the development and writing of the Receiving Waters Monitoring Program as It is outlined in Attachment B. The Principal Permittee shall submit the Receiving Waters II10nltoring Program to the SDRWQCB within 180 days of adoption of this Order. g. Receiving Waters Monitoring and Reporting Program' The Principal Permittee shall submit the Receiving Waters Monitoring Annual Report to the SDRWQCB on January 31 of eac~ year, beginning on January 31 , 2002. h. Formal Agreements/Standardized Formats - The Principal Permittee shall submit to the SDRWQCB, within 180 days ot adoption of this Order, a formal agreement between the Copermittees which provides a management structure ior meeting the requirements of mis Order (as described in section N.1.a.). The Principal Permittee shall submit to the SDRWQCB, within 180 days of adoption of this Order, standardized formats for all reporIs and documents required under this Order. i. Dry Weather Analytical Monitoring - The Princioal Permittee shall collectively submit the Copermittees' dry weather analytical monitoring maps and procedures to the SDRWOC3 wlihin 180 days of adoption of this Order P. RECEIVING WATERS MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 1. Pursuant to Caliiornia Water Code section 13267, each Copermittee shall comply with MonitOring and i=\eporting Program tor 1'>10. 2001-01 contained in Attachment B of this Order. 2. Eacn Copermittee shall also comply with standard provisions, reporting requirements, and notifications contained in Attachment C of this Order. Q. TASKS AND SUBMITTAL SUMMARY The tasks and submittals required under this Order are summarized in Tables 5 and 6 below: Table 5. Task Summary I T T I P 'IS t' , c I' 0 t I F ask No. ask erml eClon , omoletlon ae requency , 1 I Identity discharges not to be prohibited and B.3. 1180 days after lone Time i BMPs required for treatment of discharges , adoption of Order not prohibited I , 2 I Examine fieid screening results to identity 8.5 I January 31,2002 Annually I water quality problems resulting from non- prohibited non.storm water discharges. I I includino follow.UD of problems 3 Notify SDRWaCB of discharges causing or C.2.a. I Immediate I As Needed i contributing to an exceedance of water cualitv standards 4 Establish adequate legal authority to control I 0.1 1 90 days after lone Time pollutant d:scharces into and from MS4 adootion of Order 5 I Revise General Plan to incorporate water I F.1.a. I 365 days after lone Time aualitv and watershed protection principles I adootion of Order 6 j Include conditions of aooroval in local I F.1.b.lll. I 365 davs a~er lOne Time Tentative O'der No. 2001-01 Page 47 of 50 s: '.5TO R 1',.,:',5 C. D E R M Ins d PC rm 99-0 1 \Perm i t\5 D t.1 u n i Pc rm It. d DC October 11. 2000 s o d dd II I SUS'"P I F 1 ". -, I - adootlOn of Order :565 di'JYs ul,8r ildootion of Order ;i,Jrml:S Devclo;:; ikxJel S'J$tJ? c) ,t; ,,;""':;S eve lOP an aaopt In IVI ua aeo r.1.b,.,:::). "180 days after One lime I and amended ordinances I approval of Model , I SUSI~P by , SDRWOCB I , Implemenl individual jUrisdictional SUSMP F.1.b.(2). i 80 days after Continuous I I ! ~pproval of Modf:1 I , SUS/v1P by I SDRWDCB , I 10 I Revise (;nvironmental review processes and F.' .c:.(i). I 365 days after I One lime , I CEO,:" checklists adootion of Order I , 11 I Conduct education program for municipal F.1.d.;1j. and I 365 days after Ongolflg I i planning and development review stall, F.1.d.12j adoption of Order i ~,ojec: B.;Jplicants, developers. contractors, and orooertv owners ! ,2 Implement all requirements of Construction F.2.a. - r.2.h. 180 days atter ! Ongoing COrTIoonent of Jurisdictional URMP , adootion of Order , , 13 I ~mify SDRVJOCB of non.c::JmpI13nt F.2.i , Within 24 hours of ] As Needed , , construction sites I incidence of i 1 noncom alia nee ,~ ",4 Implement all requirements at Municipal F.3.a.(1). - 180 days after Ongoing Existing Development Component of F.3.a.~8). adoption of Order Jt..:risdic~ional URMP ~5 Implement all requirements of Industrial F.3.b.(i) - 180 days after Ong::Jing Existing Development Component of F.3.b.(8) adoption of Order Jurisdictional URMP 16 Notify SDRWOCB of non-compliant F.3.b.3 Within 24 hou~s of As i\Jeeded industrial sites incidence of noncomoliance ~7 Implement all requirements 0: Commercial F.3.c.(':) - 180 days after Ongoing Existing Development Component of r...::.C.\~) adoption of Order Jurisdictional URMP 16 Implement all requirements of Residential F.3.d.(1) 180 days after Ongoing Existing Development Component of F.3.d.(3) adoption of Order Jurisdictional URMP -;9 Implement all requirements OT Education FAa. - F.4.c. I 180 days after Ongoing ComDonen~ of Jurisdictional URMP adootion of Order 20 Implement all requiremems of llii.::it F.5.a. - F.5.i. I 180 days after Ongoing Connectio:ls/Jllegal Discharges Compone:lt ! adoption of Order of Jurisdic1ional URMP 2"1 Implement all requirements 01 Public F.6. 1180 d21'S after Ongoing Partici;:;ation Component of Jurisdictional adoption of Order U"MP 22 Develop strategy for assessment of F.7.a. '180 days after One lime I Jurisdictional URMP effectiveness adootion of Order 23 Assess Jurisdictional URMP effectiveness FIb. I January 31, 2002 Annuallv I 2" Deveio::> stjategy for fjscal analysis of urban F.e. 1180 days after One lime runoff manaaement proaram adoption of Order 25 Conduct fiscal analysIs of urban runoff F.8. January 31,2002 Annually mariaaement oroaram in entiretv " ; 1 j 1 25 DeveioD and imolement Watershed URMP I J.2. Januarv 31,2003 I OnQoino I 27 t:.xecute formal agreement which provides IN'" 180 days after I One lime .'.0:;.. management structure for meeting Order adoption of Order reauirements 28 Develop standardized formats for all required I N.1.b. I 1 80 days after One lime reoorts of this Order adoption of Order I , I 29 Develop Previous Monitoring and Future I Attachment B 180 days after I One lime 1 Recommendations ReDort adootion of Order I 130 Develop Receiving Waters Monitoring I Attachm ent B 180 days after One Time P roaram adootion of Order I 31 Implement Receiving Waters Monitoring I Attachment B I 180 days after Continuous , Proaram adootion of Order I 32 Develop dry weather analytical monitoring I Attachment E I 180 days after I One lime mao and orocedures adootion of Order 33 I Conduct dry weather analytical monitorina j Attachment E I January 31, 2002 I Annuallv 1 34 I Complete NPDES apohcatlons for Issuance I Attacnment C I At least 180 days lOne Time ~ 1 J l :! -' Tentative Order No. 2001-01 Page 48 of 50 S: \STO R r.i"S O? ERNllT\Sdpcrm 99-0 1 \Perm ins DM un i Perm j t. d DC October 11. 2000 Notify SDRWOCB of any inCIU8nce oj n::..:,- cOmpI18:1::e with this Order R.1. 8.-;- 0; Attachment C ~r;or:o expiration 01 ');:::ier :/.!itnln 2~ hours ::If inCidence of non- C::lmoliance As r~E:-eded of rene'....iil watershej Oased pUTnI!S Table 6. Submittal Summary Submittal No. Submittal Permit Section Completion Date Frequency Submit identification of discharges nollo be 8.3. 180 days atter One Time prohibited and BIv1Ps required for treatment adoption of Order of discharaes not rohibited Report on discharges causing or contributing C.2.8 With individual As Needed to an exceedance of water quality standards, JUrisdictional URMP includin descri tion of 8MP imolementation Annual Reoorts Su:;,mit Certified Statement of Adequate 0.2. 90 days after One Time Leaal Authoritv ado tion of Order Submit certified statement if particular high F.2.g.(2). 180 days atter As Needed priority construction sites are to be inspected adoption of Order monthly rather than weekly in the rainy and as needed season thereafter Submit report on non~compliant construction F.2.i. Within 5 Days of As Needed sites incidence of non~ com liance Submit report on non.compliant industrial F.3.b.7. Within 5 days of I As Needed sites incidence of non comoliance Submit to Principal Perminee first part of H.~.2.. Prior to 180 days One Time i;ldivioual Jurisdictional UAMP documen: after adoption of covering requiremenis for all Components, Order (Principal exciujing the Land-Use for New Permittee specifies Development and Redevelopment date of submittal) Comoonent 2 3 4 s 6 7 a Submit to Principal Permittee second ;:.art of ! H.1.b. I Prior to 365 days lone Time I inc:vi::.:al Jurisdictional UAMP document , after adoption of covering Land-Use Planning for New I I Order (Principal I i Development and Redevelopment Permittee specifies I i Com~onent reauirements date of submittal) i ? Princ:;:.al Permittee shall submit to H.2.a. I 180 days after One Time SDRWOCB fjrst part of unified Jurisdictional I adoption of Order URI,,1P do:::ument covering requirements for all Components, excluding the Land.Use for New Development and Redevelopment I COr.lo::ment '0 Principal Permittee shall submit to I H.2.b. I 365 days after One Time 'u SDRWQCB second part of unjfied adoption of Order Jurjsdi:::tional URMP document covering Land-Use .Planning for New Development I I and Redevelopment Component reauirements, includinn Model SUSMP I 11 I Submit to SDRWQCB local SUSMP and I F.1.b.(2). and I 180 days after I One J ime I amended ordinances H.1.d. approval of Model I SUSMP I 12 I Submit to Principal Permittee individual I 1.1. I Prior to January 31, Annually ! Jurisdictional URMP Annual Report I I 2002 (Principal i I Permittee specifies I date of submittal) I 13 I Principal Permittee shall suomit 1 st unified 1.2. I January 31, 2002 One Time I Jurisdictional URMP Annual Report to and Annually SORWQCB Thereafter 114 Submit to Principal Permittee Watershed L.1. Prior to January 31, One Time Specmc URMP document 2003 (Principal Permittee specifies date of SUbmittai,-- I 15 I Principal Permittee shall submit unified I L.2. I January 31,2003 One Time Watershed Specific URMP document to I SORWQCB Tentative O~dcr No. 2001-01 Page 49 of 50 s: '.S TO R 1.~.S:J PER r ,1 IT\S d perm 99-01 \Perm i t'.5 0 r..i w n i? cr r.l::. d oc Oc1abcr 11, 2000 ! '..);1,. ;";'t: " Prlnc:;:-,ai P'='i~I:,8e shal' su::ml: :"::lG Ur,I~I~::i Juris:::!i::::!:J;,al U:=lfli? ,t..nnual Re;:-.ort 10 3DR\\' ::CB Suomi: '.0 ?iinc:pai Permittee Walershf:~ SpecifiC L'PJA? Annual Heport 18 Principal Permittee shall submit 1 s1 unilif;c Watershed SpeCific URMP Annual RE:por1 to SDRWQCB ?iinclDal ?ermittee shall sublT\lt 3rd unities Jurisdictional URMP Annual Repon to SDR\f"IOCB Princ:r,ai Permittee shall submit 2' unilisd \'Va1ers;,e:: Speciiic URMP Anl}ual Repor-:. 10 SDR\I\/QCS PrinCipal Permittee shall submit 4'" unified Jurisdictional URI.J1P Annual Report to SDRWOC3 Principal ?ermit~eB shall submit 3'~ unified '"Vatershed Specific URt.;1P AnnuiJ.1 Report 10 SDnV\.iOC3 Princlc;aJ ?ermittee st,all submit 5' unified Jurisdi::ti:mal URMP Annual Report to SDRV\'OC3 Principal Permit'iee s:laJl submit formal ag~eement ~etweer. Copermittees which provides management structure for mee~ing Order ~5-ouiremenls Princlea! Permittee snail submit standardized iormats lor all reool1s required unCie ~his Order Princi:Jal Permittee submits Previous Moni10rin;;; and Future Recommendations Re:xlrt!o SDRWOCB Prine::::al ?ermittee sUJmirs Receiving Waters iAonitonng Program document to SDRWOCS Princical Permi1<ee SLibmits Receivin,g Waters '.1o:1itoring Annual Report 10 SDR\,,,IQCB i Suomit:o Princioal Permittee cry weather analytical moni~oring maD and procedures c, 22 0' cO 2.1 ,..,~ 2:- 22 3~) Princi:::ai PermitteE< su~mits collective ci~ weather a:1al;.1ical monitoring maps and orocejures Submj~ w Principal Permittee ory weathe~ analytical monitoring results as part of i~divij~al Jurisdictional URlv1P .4nm.:al rieport c, 33 Principa: ?ermittee shall submit NPDES appiications for issuance of renewal watershed based permits Submit reporlS of any incidence of non. compliance with this Order I 11-1.i hll.2. 1.2. ['k2 1.2 M.2, 1.2. N.1.2. N.'"b. Attac;,,,,er.t B ,';~tac~rnent B Att3cnmen! B Att2:::~,ment :: Att3.cnment E Atta-chment t:. Atacnrnent C R.1, 8.7 of Attachment C Ji:l~IU8rJ' 31, ..:v~'.) Pri:Jr 10 January 31, 2004 (pnnclpal Permittee specifi8s date of submittal) January 31,2004 January 31, 200~ January 31.2005 January 31.2005 January 31. 2006 Jenuary 31 , 2006 180 days atter adoption of Order 180 days after adoption of Order 130 days after adootion of Order 180 days after ad::Jp~ion of Order Januar~l 31,2002 P~ior to 180 days after adoption of Order 1 ao days after adoption of Order Prior to January 31 , 2002, as part of individual Jurisdictional URMP Annual Report At least 180 da)'s prior to expiration at this Order Within 5 days of incidence of non comoliance Annu8ily One Time and Annually Th(';rt:,c.!,U One TimE: Orl8 11[;",8 One TimE: ~ne Tlm~ , , I One lime One Time One lime On~ Time One Time Annuaiiy One Time Or:eTi:Tle Annually One Time As Needed R. STANDARD PROVISIONS, REPORTING REQUIREMENTS AND NOTIFICATIONS 1. cace Copermittee shall comply with Standard Provisions, Reporting Requirements, and Notifications contained in Attachment C of this Order. This includes 24 hour/5day reporting requirements for any instance of non-compliance with this Order as described in section 8.7 of i\tacement C. 1 Tentative Order No. 2001-01 Page 50 of 50 S: \STO R r.~'.sDP E A M IT\Sdpc ~m99-01 \Pe rm i t\S DM U:l j Perm it. doc October 11. 2000 2. ;.:: ~Ians. repoC1s and subsequent arnendrnents subC",,"ed in compliance with this Order s~,a!: :l~ iC".plemented Irnrnediately (or as otherwise speCified! and sr,all be an enforceable part 01 t~,:s Order upon submission to the SORWOCB. All submittals by Copermlttees must be adequate D irnpiement the requirements of this Order. /, John H. FJobertus, Executive Officer, do hereby cerrify the foregoing is a fuft, true, and correct copy of an Order adopted by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Diego Region, on February 14,2001. John H. Roberlus Executive Officer Ter,:ative Order No. 2001-01 Page A-1 October 11, 2000 C: \'N: ;":Jov,' S\TEr:.P\<1tt~::;hmcntsA-Ec.doc ATTACHMENT A BASIN PLAN PROHIBITIONS Cai,;orc,a W2.ter Code Section 13243 provides thilt a Regional Board, in a water quality control plan, ccay soecify certain conditions or areas wnere the discharge of waste, or certain tyoes of w2st~ IS not permitted. The following discharge prohibitions are applicable to any pe-son, as de;;ned::Jy Section 13050(c) of the California Waler Code. who is a Citizen. domlclllarv. or pol;:ical agency or entity of California whose activities in C<'!iilornia could affect the quality of waters of the state v:Ifnln the boundaries 01 the San Diego Region. 1. 1.'1e discharge of waste to waters 01 the state in a macner causing. or threatening to cause a condition 01 pollution, contamination or nUisance as oefined in Caiifornia Water Code Section 13050, is prohibited. 2. Ihe discharge of waste to land, exceot as authOrized by waste discharge requirements or the terms described in California Water Code Section 13264 is prohibited. 3. Ihe discharge of pollutants or dreoged or fill material to waters of the United States except as authorized by an NPDES permit or a dredged or lill material permit (subject to the exemption bescr;oed in Calilornla Water Code 1j13376) IS pronloited. 4. Discharges 01 recycled water to lakes or reservoirs used lor municipal water supoly or io inland su::ase vvater tribu~aries thereto are prohibited, unless this Regional Board issues a NPDES Dermit authorizing such a discharge; the proposed discnarge has been approved by the State Department of Heelth Services and the operating agency of the impacted reservoir; and the discharger has an approved tail-sate long-term disposal alternative. 5. The discharge 01 waste to inland surface waters, except in cases where the quality 01 the discharge complies wiih apolicable receiving water quality objeciives, is prohibited. Allowances fo:" d:!ution may be made at the discrelion o~ the Regional Board. Consideration would inClude s~!'"eamflow da~a, the degree of treatment provided and safety measures to ensure relJabiii:y of faclilty pertormance. As an example, discharge of secondary effluent would probably be psrmitted if streamflow provided 100:1 dilution capability. 6. The discharge of waste in 2 manner causing fiow, ponding, or surfacing on lands not owned Dr under the control of the discharger is prohibited, unless ihe discharge is authorized by the Regional Board. 7. The ,jumping, deposition, or discharge of was~e directly into waters of the state, or adjacent to such \-vaters in any manner which may permit its being transported into the waters, is prohibited 'J:lless authorized by the Regional Board. " 8. Any discharge to a storm water conveyance sysiem that is not composed entirely oi "storm water' is prohibited unless authorized by the Regional Board. [The tederal regulations, 40 CFR 122.26 (b) (13), deline storm water as storm water runoi!, snow melt runoff, and surtace run 011 and drainage. 40 CFR 122.26 (b) (2) defines an illicit discharge. as any discharge io a storm water conveyance system that is not composed entirely 01 storm waier except diSCharges pursuant to a NPDES permit and discharges resulting irom lire iighting activities, [9122.26 amended at 56 FR 56553, November 5, 1991; 57 FR 11412, April 2, 1992]. 9. The unauthorized discharge of treated or untreated sewage to waters 01 the siate or to a storm water conveyance system is prohibited. Tentative Order No. 2001-01 C: \WI r J"JOW S\ TEM P\at~a c h m en t5 A.Ec. doc Page A-2 October 11, 2000 ~ o. ~h8 discharge oi indus~rial wastes to conventional se;::tic tank/s~jscriace disposal systems, .sx::;e:Jt 25 authorized by ~he terms descrb~d in Cali:orr::a V''/'{-:.ter C:Jde Se::tion ~ 2264, :5 ~,onlblted. 11. The discharge of radioactive wastes ameneble to alte<native methods of disposal into the waters of the state is prohibited. 12. The discharge of any radiological, chemical, or biological warfare agent into waters of the state is prohibited. 13. The discharge of waste into a natural or excavated site below historic water levels is prohibited unless the discharge is authorized by the Regional Board. 14. The discharge of sand, silt, clay, or other earthen materials from any activity, including land grading and construction, in quantities which cause deleterious bottom deposits, turbidity or discoloration in waters of the state or which unreesonaoly afiect, or threaten to affect, beneficial uses of such waters is prohibited. ;"' 15. The discharge of treated or untreated sewage from vessels to Mission Bay, Oceanside Harbor, Dana Point Harbor, or other small boat harbors is pronlbited. ~ 16. Tne discharge of untreated sewage from vessels to San Diego Bay is prohibited. 17. The discharge of treated sewage from vessels to portions of San Diego Bay that are less than 30 teet deep at mean lower low water (MLLW) is prohibited. 18. The discharge of treated sewage from vesseis, which do not have a properly functioning US Coast Guard certified Type I or Type II marine sanitation device, to portions of San Diego Bay that are greater than 30 teet deep at mean lower low water (MLLW) IS prohibited. ~ J '1 ,I 'I I :J ,..., 'j iJ Tentative Order No. 2001-01 c: \ vn ND OVJS\TEM P\:3lt~ ch mcntsA-::.c. doc Page B-1 OCTOBER 11. 2000 ATTACHMENT B RECEIVING WATERS MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR ORDER NO. 2001-01 Countywide to Watershed Based Monitoring and Reporting Progrzm The primary obJec:lves of tne Receiving Waters I\~onltorlng and Reporting Program Include. but are not limited to: 1) assessing compliance with O~der No. 2001-01; 2) measuring the effectiveness of Urban Runoff Management Plans; 3) assessing the cnemical, physical, and biological impacts to receiving waters resulting from urban runoff; and 4) assessing the overall health and evaluating ;ong-term trends In receiving water quality. Like Order No. 200~ -01 in general, the monitoring requirements below are intended to transition dUring the five-year permit period from a countywide approach to a watershed based approach. DUring the first two reporting periods 1 of this Order, this monitoring program shall be conducted and reported on the same countYWide basis as previously conducted under Order No. 90-42. Soecifically, all monitoring shall be conducted jointly by all Copermittees under a single comractor with countywide coo~djnatjon. Beginning with the third monitoring period of this Order (unless otherwise directed by the SDRWOCa Executive Officer) the design of the monitOring program will shift to a watershed based approach. The monitoring program shall continue to be conducted under a single comractor with counrywide coordination. However, the monitoring program design, implementation, anaiysis, assessment, and reporting shall be conducted on a watershed basis ~Ol each of the nine hydrologic units. Monitoring results shall be assessed and reported on a watershed basis as a single report by the Copermlttees consisting of one common section an.j nine watershed sections. Monitoring, analysis, assessment, and reporting shall satisfy the requirements of specified below lor each watershed as applicable. Order No. 2001-01 may be modified by the SDRWOCB Executive Officer without further pub,ic notice TO direct the Copermittees to participate in comprehensive regional monitoring aClivi:ies In ,he Southern California Bight during the term of this Order. I. Previous Monitoring and Future Recommendations Report The Copermlttees shall collaborate to develop a "Previous Monitoring and Future Recommendations Report" that summarizes all previous wet weather monitoring results and recommends future monitoring activities including the possibility of participating In coordinated comprehensive regional monitoring in the Southern California Bight. The Principal Permittee shall be responsible for the writing of the report and submittal to the SDRWOCa within 180 days of adoption of this Order. At a minimum, the report shall: A. a. c. , D. , J ~ F. , Summarize the cumulative findings of all previous wet weather monitoring; Identify detectable trends in water quality data and receiving water quality, based on the cumulative previous wet weather monitoring findings; Interpret the cumulative previous wet weather monitoring findings; Draw conclusions regarding the cumulative previous wet weather monitoring findings; Provide recommendations for future monitoring activities; and Include an executive summary, introduction, conclusion, and summary of recommendations. A reporting period is defined as October 1&1 to Septem!Jer 3:Jlh of any year. The first reporting period under this Order is 08tober 1, 2000 to September 30,2001. Tentative Order No. 2001-01 C; \Vi j' ~D ow S\TEr /1 P\.i:lttach m cnts A-Ec. doc Page B-2 OCTOBER 11,2000 11. Receiving Waters Monitoring Program - - Year Round Util:zi~g the findings of the "Previous Monitoring and Future Recommendations Report" discussed abo'Je, the Copermitlees shall collaborate to develop, submit, co~duct, and report on a year round countywide or watershed based Receiving Walers Monitoring program2. The goals of both the cou~tywide and watershed based Receiving Walers Monitoring Program shall be clearly stated. The Receiving Waters Monitoring Program goals shall focus on assessing compliance With this Orcsr, achieving water quality objectives, protecting beneficial uses, and assessing the overall health and long-term water quality trends of recei0ng waters, For purposes of conducting the cOJctywide or watershed based Receiving Waters Monitoring Program, the Copermitlees are encouraged to collaborate with other agencies conducting similar monitoring, such as the Southern Cal:fornia Coaslal Water Research Project (SCCWRP), the California Department of Fish and Ga:;-,e, or other municipalities in Southern California, Implementation of the countywide or watershed based Receiving Waters Monitoring Program shall begin Within 180 days of adoption of this Order. The countywide or watershed based Receiving Waters MonilOring Program shall include, at a minimum, the following components: A. Urban Stream Bioassessment Monitoring a. Long-term Mass Loading Monitoring C. Coastal Storm Drain Outfall Monitoring D. Ambient Bay, Lagoon, and Coastal Receiving Water Monitoring ~. Toxic Hot Spots Monitoring in San Diego Bay A. Urban Stream Bioassessment Monitorina 1. The Copermittees shall collabor.ate to develop and implement an urban stream bioassessment monitoring program. At a minimum, the program shall consist of station identification, sampling, monitoring, and analysis of data for 20 bioassessment stations in order to determine the biological and physical integrity of urban streams within the County of San Diego. In addition to the urban stream bioassessment stations, three reference bioassessment stations shall be identified, sampled, monitored, and analyzed. The selection, sampling, monitoring, and analysis 01 bioassessment stations shall meet the following requirements: a. Each urban stream bioassessment station shall be selected using the following criteria. Each urban stream bioassessment station shall: (1) be located within the jurisdiction of a Copermittee; or (2) be located within one of the nine watersheds specified in Section J, Table 4 of this Order; and (3) be representative of urban stream conditions within one of the nine watersheds specified in Section J, Table 4 of this Order; and (4) meet the physical criteria of the California Stream Bioassessment Procedure3; and (5) to the ex1ent feasible, coincide with the location of an already existing monitoring station used by the California Department of Fish and Game in the conduct of the SDRWQCB's Ambient Bioassessment Program. 2 During the first two years, monitoring and reporting will be conducted and reported on a countywide basis. Beginning in the third monitoring period of Order 2001-01 , the monitoring and reporting program will shift to a watershed based approach. 3 California Stream Bioassessment Procedure (Protocol Brief tor Biological and PhysicallHabitat Assessment in Wadeable Streams), California Department of Fish and Game - Aquatic Bioassessment Laboratory, May 1999. Tentative Order No. 2001-01 Page B-3 OCTOBER 11, 2000 c: \':.'i:..:: ow S'.TEfi/1 P\;2 :~~ ch m en ts A.E c. do:: b. Each bl:)2ssessment station shall be monitored tWice annuaily, In l'Jlay ana Oc:ober of eacn year, beglnn:rrg in May 2001. A f'llnlmum of three replicate samples shall De coilected at each statICJn during each sampling event. c. Sampling, laboratory, quality assurance, and analysis procedures shall follow the standardized procedures set forth in the California Department of Fish and Game's California Stream Bioassessment Procedure (CSBP). Analysis procedures Sh211 include comparison betvJeen station ~ean values for various biologicai metrics. Sampling, labgratory, quality assurance, and analytical procedures shall follow the standardized "Non-Point Source Bioassessment Sampling Procedures" ior professional bioassessment set forth in the CSBP. In the event that the CSBP "Point-Source Professional Bioassessment Procedure" is Denormed in place of the "Non Point Source Bioassessment Sampling Procedure," justification and documentation of the procedure shall be submitted with the report. Results of the Urban Stream Bioassessment Monitoring shall De reported annually as part of the overall Receiving Waters Monitoring and Reporting Program for Order No. 2001.01. Reporting of the bioassessment data shall follow the format of the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board 1999 Biological Assessment Annual Report4 The report shall include: (1) All physical, chemical and biological data collected in the assessment; (2) Photographic documentation of assessment and reference stations; (3) Documentation of qGality assurance and control procedures; (4) Analysis that shall include calculation of the metrics used in both the CSBP and the 1999 Annual Report. (5) The report shall provide interpretation for comparisons of mean biological and habitat assessment metric values between assessment and reference stations. (6) Utilize a regional index of biological integrity as part of the analysis. (7) ::Iectronic aata formatted to California Department of Fish and Game Aquatic Bioassessment Laboratory specifications ior inclusion in the Statewide Access Bioassessment database. d. /1, professional environmental laboratory shall perform all sampling, laboratory, quality assurance, and analytical procedures. While valuable, data collected by volunteer monitoring organizations shall not be submitted in place oi professional assessments. e. Reference stations shall be selected iollowing the recommendations in the 1999 Annual Report, Hughes (1995)5 and Barbour et. al. (1999)6. Reference stations shall be evaluated annually by the Copermittees for suitability and the results 4 San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board ,1999 Biological Assessment Annual Report. A Water Quality Inventory Series: Biological and Physical/Habitat Assessment of California Water Bodies. California Department of Fish and Game Office of Spill Prevention and Response, Water Pollution Control Laboratory. December 1999. 5 Hughes, R. M. (1 g9S) Defining Acceptable Biological Status by Comparing with Reference Conditions in Biological Assessment and Criteria: Tools for Water Resource Planning and Oecision Making, Wayne S. Davis and Thomas P. Simon ads. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, LA 6 Barbour, M.T. ,J Gerritsen, B.D. Synder, and J.B. Stribling (1999) Rapid Bioassessment Protocols For Use in Streams and Wadeable Rivers: Periphyton, Benthic Macroinvertebrates, and Fish. Second !::dition. EPA 841-8-99. 002 . ~ Tentative Order No. 2001-01 c :\Wl~ DOWS\TEr-J1 P\at!a::hm ents A-Ec.d DC Page B-4 OCTOBER 11,2000 inclGded in the annual report. New reference stations will be selected as nee oed by the Copermlttees. 2. The Co::>ermittees shall design and Implement a program to conduct standardized toxicity testing at urban stream bioassessment stations where the bioassessment data indicates significant impairment. When findings indicate the presence of toxicity, a Toxicity Identification Evaluation (TIE) shall be conducted to determine the cause(s) of the toxicity. 3. Lona-term Mass Loadinq Monitorinq ror ourposes' of evaluating long-term trends, the Copermiftees shall continue to monitor the five existing long-term mass loading stations as specified in Monitoring and Reporting Program No. 95-76 and amended by Technical Change Order Nos. 1-4. When findings indicate the presence of toxicity. a Toxicity Identification Evaluation (TIE) shall be conducted to determine the cause(s) of the toxicity. r.o C. Coastal Storm Drain Outfall Monitorinq The Copermittees shall collaborate to develop and implement a monitoring program for discharges of urban runoff from coastal storm drain outialls. The program shall meet the following requirements: ~ 1. The program shall include rationale and criteria for selection of storm drain outtalls to be monitored. 2. The program shall include collection of samples for analysis of total coliform, fecal coliform, and enterococci, in addition to any other indicators or pathogens identified by the Copermittees. 3. Samples shall be collected at both the storm drain ouifall and in the surf zone (at ankle 10 knee water depths) directiy in front of the outfall. 4. Samples shall be collected during both dry and wet weather periods. o. Exceedances of public health standards for bacteria must be reported to the County Department of Public Health as soon as possible by the Copermittees. D. Ambient Bav. Laaoon. and Coastal Receivina Water Monitorinq The Copermittees shall collaborate to develop and implement a program to assess the overall health of the receiving water and monitor the impact of urban runoff on ambient receiving water quality. This monhoring shall including San Diego Bay, Mission Bay, Oceanside Harbor, the Pacific Ocean coastline, coastal lagoons and estuaries, and all Clean Water Act section 303(d) water bodies or other environmentally senshive areas as defined in F.1.b(2)(a)vii of this Order. 1.-' . , ,. .~ E. Toxic Hot Soots MonitorinG in San DieGO Bav The Copermittees shall collaborate to develop and implement a program to assess the relative contribution of urban runoff on Toxic Hot Spots in San Diego Bay. '- Tentative Order No. 2001-01 c; \ VI I f ~ DO VJ S\TEM P\:Jttac tlmen ts A- Ec. d OC Page B-5 OCTOBER 11, 2000 III. Submi:tal of Receiving Waters Monitoring Program Document The Principal Permittee shall submit to the SDRWQCB the countywide or watershed based RecEI'lIng Waters Monitoring Program within 180 days of adoption of this Order. The regional or watershed based Receiving Waters Monitoring Program shall describe how the Copermlttees Vlill meet tr',e requirements of the components outlined in Section II of this Attachment. IV. Submittal of Receiving Waters Monitoring Annual Reports The P[lncioal Permittee shall submit the Receiving Waters Monitoring fl.nnual Report to the SDRWOCB on January 31 of each year. beginning on January 31. 2002. V. Monitoring Annual Report Requirements .t.. Monitoring reoons shall provide the data/results, methods of eValuating the data. graphical summaries of the data. and an explanation/discussion of the data for each monitoring program component listed above. a. lv1onitoring reports shall include an analysis of the findings of each monitoring program component listed above. The analysis shall identify and prioritize water quality problems. Based on the identification and prioritization of water quality problems, the analysis shail Identify potential sources of the problems, and recommend future monitoring and BIv1? implementation measures for identifying and addressing the sources. The analysIs shall also include an evaluation of the effectiveness of existing control measures. C. 1'v1onitoring reports shall include identification and analysis of any long-term trends in storm water or receiving water quality. D. Monitoring ,eDons shall provide an estimation of total pollutant foads (wet weather ioads pius dry weather loads) due to urban runoff for each of the watersheds specified in Section J, Table 4 of Order No. 2001-01. E. Monitoring reports shall for each monitoring program component listed above, incluce an assessment of compliance with applic2bJe \vater quaiity standards. f'. All monitoring reports shall use a stancard repon format and shall include the following: 1. A stand alone comprehensive executive summary addressing all sections of the monitoring report; 2. Comprehensive interpretations and conclusions; and 3. Recommendations for future actions. G. Alf monitoring reports submitted to the Principal Permittee or the SDRWQCB shall contain the certified perjury statement described in Standard Reporting Requirements in Attachment C section B.1 a.d. H. All monitoring reports shat! be peer reviewed orior to submittal to the SDRWQCB by an independent committee (consisting of no less than three membe,s) of peers. All peer comments shall also be submitted to the SDRWQCB. I. All monitoring reports shall be submitted in both electronic and paper formats. I J. All monitoring reports shat! describe monitoring station locations by latitude and longitude coordinates, frequency of sampling, quality assurance/quality control procedures and sampling and analysis protocols. Tentative Order No. 2001-01 C: \\'/1 r~ iJOW S\TEM P\attac h m cnts A. E c. d DC Page B-5 OCTOBER 11, 2000 K. tJ1onitonng programs and ;eports shall comply vntn Sec:ion VI of Attachment B, as w8:i as Attachment C. VI. Standard Monitoring Requirements p... All monitoring activities shall meet the following requirements: 1. Monitoring and Records [40 CFR 12?.41 (j)(,)] Samples and measurements taken for the purpose of monitoring shall be representative of the monitored activity. 2. Monitoring and Records [40 CFR 122.41 (j)(2)J [California Water Code 9 13383(a)] The discharger shall retain records of all monitoring information, including all calibration and maintenance records and all original strip chart recordings for continuous monitoring inwumentation, copies of all reports required by this Order, and records of all data used to complete the application for this permit, for a period of at least three years from the oate of the sample, measurement, report or application. This period may be extended by request of the SDRWOCB at any time. 3. Monitoring and Records [40 CFR 122.21 (j)(3)] ;:;scords oi monitoring information sr,all include the infon'elation reouested in Attachment B and the following: a. The date, exact place. and time of samoling or measurements; b. The individual(s) who performed the sampling or measurements; c. The date(s) analyses were performed; d. The individual(s) who performed the analyses; e. The analytical techniques or methods used; and f. The results of such analyses. " Monitoring and Records [40 CFR ",22.21 (j)(4)] Monitoring results must be conducted according to test procedures approved under 40 CFR part 136 unless other test procedures have been specified in this Order. 5. Monitoring and Records [40 CFR 122.21 (j)(5)] The Clean Water Act provides that any person who falsifies, tampers with, or knowingly renders inaccurate any monitoring device or method required to be maintained under this Order shall, upon conviction, be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000, or by imprisonment for not more than two years, or both. If a conviction of a person is for a violation committed after a first conviction of such person under this paragraph, punishment is a fine of not more than $20,000 per day of violation, or by imprisonment of not more than four years, or both. 6. Monitoring and Records [40 CFR 122.41 (k)(2)] The Clean Water Act provides that any person who knowingly makes any false statement, representation, or certification in any record or other document submitted or required to be maintained under this permit, including monitoring reports or reports of compliance or non- Tentative Order No. 2001-01 c: \\'J IND :Jl/'JS\TEM P\~ ~a ch men tsA-E c.d:)c Page B-7 OCTOBER 11.2000 80mpliance s;iall, upon conviction. ~e punished by a :ine o~ not more than 510,00D D8r 'Jioiatlon, or by imprisonment iar not mOle than six months per violation, or by both. 7. Monitoring Repons i40 CFR 122.41 (1)(4) . !,,1onitoring results shall be reported at the intervals specified elsewhere in this Order. 8. Monitoring Repons [40 CFR 122.41 (1)(4)(ii)J " If the discharger monitors any pollutant more freouently than required by the permit uSing test procedures approved under 40 CFR pan 136, unless otherwise specified in the Order, the results ot this monitoring shall be included in the calculation and reponing ot the datE; submitted in the reports requested by the SDRWOCB. 9. Monitonng Reports i"O CFR 122.41 (1)(4)(iii)] Calculations for all limitations which require averaging of measurements shall utilize an arithmetic mean unless otherwise specified by the SDRWOCB in the Order. ., ~ Tentative Order No. 2001-0, Page C-1 OCTOBER 11, 2000 C: '.W! ~J DOW S\TEr\.'; P\<Itt<l c h men t5t.-~C. d oc ATTACHM:::NT C STANDARD PROVISIONS REPORTING REQUiREMENTS, AND NOTIFICATIONS A. STANDARD PROVISIONS 1. DutvTo Comolv [40 CFR 12241(aWI)J The discharger shall comply with efiluent standards or prohibitions established under Section 307(20) of the Clean Water Act for toxic pollutants and with standards for sewage sludge use or disposal established under Section 405(d) of the Clean Water Act Within the time pro'Jided in the regulations that establish these standards or prohibitions or standards for sewage sludge use or disposal, even if this Order has not yet been modified to incorporate the requirement. 2. Need to Halt or Reduce Activitv Not a Defense [40 CFR 122.41 (c)] It shall not be a defense for the discharger in an enforcement action that it would have been necessary to halt or reduce the permitted activity in order to maintain compliance with the conditions of this Order, Upon reduction, loss, or failure of a treatment lacililY, the discharger shall, to the extent necessary to maintain compliance with this Order, control prod~ction or all discharges, or bolll, until the facility is restored or an alternative method of treatment is provided, This provision applies, for example, when the primary source of power of a treatment facility fails, is reduced, or is lost. 3, Dutv to MiCicate [40 CFR 12241 (d)] The discharger shall take ail r8asonaole steps to minimize or prevent any discharge or prevent any discharge or sludge use or disposal in violation of this Order which has a reasonable likelihood of adversely affecting human health or the environment. 4. Prooer Ooeration and Maintenance [40 CFR 12241 (e)] The discharger shall at all times properly operate and maintain all facilities and systems Of treatment and control (and related acpurtenances) which are installed or used by the discharger:o achieve compiiance with the conditions of this Order. Proper operation and maintenance also includes adequate laboratory controls and appropriate quality assurance 8rocedures, This provision requires the operation of back-up or auxiiiary facilities or similar systems which are installed by the discharger only when the operation Is necessary to achieve compliance with the conditions of this Order, , Permit Actions [40 CFR 122.41 (f)] [Caiifornia Water Code S 13381] This Order may be modified, revoked and reissued, or terminated for cause including, but not limited to, the following: a. Violation of any terms or conditions of this Order; b, Obtaining this Order by misrepresentation or failure to disclose fully all relevant facts; c. A change in any condition that requires either a temporary or permanent reduction or elimination of the authorized discharge; or d, A determination that the permitted activity endangers human health or the 1 environment and can only be regulated to acceptable levels by permit modification or j termination, Tentative Order No. 2001-01 c: \\.'11 r ~ D~ '.','S\TEM P\atta eh r:1 en ts A-Ec.doc Page C-2 OCTOBER 11, 2000 -:-:'"Ie filing of a r~ques: by trl8 discharger for modification, revocation and reissLiance, or :",,.,-r.ination of this Order, or a notification of plane,ed cr,anges or anticipated n~ncompliance does not stay any condition of this Order. 6. ",.ooertv Riohts [40 CFR 122.41 (g)] [California Water Code 913263(g)] This Order does not convey any property rights of any sort or any exclusive privilege. Tne requirements prescribed herem do not authorize the commission of any act causing i.1jury to persons or property, nor protect the discharger from liabilities under federal, state, or local laws, nor create a vested right for the discharger to continue the waste discharge. 7. i~soection and Entrv [40 CFR 122.41 (i)] [California Water Code S 13267(c)] The discharger shall allow the SDRWQCB, or an authorized SDRWQCB representative, or an authorized representative of the USEPA (including:an authorized contractor acting &s a representative of the SDRWQCB or USEPA), upon p,-esentation of credentials and otner documents as may be required by law, to: a. Enter upon the discharger's premises where a regulated facility or activity is located or conducted, or where records must be kept under the conditions of this Order; Q. Have access to and copy, at reasonable times, any records that must be kept under the conditions of this Order; c. Inspect at reasonable times any facilities, equipment (including monitoring and control equipment), practices, or operations regulated or required under this Order; and d. Sample or monitor at reasonable times, for the purposes of assuring comoliance with this Order or as otherwise authorized by the Clean Water Act or California Water Code, any substances or parameters at any location. 8. 3voass ofTreatment Facilities [40 CFR 122.41 (m)] _. Definitions (1) "Bypass" means the intentional diversion of waste streams from any portion of a treatment facility. (2) "Severe property damage" means substantial physical damage to property, damage to the treatment facilities which causes them to become inoperable, or substantial and permanent loss of natural resources which can reasonably be expected to occur in the absence of a bypass. Severe property damage does not mean economic loss caused by delays in production. b. Bvoass not Exceedina Limitations The discharger may allow any bypass to occur which does not cause effluent limitations of this Order or the concentrations of pollutants set forth in Ocean Plan Table A or Table B to be exceeded, but only if it also is for essential maintenance to assure efficient operation. These bypasses are not subject to the provisions of paragraphs c. and d. of this provision. Notice (1) Anticioated bVDass. If the discharger knows in advance of the need tor a bypass, it shall submit prior notice, if possible, at least ten days before the date of the bypass.. Tentative Order No. 2001-01 c: \\V: N 90 W S\TEr~i ?\a Ita c nments A.E c. doc Page C-3 OCTOBER 11,2000 (2) U~an~iciDated bVD2SS. The d~scharger shall submit notice of 2n unanticip2iecJ bypass as required In section 8.7 of Attachment C. . d. Prohibition of Bvoass Bypass is prohibited. and the SDRWOCB may take enforcement action against the discharger for bypass. unless: (1) Bypass was unavoidable to prev'~nt loss of life. personal injury, or severe property damage; (2) There were no feasible alternatives to the bypass, such as the use of auxiliary treatment facilities. retention of untreated wastes, or maintenance during normal periods of equipment downtime. This condition is not satisiied if adequate back- up eoulpment should have been installed In the exercise of reasonable engineering judgment to prevent a bypass which occurred during normal periods oi equipment downtime or preventive maintenance; and (3) The discharger submitted notices as required under paragraph c. of this section. The SDRWOCB may approve an anticipated bypass, after considering its adverse efiects. ii the SDRWOCB determines tr,at it will meet the three conditions listed above in paragraph d.(1) of this section. 9. Uoset [40 CFR 122.41 (n)] a. Deiinition "Upset" means an exceptional incident in which there is unintentional and temporary noncompliance with technology based eJiluent limitations because of factors beyond the reasonable control of tne discharger. An upset does not include. noncomoliance to the eXlent caused by operational error, improperly designed treatment facilities, inadequate treatment facilities, lack of preventive maintenance, or careless or improper operation. b. Eifect of an Uoset An upset constitutes an aifirmative deiense to an action brought for noncomoliance with such technology based permit eifluent limitations if the requirements of paragraph c. of this section are met. No determination made during adminlslralive review of claims theet noncomoiiance was caused by upset, and beiore an action ior noncompliance, is final administrative action subject to judicial review. c. Conditions Necessarv ior a Demonstration oi Uoset A discharger who wishes lO estaolish the affirmative deiense of upset shall demonstrate. through properly signed. contemporaneous operating logs, or other relevant evidence that: (1) An upset occurred and that the discharger can idemify the cause(s) of the upse:; (2) The permitted facility was at the time being properly operated; (3) The discharger submitted notice of the upset as required in section B.7 of Attachment C of this Order; and (4) The discharger complied with any remedial measures required under Provision A.5. of Attachment C of this Order. J d. Burden of Proof In any enforcement proceeding the discharger seeking to establish the occurrence oi an upset has the burden of proof. 10. Other Eifluent Limitations and Standards [40 CFR 122.44(b)(1)] It any toxic effluent standard or prohibition (including any schedule of compliance speciiied in such effluent standard or prohibition) is promulgated under Section 307(a) of Tentative Order No. 2001-01 c: \\'/1 N DOWS\TEM p\gt~achmen ts A-Ec. d oc Page C-4 OCTOBER 11, 2000 ;r,e Clean Water Act for a tOXIC pollutant which ;s present in the discharge and that s;andard or ~rohibltion is Clore stringent than any limitation on the pollutant in tnls Order, tne SDRWOCa may institute proceedings under these regulations to modify or revoke and reissue the Order to conform to the toxic effluent standard or prohibition. 11. The discharger shall take all reasonable steps to minimize or correct any adverse impact on the environment resulting !rom noncompliance with this Order, including such accelerated or additional monitoring as may be necessary to d,eter;7line the nature and impact of the noncomplying discharge. 12. The provisions of this Order are severable. and if any provision of this Order, or the application of any provision of this Order to any circumstances, is held invalid, the aoplication of such provision to other circumstances, and the remainder of this Order, shall not be affected thereby. ' 13. The discharger shall comply with any interim effluent limitations as established by addendum, enforcement action, or revised waste discharge requirements which have been, or may be, adopted by this SDRWOCa. B. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS ,. DU1V to Reaoolv [40 CFR 122.41 (b)] This Order expires on February 14, 2006. If the discharger wishes to continue any activity regulated by this Order after the expiration date of this Order, the discharger must apply for and ootain new waste discharge requirements. The discharger must file a Report of Waste Discharge in accordance with Title 23, California Code of Regulations not later than 180 days in advance of the expiration date of this Order as application for issuance of new waste discharge requirements. 2. Dutv to Provide Information [40 CFR 122.41 (h)] The discharger shall furnish to the SDRWOC3, SWRCB, or USEPA, within a reasonable time, any information which the SDRWQCB, SWRC8, or USE?A may request to determine whether cause exists for modifying, revoking and reissuing, or termrnating this Order, or to determine compliance with this Order. The discharger shall also iurnish to the SDRWQCB, SWRCB, or USEPA, upon request, copies of records required to be kept by this Order. 3. Planned Chanoes [40 CFR 122.41(1)(1)] The discharger shall give notice to the SDRWOCB as soon as possible of any planned physical alterations or additions to the ~ermitted facility. Notice is required only when: a. The alteration or addition to a permitted facility may meet one of the criteria for determining whether a facility is a new source in <!o CFi'1 Part 122.29(b); o. The alteration or addition could significantly change the nature or increase the quantity of pollutants discharged. This notification applies to pollutants which are subject neither to effluent limitations in this Order, nor to notification requirements under 40 CFR 122.42(a)(I); or o. The alteration or addition results in a significant change in the discharger's sludge use or disposal practices, and such alteration, addition, or change may justify the appiication of conditions in this Order that are different from or absent in the existing Order, including notification of additional use or disposal sites not reported during the permit application process or not reported pursuant to an approved land application plan. Tentative Order No. 2001-01 Page C-5 OCTOBER 11,2000 c: "\','1 ~ ;:>s 'o' 1 S',TEr/, P\;J t~ac ~ men ts A~E C. d 0-:: !~',;-,~lsiDate.j f,h:,-Complidncp [40 C~R ~122.~ 1 (1)(2)] The dlSC:largef shall give ad'J2:i:.9 ~,:;tice to the SDRWQCB of any planned changes In the permitteo facility or 2CtlVlty ",nlc;! cnay result in noncompliance with the requirements of this Oraer. 5. !cansiers [40 CFR 122.41 (1)(3)] This O,der is not transferable to any person except after notice to the SDRWOCB. The SDRWOCB may require modification or revocation and cc.,ssuance of this Order to change the name of the discharger and incorporate such 0,her requirements as may be necessary under the Clean Water Act or the California 'iJater Code in accordance with the following: ~. Transfers bv Modification [40 CFR 122.61 (a)] Except as provided in paragraph b. of this reporting requirement, this Order may be transferred by the discharger to a new owner or operator only if this Order has been modified or revoked and reissued, or a minor modification made to Identify tne nevI discharger and incorporate such other requirernents as may be necessc:ry under the Clean Water Act or California Water Code. b. Automatic Transfers [40 CFR 122.61 (b)] As an alternative to transfers under paragraph a. of this reporting requirement, any NPDES permit may be automatically transierred to a new discharger if: (1) The current discharger notifies the SDRWOCB at least 30 days in advance of the Droposed transfer date In paragraph b.(2) of this reporting requirement; (2) The notice includes a written agreement between the existing and new dischargers containing a specific date for ~ransfer of permit responsibility, coverage, and liability between them; and (3) The SDRWOCB does not notify the existing discharger and the proposed new discharger of his or her intent to modify or revoke and reissue the Order, .~ modification under this subparagraph may also be a minor modification under 1,0 CFR Part 122,63. If this notice is not received, the transier is effective on the date specified in the agreement mentioned in paragraph b.(2) of this reporting ~equirement. _. Twentv-tour Hour Reoortinq [40 CFR 122.41 (1)(6)] The discharger shall report any noncompliance with this Order or any noncompliance that may endanger health or the environment. Any information shall be provided orally to the SDRWOCB within 24 hours from the time the discharger becomes aware Df the circumstances. A written descriptiDn Df any noncompliance shall be submitted to the SDRWOCB within five days of such an Dccurrence and cDntain a description of the nDncompiiance and its cause; the period Df noncompliance, including exact dates and times, and if the noncompliance has not been corrected, the anticipated time it is expected to continue; and steps taken or planned to reduce, eliminate, and prevent recurrence of the noncompliance. The follDwing shall be included as information which must be repDrted within 24 hours under this repDrting requirement: a, Any unanticipated bypass which exceeds any effluent limitation in this Order; 1 I J b. Any discharge of treated or untreated wastewater, including reclaimed or recycled wastewater, resulting from pipeline breaks, obstruction, surcharge Dr any other circumstance; Tentative Order No. 2001-01 c: \ \\' I f': DOWS\ TEM P\atta c hmentsA-Ec.doc Page C-6 OCTOBER 11, 2000 c, Any discharge or spill of raw or potable water not aJthorized by this order or res~lllng from pipeline breaks. obstruction. surcharge or any other circumstance; d. Any upset which exceeds any effluent limitation In this Order; e. Any spill or discharge of non-storm water not authorized by this Order. Non-storm water discharges not prohibited by the Co permittees pursuant to Section B of this Order need not be reported under thiS section; and i. Any violation of this Order, 7. Other Non-Comoliance [40 CFR 122.41 (1)(7)] The discharger shall report all instances of noncompliance not reported elsewhere under other sections of this Order at the time annual reports are submitted. The reports shall contain the information listed in part B.7 of Attachment C of this Order. 8. Other Information [40 CFR 122.41(1)(8)] Where the discharger becomes aware that it failed to submit any relevant facts in a Report of Waste Discharge. or submitted incorrect information in a Report of Waste Discharge. or in any report to the SDRWQCB. it shall promptly submit such facts or information. 9. Sianatorv Reouirements [40 CFR 122.41 (k)(l) and 40 CFR 122.22] All applications, reports, or iniormation submitted to the SDRWQCB shall be signed and certified, a. All Reports oi Waste Discharge shall be signed as tollows: (1) ror a corporation: by a responsible corporate ofiicer. For the purpose of this section, a responsible corporate officer means: (a) a president, secretary, treasurer, or vice-president of the corporation in charge of a principal business function, or any other person who performs similar policy- or decision-making functions for the corporation; or (b) the manager ot one or more manufacturing. production, or operating facilities emplOYing more than 250 persons or having gross annual sales or expenditures exceeoing S25 million (in second-quarter 1980 dollars), ii authority to sign documents has been assigned or delegated to the manager in accordance with corporate procedures. (2) For a partnership or sole proprietorship: by a general partner or the proprietor, respectively; or (3) For a municipality, State, Federal or other public agency: by either a principal executive officer or ranking elected oHicla!. For purposes of this section, a principal executive officer of a Federal agency includes: (a) the chief executive officer of the agency; or (b) a senior executive officer having responsibility for the overall operations of a principal geographic unit of the agency (e.g., Regional Administrators of USEPA). b. All reports required by this Order, and other information requested by the SDRWQCB shall be signed by a person described in paragraph a. of this reporting requirement, or by a duly authorized representative of that person. A person is a duly authorized representative only if: Tentative Order No. 2001-01 c: \WlI; DO V J S\TE rJ'l P\a ttach m e:1ts A-Ec. doc Page C-7 OCTOBER 11,2000 (1) The a'j~horization ;5 made 1:1 '1.rritlng ::>y a perso:l described In aaragraph a. oi i.n:~. reporting requirement; (2) The authorization specifies either an individual or a position having responsibility for Ine overall operation of the regulated facility or activity, such as the position ot plant manager, operator of a v/ell or a well field, superintendent, position of eouivalent responsibility, or an mdividual or position having overall responsibility for environmental matters for the comoany. (A duly authorized representative may thus be either a named Individual or any individual occupying a named position.); and, (3) The written authorization is submitted to the SDRWQCB. ., C. If an authorization under paragraph b. of this reporting requirement is no longer accurate because a different individual or position has responsibility for the overi111 operation of the tacility, a new authorization satisfying the requirements of paragraph b. of this reporting requirement must be submitted to the SDRWQCB prior to or together with any reports, information, or applications to be signed by an authorized representative. d. Any person signing a document under paragraph a. or b. of this reporting requirement shall make Ihe following certification: I certify under penalfy of law that fhis document and all attachments were prepared under my direction or supervision in accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified personnel properly gather and evaluate the information submitted. Based on my inquiry of the person or persons who manage the system, or those persons directly responsible for gathering the information, the information submitted is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true, accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information, including the possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing violations. 10. Except for data determined to be confidential under 40 CFR Part 2, all reports prepared in accordance with the terms of this Order shall be available for public inspection at the offices of the SDRWQCB. As required by the Clean Water Act, Reports of Waste Discharge, this Order, and effluent data shall not be considered confidential. 11. The discharger shall submit reports and provide notifications as required by this Order 10 the following: i J Phil Hammer' STORM WATER UNIT CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD SAN DIEGO REGION 9771 CLAIREMONT MESA BLVD SUITE A SAN DIEGO CA 92124-1324 Telephone: (858) 467-2952 Fax: (858) 571-6972 , 1 1 cugene Bromley US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION IX PERMITS ISSUANCE SECTION (W-5-1) 75 HAWTHORNE STREET Tentative Order No. 2001-01 c: \ WIN DOWS\TEM P\att.achments A-Ec. doc Page C-B OCTOBER 11, 2000 SAN Fi'\ANCISCO CA 94105 .,2. Unless otherwise directed, the discharger shall submit three copies oi each report required under this Order to the SDRWOCB and one copy to USEPA. C. NOTIFICATIONS 1. California Water Code Section 13263(0) t,Jo discharge of waste into the waters of the state, whether or not such discharge is made pursuant to waste discharge requirements, shall create a vested right to continue such discharge. All discharges of waste into waters of the state are privileges, not rights. 2. The SDRWOCB has, in prior years, issued a limited number of individual NPDES permits ior non-storm water discharges to municipal storm water conveyance systems. The SDRWOCB or SWRCB may in the future, upon prior notice to the Copermittee(s), issue an NPDES permit for any non-storm water discharge (or class ot non-storm water discharges) to a municipal storm water conveyance system. Copermittees may prohibit any non-storm water discharge (or class of non-storm water discharges) to a municipal storm water conveyance system that IS authoriz8d under such separate NPDES permits. 3. :::nforcement Provisions [40 CFR 122.41 (a)(2)] [California Water Code SS 13385 and 13387] The Clean Water Act provides that any person who violates section 301, 302, 306, 307, 308, 318 or 405 of the Act. or any condition or limitation of this Order, is subject to a civil penalty not to exceed 525,000 per day for each violation. The Clean Water Act provides that any person who negligently violates sections 301, 302, 306, 307, 308, 318, or 405 of the Act, or any condition or limitation of this Order, is subject to criminal penalties ot 52,500 to 525,000 per day of violation, or imprisonment of not more than one year, or both. In the case of a second or subsequent conviction for a negiigent violation, a person shall be subject to criminal Denalties Df not more than 550,000 per day of violation, or by imprisonment of not more than two years, or both. Any persDn whD knowingly violates such sections, or such conciilions or li:nitations is subject to criminal penalties ot 55,000 to 550,000 per day of violation, or imprisonment for not more than three years, or both. In the case of a secDnd or subsequent conviction for a knowing violatiDn, a person shall be subject to criminal penalties of not more than 5100.000 per day of violation, or imprisonment of not more than six years, or both. Any person who knowingly violates section 301, 302, 303, 306, 307, 308, 318 or 405 of the Act, or any condition or limitation of this Order, and who knows at that time that he or she thereby places another person in imminent danger ot death or serious bodily injury, shall, upon conviction, be subject to a tine of not more than 5250,000 or imprisonment of not mDre than 15 years, or both. In the case of a second or subsequent conviction for a knowing endangerment violation, a person shall be subject to a fine of not more than 5500,000 or by imprisonment of not more than 30 years, or both. An organization, 2S defined in section 309(c)(3)(B)(iii) of the Clean Water Act, shall, upon conviction of violating the imminent danger provision, be subject to a fine of not more than $1,000,000 and can be fined up to 52,000,000 for second or subsequent convictions. ,.. :.; 4. Except as provided in Standard Provisions A.1 O. and A.11. in Attachment C of this Order, nothing in this Order shall be construed to relieve the discharger from civil or criminal penalties for noncompliance. ,.,..,., ~. j 5. Nothing in this Order shall be construed to preclude the institution of any legal action or relieve the discharger from any responsibilities, liabilities, or penalties to which the discharger is or.may be subject to under Section 311 of the Clean Water Act. Tentative Order No. 2001-01 Page C-9 OCTOBER 11,2000 c: IV.'l ~ ~ D 0 v,, S\ T:::.M P";:; :~<J::: h ro, ent s t..-E c. doc r~D:hing in ~h~s Order ShEd: be construf:d to prec:~8e ::lSllt'Jilon of any legal aeion O~ relieve the ci:scharger from any responsibi:ities. liabilities, or penalties established ~ursuant to any a~plicable State law or regulation under authority preserved by Section 510 01 the Clean Water Act. 7. This Order shall become effective on rebruary 14, 2001, orovided the USEPA Regional Administrator has no objection. If the Regional p,dministrator o~Jects to its issuance, this Order shall not become effective until such objection is withdrawn. 8. This Order su~ersedes Order No. 90-42 upon the effective date of this Order. , i J 1 '.1 j .j J Tentative Order No. 2001-01 c: \WI N ":JOW 5\ TEMP',;} ttach men ts A.-Ec. d DC Page D-1 October 11, 2000 ATTACHMENT D GLOSSARY ~ Beneficial Uses - The uses of water necessary for the su,vival or well being of man, plants, and wildliie. These uses of water serve to promote the tangible and intangible economic, social, and enVIronmental goals "Beneficial Uses" of the wat~rs of the State that may be protected against include, but are not limited to, domestic, municipal, agricultural and industrial supply; power generation; recreation; aesthetic enjoyment; navigation; and preservation and enhancement of "sh. wildlife, and other aquatic resources or preserves. EXisting beneficial uses are uses that were attained in the surface or ground water on or after Novemb~r 28, 1975; and potential beneficial uses are uses that would probably develop in future years through the implementation of various control measures. "Beneficial Uses" are equivalent to "Designated Uses" under federal law. [California Water Code Section 13050(f)J. Best Available Technology (BAT) - BAT is the acronym for best available technology economically achievable. BAT is the technology-based standard established by congress in CWA section 402(p)(3)(A) for industrial dischargers of storm water. Technology-based standards establish the level of pollutant reductions that dischargers must achieve. typically by treatment or Dy a combination of treatment and best management Dractices, or BMPs. For example, secondary treatment (or the removal of 85% suspended solids and BOD) is the BAT for suspended solid and BOD removal from a sewage treatment plant. BAT generally emphasizes treatment methods first and pollution prevention and source control BMPs secondarily. The best economically achievable technology that will result in reasonable further progress toward the national goal of eliminating the discharge of all pollutants, as determined in accordance with regulations issuea by the Environmemal Protection Agency Administrator. ractors relating to the assessment of best available technology shall take into account the age of equipment and facilities invDlved, the process employed, the engineering aspects of the application of various types of control techniques, process changes, the cost of achieving such effluent reduction, non-water quality environmental impact (including energy requirements), and such other factors as the permitting authority deems appropriate. Best Conventional Technology (BCT) - BCT is an acronym for Best Conventioal Technology. BCT is :he treatment techniques, processes and procedure innovations, operating methods that eliminate amounts of chemical, physical, and biological characteristics of pollutant constituents to the degree of reduction attainabie through the application of the best management practices to the maximum extent practicable. 1 i ~ Best Management Practices - Best Management Practices (BIv1Ps) are defined in 40 CFR 122.2 as scheduies of activities, prohibitions of practices, maintenance procedures, and other management practices to prevent or reduce the pollution of waters of the United States. BMPs also include treatment requirements, operating procedures and practices to control plant site runoff, spillage or leaks, sludge or waste disposal, or drainage from raw material storage. In the case ot municipal storm water permits, BMPs are typically used in place of numeric effluent limits. ] Bioaccumulate - The progressive accumulation ot contaminants in the tissues of organisms through any route including respiration, ingestion, or direct contact with contaminated water, sediment, pore water, or dredged material to a higher concentration than in the surrounding environment. Bioaccumulation occurs with exposure and is independent of the tropic level. :l 1 J Bioassessment - The Lise of biological community intormation to evaluate the biological integrity of a water body and its watershed. With respect to aquatic ecosystems, bioassessment is the Tentative Order No. 2001-01 c: \V /lUDaV/S\TEM P\<;t~a :::hm en Is A.Ec. doc Page D-2 October 11, 2000 COi:2ctlDn and analysls 0: samples 01 the benthic macroinvertebrate community together with physlc21/r,abitat quality measurements associated with tne sampling site and the watershed to evaluate the biological condition (Le, biological integrity) of a water body, BiDcDncentratiDn - A prDcess by which there is a net accumulation of a chemical directly from water into aquatic organisms resulting from simultaneous uptake and elimination by gill or epithelial tissue. Bloconcentration differs from bioaccumulation in that bloaccumulation refers to the progressive concentration of contaminants in the tissues of organisms through multiple pathvlays. Siocriteria - Under the Clean Water Act, numerical values or narrative expressions that define a desired biological condition for a water body that are legally enforceable. The U.S. EPA defines biDccI18na as: "numerical values Dr narrative expressiDns that describe the reference biD logical integrity of aquatic cDmmunities inhabiting waters Df a given designated aquatic life use...(that)...describe the characteristics of water body segments least impaired by human activities." BiDIDgicallntegrity - Defined in Karr J.R. and D.R. Dudley. 1981. Ecological perspective on water Quality goals. Environmental Manaoement 5:55-68 as: "A balanced, integrated, adaptive community of Drganisms having a species composition, diverSity, and functional organization comparable to that of natural habitat of the region." Also referred to as ecosystem health. Siomagnication - The transfer and progressive increase in tissue concentrations of a con;aminant along the food chain. Because some pollu1ants can be transferred to higher trophic levels, carnivores at the top of the food chain, such as predatory fish, birds, and mammals (inciuding humans), ob;ain most of their pollu1ion burden from aquatic ecosystems by ingestion. Thus, although such pDllutants may only be present in receiving waters in low concentrations, they can have a significant impact to the integrity of the ecosystem through biomagnification. Clean Water Act Section 402(p) - [33 USC 1342(p)] is the federal statute requiring municipal and industrial dischargers to obtain NPDES permits fDr their discharges of storm water. Clean Water Act Section 303(d) Water Body - is an impaired water body in which water quality does not meet applicable water quality standards andlor is not expected to meet water quality standards, even ailer the application of technology based pollution controls required by the CW A. The discharge of urban runoff to these water bodies by the Copermittees is significant because these discharges can cause or contribute to violations ot applicable water quality standards. Contamination - As defined in the Porter-Cologne Water Quality CDntrol Act, contamination is "an impairment of the quality of waters of the state by waSTe to a degree which creates a hazard to the public health throUgh poisoning or through the spread of disease. 'Contamination' includes any equivalent effect resulting from the dispDsal ot waste whether or not waters of the state are affected," Designated Waste - Designated waste is defined as a "nonhazardous waste which cDnsists of pollutants which, under ambient environmental conditions at the waste management unit, could be released at concentratiDns in excess Df applicable water quality objectives, or which could cause degradation of waters of the state." [CCR Title 27, Chapter 3, Subchapter 2, Article 2, Section 20210; WC Section 13173] Effluent Limitations - Limitations Dn the volume of each waste discharge, and the quantity and concentrations of pollutants in the discharge. The limitations are designed to ensure that the discharge does not cause water quality objectives to be exceeded in the receiving water and does not adversely affect beneficial uses. Ter.tative Order No. 2001-01 c ;\V;l rID ':JV IS\TE M P\<1~ta ch men ts A-Ec .doc Page 0-3 October 11. 2000 , :::ffi'J~;,t limitations are iimitations of the quantity and concentratio:ls of pollu:ants In a cilsc:.arge. T~e !i:7:itations are designed to ensure that the discharge does not cause water quality ObJBc:lves to be exceeded in the receiving water and does not adverse,y affect Deneflc;al uses. In other wares, an effluent linnit is the maximum concentration of a pollutant that a discharge can contain. To meet effluent limitations, the effluent typically must undergo one or more forms of treatment to remove pollutants in order to lower the pollutant concentration below the limit. Effluent limits are typically numeric (e.g., 10 mg/l), but can also be narrative (e.g., no toxics in toxic amounts). Erosion - When land is diminished or warn away.due to wind, waler, or glacial Ice. Often tr',e eroded debris (silt or sediment) becomes a pollutant via storm water runoff. Erosion occurs naturally but can be intensified by land clearing activities such as farming, development, road building, and timber harvesting. Grading. The cutting andlor filling of the land surface to a desired slope or elevation, Hazardous Waste - Hazardous waste is defined as "any waste which, under Section 600 of Title 22 ot this code, IS required to be managed according to Chapter 30 ot Division 4.5 ot Title 22 ot thiS code." lCCR Title 22, Division 4.5, Chapter 11, Article 1] Illicit Discharge. Any discharge to a municipal separate storm sewer that is not composed entirely of storm water except discharges pursuant to a NPDES permit (other than the NPDES pernnit for discharges torm the municipal separate storm sewer) and discharges resulting from fire fighting activities. Inert Waste - Inert waste is detined as one that "does not contain r,azardous waste or soluble pollutants at concentrations in excess of applicable water quaiity objectives, and does not contain significant quantities of decomposable waste," [CCR Title 27, Chapter 3, Subchapter 2, Article 2, Sec,io~ 20230] ."j ~E? - MEP is the acronym for Maximum Extent Practicable. MEP is the technology-based standard established by Congress in CWA section 402(p)(3)(B)(iii) that municipal dischargers of stcr", water (MS4s) must meet. Technology-based standards establish the level of pollutant reductions that dischargers must achieve, typically by treatment or by a combination of treatment and best rnanagement practices (BMPs). MEP generally emphasizes pollution prevention and source control BMPs primarily (as the first line of detense) In combination with treatment methoas serving as a backup (additional line of defense). MEP considers economics and is generally, but not necessarily, less stringent than BAT. A definition for MEP is not provided either in the statute or in the regulations. Instead the definition of MEP is dynamic and will be detined by the following process over time: municipalities propose their definition of MEP by way ot their Urban Runoii Management Plan. Their total collective and individual activities conducted pursuant to the Urban Runoff l,1anagernent Plan becomes their proposal for MEP as ii applies both to their overall effort. as we!1 as to specific activities (e.g., MEP for street sweeping, or MEP for sanitary sewer maintenance). In the absence of a proposal acceptable to the SDRWOCB, the SDRWOC3 defines MEP. , " In a memo dated February 11, 1993, entitled "Detiniiion of Maximum Extent Praciicable," Elizaberh Jennings. Senior Staff Counsel, SWRCB addressed the achievement of the MEP standad as follows: ".! J 1 "'1 "To achieve the MEP standard, municipalities must employ whatever Best Management Practices (BMPs) are technically feasible (i.e., are likely to be effective) and are not cost prohibitive. The major emphasis is on technical feasibility. Reducing pollutants to the MEP means chposing effective BMPs, and rejecting applicable BMPs only where other effective BMPs will serve the same purpose, or the BMPs would not be technically Tentative Order No. 2001-01 C: W/INDOWS\TEM P\attac hments A- Ec. doc Page 0-4 October 11, 2000 feasible, or the cost would be prohibitive. In selecting BMPs to achieve the MEP standard, the following factors may be useful to consider: a. Effectiveness: Will the BMPs address a pollutant (or pollutant source) of concern ? b, Regulatory Compliance: Is the BMP in compliance with storm water regulations as well as other environmental regulations? c. Public Acceptance: Does the 8MP have public support? d. Cost: Will the cost of implementing the BMP have a reasonable relationship to the pollution control benefits to be achieved? e. Technical Feasibility: ts the BMP technically feasible considering soils, geography, water resources, etc? The final determination regarding whether a municipality has reduced pollutants to the maximum extent practicable can only be made by the Regional or State Water Boards, and not by the municipal discharger, If a municipality reviews a lengthy menu of BMPs and chooses to select only a few of the least expensive, it is likely that MEP has not been met, On the other hand, if a municipal discharger employs all applicable BMPs except those where it can show that they are not technically feasible in the locality, or whose cost would exceed any benefit derived, it would have met the standard, Where a choice may be made between two BMPs that should provide generally comparable effectiveness, the discharger may choose the least expensive alternative and exclude the more expensive BMP, However, it would not be acceptable either to reject all BMPs that would address a pollutant source, or to pick a BMP base solely on cost, which would be clearly less effective. In selecting BMPs the municipality must make a serious attempt to comply and practical sotutions may not be lightly rejected. In any case, the burden would be on the municipal discharger to show compliance with its permit, After selecting a menu of BMPs, it is the responsibility of the discharger to ensure that all BMPs are implemented. " Municipal Storm Water Conveyance System - (See Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System or MS4). Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) - MS4 is an acronym for Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System. A Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System is a conveyance or system of conveyances (including roads with drainage systems, municipal streets, catch basins, curbs, gutters, ditches, natural drainage features or channels, modified natural channels, man-made channels, or storm drains): (i) Owned or operated by a State, city town, borough, county, parish, district, association, or other public body (created by or pursuant to State law) having jurisdiction over disposal of sewage, industrial wastes, storm water, or other wastes, including speciai districts under State law such as a sewer district, flood control district or drainage district, or similar entity, or an Indian tribe or an authorized indian tribal organization, or designated and approved management agency under section 208 of the CW A that discharges to waters of the United States; (ii) Designated or used for collecting of conveying storm water; (iii) Which is not a combined sewer; (iv) Which is not part of the Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) as defined at 40 CFR 122:2. Historic and current development make use of natural drainage patterns and features as conveyances for urban runoff. Urban streams used in this manner are part of the municipaiities MS4 regardless of whether they are natural, man-made, or partially modified features. In these cases, the urban stream is both an MS4 and a receiving water, National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) - These permits pertain to the discharge of waste to su'rface waters only. All State and Federal NPDES permits are aiso WDRs. Tentative Order No. 2001-01 c: \Vi I t J DOV/ S\TE r,,1 P\a Ita ch m ents A-Ec. do c Page D-5 October 11, 2000 , Non-hazardous Solid Waste - Non-hazardDus sDlid waste means all putrescible and no~p'Jlrescible solid, semi-sold, and liquid wastes, including garbage, trash. refuse. pap8r, r~bbish. ashes, industrial wastes, demoJit'lon and construction wastes, abandoned v8hicies and paris :I-,er80f, discarded hDme and industrial aopliances, manure, vegetable Dr animal sDlid and semi-sDld wastes and Dther discarded sDlid Dr semi-sDlid waste; provided that such wastes dD nDt contain wastes which must be managed as hazardous wastes, or wastes which contain soluble pollutants in cDncentratiDn which exceed applicable watf,r quality Dbjectives Dr could cause degracatiDn Df wasters Df the state." [CCRTitle 27, Chapter 3, Subchapter 2, Article 2, Section 20220J Non Point Source (NPS) - NDn pDint SDurce refers tD diffuse, widespread SDurces Df pDllutiDn. These SDurces may be large Dr small, but are generally numerous throughDut a watershed. NDn PDlnt SDurces include but are nDt limited tD urban, agricultural, Dr industrial areas, rDads, highways, cDnstruction sites, cDmmunities served by septic systems, recreatiDnal bDating activities, timber harvesting, minrng, IivestDck grazing, as well as physical changes tD stream channels, and habilat degradatiDn. NPS pDllutiDn can Dccur year rDund any time raintall, snDwmelt, irrigatiDn, Dr any Dther SDurce Df water runs Dver land Dr through the grDund, picks up pDllutants from these numerous, diltuse SDurces and depDsits them intD rivers, lakes, and cDastal walers or introduces them intD ground water. Non-Storm Water - NDn-stDrm water cDnsists Df all discharges tD and frDm a stDrm water conveyance system that dD nDt Driginate frDm precipitatiDn events (i.e., all discharges from a conveyance system Dther than stDrm water), NDn-stDrm water includes illicit discharges, nDn- prDhibiled dischs.rges, and NPDES permitted discharges. An illicit discharge is defined at 40 CFR 122.26(b)(2) as any discharge tD a municipal stDrm water cDnveyance system that is nDt composed entirely Df stDrm water except discharges pursuant tD a separete NPDES permit and discharges resulting frDm emergency fire fighting activities. ,., , Nuisance - As defined in the PDrter-CDIDgne Water Quality Control .I\ct a nuisance is "anything which meets all of the fDIIDwing reqUIrements: 1) Is injurious tD health, Dr is indecent, Dr Dffensive tD the senses, Dr an DbstructiDn tD the free use of prDperty, SD as tD interfere with the cDmfDrtable enjDyment Df life Dr property, 2) Affects at the same time an entire cDmmunity Dr neighbDrhDDd, Dr any considerable number Df persDns, althDugh the extent Df the annDyance Dr damage inflicted UDDn individuals may be unequal. 3) Occurs during, Dr as a result Df, the treatment Dr disposal Df wastes." ~ Numeric effluent limitations - The typical methDd by which efiluef1t limits are prescribed fDr DDllutants in waste discharge requirements implementing the federal NPDES regulatiDns. When numeric effluent limits are met at the "end-Df-pipe", the effluent discharge generally will nDt cause water quality standards to be exceeded in the receiving waters (i.e., water quality standards will also be me!). PersDn - A persDn is defined as an individual, assDciatiDn, partnership, cDrpDratiDn, municipality, State Dr Federal agency, Dr an agent Dr emplDyee thereDf. [40 CFR 122,2j, , J Point Source - Any discernible, cDnfined, and discrete cDnveyance, including, but nDt limited tD, any pipe, ditch, channel, tunnel, cDnduit, well, discrete fissure, cDntainer, rDlling stDck, cDncentrated animal feeding DperatiDns, landfill leachate cDllectiDn systems, vessel, Dr Dther flDating craft frDm which pDllutants are Dr may be discharged, J Pollution - As defined in the PDrter-CDIDgne Water Quality CDntrDI Act, pDllutiDn is '1he alteratiDn Df the quality Df the waters Df the State by waste, tD a degree that unreasDnably affects the either Df the fDIIDwing: A) The waters fDr beneficial uses; Dr 2) Facilities that serve these beneficial uses," PDllutiDn may inelude cDntaminatiDn. 1 c.J Tentative Order No. 2001-01 C:\ WINDOW S\TEM P\attachments A-Ec. do c Page 0-6 October 11, 2000 Pollutant - A pollutant is broadly defined as any agent that may cause or contribute to the degradation of water quality such that a condition of pollution or contamination is created or aggravated. Pollution Prevention - Pollution prevention IS defined as practices and processes that reduce or eliminate the generation of pollutants, in contrast to source control, treatment, or disposal. Post-Construction BMPs - A subset of BMPs including structural and non-structural controls which detain, retain, filter, or educate to prevent the release 01 pollutants to surface waters dUring the final functional life of development. Pre-Development Runoff Conditions - The runoff conditions that exist onsite immediately before the planned development activities occur. This definition is not intended to be interpreted as that period before any human-induces land activities occurced. This definition pertains to cedevelopment as well as initial development. t-; Receiving Water Limitations - Waste discharge requirements issued by the SDRWQCB typically include both: (1) "Effluent Limitations" (or "Discharge Limitations") that specify the technology-based or water-quality-based effluent limitations; and (2) "Receiving Water Limitations" that specify the water quality objectives in the Basin Plan as well as any other limitations necessary to attain those objectives. In summary, the "Receiving Water Limitations" provision is the provision used to implement the requirement oi CW A section 301 (b)(1)(C) that NPDES permits must include any more stringent limitations necessary to meet water quality siandards. Sediment - Soil, sand, and minerals washed from land into water. Sediment can destroy fish- nesting areas, clog animal habitats, and cloud waters so that sunlight does not reach aquatic plants. Storm Water - "Storm water" is as defined urban runoff and snowmelt runoff consisting only of those discharges which originate from precipitation events. Storm water is that portion of precipitation that flows across a surface to the storm drain system or receiving waters. Examples of this phenomenon include: the water that flows off a building's roof when it rains (runoff from an impervious surface); the water that flows into streams when snow on the ground begins to melt (runoff from a semi-pervious surface); and the water that flows from a vegetated surface when rainfall is in excess of the rate at which it can infiltrate into the underlying soil (runoff from a pervious surface). When all factors are equal, runoff increases as the perviousness of a surface decreases. During precipitation events in urban areas, rain water picks up and transports pollutants through storm water conveyance systems, and ultimately to waters of the United States. Toxicity - Adverse responses of organisms to chemicals or physical agents ranging from mortality to physiological responses such as impaired reproduction or growth anomalies). The water quality objectives for toxicity provided in the Water Quality Control Plan, San Diego Basin, Region 9, (Basin Plan), state in part... "All waters shall be free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiologicai responses in human, pia nt, animal, or aquatic life.. ..The survival of aquatic life in surface waters subjected to a waste discharge or other controllable water quality factors. shall not be less than thatfor the same water body in areas ullaffected by the waste discharge".... Urban runoff discharges from MS4s are considered toxic when (1) the toxic eifect observed in an acute toxicity test exceeds zero Toxic Units Acute (Tua=O); or (2) the toxic effect observed in a chronic toxicity test exceeds one Toxic Unit Chronic (Tuc=1). Urban runoff discharges from MS4s often contain pollutants that cause toxicity. Terltative Order No. 2001-01 c: ',\'.'1 r; D:)V IS\TEM ?\Citta chments .c.-Ec. doc Page D-7 October 11. 2000 Total r~ax;mum Daily Load (TMDL) - The TI~DL IS toe Cl2ximum amo'Jnt of a pollutant that c"r. be c:s:::harged into a water body from all sources (point and non-point) and still maintain water qcel,:y standares. Under Clean Water Act section 303(d). 'MDLs must ~e developed for all wat,,~ ~odies that do not meet water quality standards afte~ application of technology-based CO;-'I:~O]S. Urban Runoff. Urban runoff is defined as all 110ws in a storm water conveyance system and cons:s;s at the following components: (1) storm water (wet weather flows) and (2) non-storm water Illicit discha~ges (dry weather flows). Waste. As defined in California Water Code Section 13050(d), "wasfe includes sewage and any 2nd c!! other \vaste substances, liquid, solid, gaseous, or radioactive, associated with human haJltatlon, or of human or animal origin. or from any producing, manufacturing, or processing operation, including waste placed within containers of whatever nature prior to. and for purposes of, disposal." , 1 Amcle 2 of CCR Title 23, Chapter 15 (Chapter 15) contains a waste classification system which apa1res to solid and semi-solid waste which cannot be discharged directly or indirectly to water of the state and which therefore must be discharged to land for treatment, storage, or disposal in accorcance with Chaoter 15. There are four classifications of waste (listed in order of highest to lowest threat '0 v,ater quality): hazardous waste, designa19d waste, nonhazardous solid waste, and ir,ert waste. " , i , Water Quality Objective - Numerical or narrative limits on constituents or characteristics of water designa18.j to pro;ect designated beneficial uses of tr,e water. [California Water Code Section 13050 (h)J. California's water quality objectives are established by the State and Regional Waler Boares in the W 2ier Ouaiity Control Plans. N'JrT'.sric or narraTive limits for pollutants or characteristics of water designed to protect the bensiic:al uses aT the water. In other words, a water quali;:y objective is the maximum co.~cen;ration of a pollutant that can exist in a receiving water and still generally ensure that the :}eneiicial uses of the receiving water remain orotected (i.e., not impaired). Since water quality objectives are deSigned specifically to oratect the beneficial uses, when the objectives are viOlated the beneiic:al uses are, by definitjon, no longer protected and become impaired. This IS a tuncamental concept under lhe Porter Coiogne Act. :::qually fundamental is Porter Cologne's aefini,ion of pollution. A condition of oollution exists when the water quality needed to support desigr,ated beneficial uses has become unreasonably affected or impaired; in other words, when the Vy2~er quality ob.iectives have been violated. These underlying definitions (regarding beneficial use protection) are the reason why all waste cischarge requirements implementing the federal NPD:::S ~eguiations require compliance with water quality objeclives. (Water quaii!y objectives are aiso called water cuality criteria in the Clean Water Act) Water Quality Standards - are defined as the beneficial uses (e.g., swimming, fishing, municioal drinking VJater suoply, elc.,) of water and the water quality objectives necessary to protect those uses. ] Waters of the State - Any water, suriace or underground, including saline waters within the bounearies of the State [California Water Code Section 13050 (e)]: The definition of the Waters of the State is broader than that for the Waters of the United States in that all water in the State is considered to be a Waters of the State regardless of circumstances or condition. Under this definition, a Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS.1) is always considered to be a Waters of the State. 1 J Waters of the United States - Waters of the United States can be broadly defined as navigable suriace waters and all tributary suriace waters to navigable suriace waters. Groundwater is not Tentative Order No. 2001-01 c: \ WI! J:;l ow S\TEM P\L1ttach men ts A. Ec. doc Page 0-8 October 11, 2000 consiosred to be a Waters of the United States. Under this definition (see below), a MuniCipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) is always considered a Waters of the United States. As defined in the 40 CFR 122.2, the Waters of the U.S. are defined as: "(a) All waters, which are currently used, were used in the past, or may be susceptible to use in interstate or loreign commerce, including all waters which are subject to the ebb and 110'11 01 the tide; (b) All interstate waters, including interstate "wetlands;" (c) All other waters such as intrastate lakes, rivers, streams (including infermittent streams), mudflats, sandflats, "wetlands," sloughs, prairie ~Dtholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, or natural ponds the use, degradation or destruction of whien would affect or could affect interstate or foreign commerce including any such waters: (1) Wh,cn are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes; (2) Fror:1 which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce; or (3) Which are used or could be used for industrial purooses by. industries in interstate commerce; (d) All impoundments of waters otherwise defined as waters of the United States under this definition: (e) Tributaries of waters identified in paragraphs (a) through (d) of this definition; (f) The territorial seas; and (g) "Wetlands" adjacent to waters (other than waters that are tnemselves wetlands) identified in paragraphs (a) through (f) of this definition. Waters of the United States do not include prior converted cropland. Notwithstanding the determination of an area's status as prior converted cropland by any other federal agency, for the purposes of the Clean Water Act, the final authority regarding Clean Water Act jurisdiction remains with the EPA." Watershed - That geographical area which drains to a specified point on a water course, usually a conflcsnce of streams or rivers (also known as drainage area, catchment, or river basin). Tentative Order No. 2001-01 Page E-1 OCTOBER 11,2000 C:\ VI! t i:J ow S\ TE M P\;:J ~:'Cl C h m en ts A-E. c. d DC ATTACHMENT E DRY WEATHER ANALYTICAL MONITORING SPECIFICATIONS - URBAN RUNOFF Dry weather analytical monitoring consists of (I) field observations and (2) analytical monitoring at selected stations. Pursuant to section F.5 0f this Order, the purpose of dry weather analytical monitoring is to detect and eliminate illicit connections and illegal discharges to the MS4. Each Cooermittee shall conduct the following dry weatlTer analytical monitoring tasks: 1. Jeveloo MS4 1...1ao 'each Copermitlee shall develop or obtain an up-to-date labeled map of its entire muniCipal separate storm sewer system (lv1S4) and the corresponding drainage watersheds within its Jurisdiction. The use of a Geographic Information System (GIS) is highly recommended, but not recuired. The accuracy of the MS4 map shall be confirmed during monitoring activities (See Task 6). ~ 2. Select Orv Weather Analyticallv1onitorina Stations :each Copermitlee shall select dry weather analytical monitoring stations within its jurisdiction. Stations shall be either major outfalls or other outfall points (or any other point of access such 2S manholes) randomly located throughout the MS4 by plaCing a grid over a drainage system maD and identifying those cells of the grid which contain a segment of the MS4 or major outtall. The dry weather analytical monitoring stations shall be established using the foliowing guidelines and criteria: 'C a. A grid system consisting of perpendicular north-south and east-west lines spaced "(4 mile apart shall be overlayed on a map of the Iv1S4, creating a series of cells; b. All cells that contain a segment of the Iv1S4 shall be identified and one dry weather analytical monitoring station shall be selected in each cell; c. Stations should be located downstream ot any sources of suspected illegal or illicit activity; d. Stations shall be located to the degree practicable at the tarihest manhole or other accessible location downstream in the system within each cell; e. Hydrological conditions, total drainage area of the site, traffic density, age of the structures or buildings in the area, history of the area, and land use types shall be ccmsidered in locating 5t,ations; 1. For small Iv1S4s (which serve a population of less than 100,000), no more than 100 cells need to have identified stations; for medium MS4s (which serve a population of 100,000 - 250,000), no more than 250 cells need to have identified stations; and for large MS4s (which serve a population of more than 250,000), no more than 500 cells need to have identified s~ations; and if fewer than 100 cells in small MS4s, fewer than 250 cells in medium MS4s, and fewer than 500 cells in large MS4s are created by the overlay on the MS4 map, then a monitoring station shall be located in each cell which contains a segment of the MS4. ~ 7t ) g. .J l .i ...J ,... I J Tentative Order No. 2001-01 c: \\'/1 r mey J S\TEM P\3tta chmen ts A. Ee. doc Page E-2 OCTOBER 11, 2000 3. C0'T,Dlete MS4 MaD :=ac:o Copermittee shall clearly identify each dry weather analytical monitoring station on its 1,;054 l,1ap as either a separate GIS layer or a map overlay hereafter referred to as a Dry Wsather Analytical Stations Map. Each Copermittee shall confirm that each drainage area v:Iihln its jurisdiction contains at least one station. 4. D8'/sI00 Drv Weather Analytical Monitorino Procedures ::2.ch Copermittee shall develop written procedures for dry weather analytical monitoring ,c8csistent with 40 CFR part 136), including field observations, monitoring, and analyses. At a ro.Inimum, the procedures must be based on the following gUidelines and criteria: c. Dry weather analytical monitoring shall be conducted at each identified station at least once during the permit cycle of this Order. At a minimum, approximately 1/5 of the identified stations shall be field screened annually. b. Ii flow or ponded runoff is observed at a dry weather analytical monitoring station and there has been at least seventy-two (72) hours ot dry weather, make observations and collect two (2) grab samples during a twenty-four (24) hour period with a minimum period of four (4) hours between samples. Record general information such as time since last rain, quantity ot last rain, site descriptions (i.e.. conveyance type, dominant watershed land uses), flow estimation (i.e., width of water surface, approximate depth of water, 2.;Jproximate flow velocity, flow rate), and visual observations (i.e., odor, color, clarity, iloatables, deposits/stains, vegetation condition, structural condition, and biology). At a minimum, collect samples for laboratory analysis oi the following constituents: (1) Total Dissolved Solids (2) Total Suspended Solids (3) Turbidity (4) Total Hardness (5) pH (5) Specific Conductance (7) Surfactants (MBAS) (8) Total Phosphorus (9) Dissolved Phosphorus (10) Nitrate Nitrogen (11) Nitrite Nitrogen (12) Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (13) Ammonia Nitrogen (14) Biological Oxygen Demand (15) Chemical Oxygen Demand (15) Oil and Grease (17) Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (18) Diazinon and Chlorpyrifos (19) Cadmium (Total and Dissolved) (20) Copper (Total and Dissolved) (21) Mercury (Total and Dissolved) (22) Silver (Total and Dissolved) (23) Lead (Total and Dissolved) (24) Zinc (Total and Dissolved) (25) Antimony (Total and Dissolved) (26) Arsenic (Total and Dissolved) (27) Chromium (Total and Dissolved) .-;; Tentative Order No. 2001-01 C :\\\' I N:J ow $\T ~M P\<ltta ch ments A-Ec. d oc Page E-3 OCTOBER 11, 2000 ;28) Nickel {:Dial and Dissolves) (29) E.nterococcus bac~en2 (30) Total Coliform bacteria (31) Fecal Coliform bacteria -, If the station is dry (no flowing or ponded runoff), make and record all applicable observations. d. Develop a paired sample study to compare and evaluate lhe Colilert Quantitray metrlod with the conventional Most Probable NumSer or Membrane Filtrahon methods for Total and Fecal coliiorm and Enterococcus bacteria analysis for dry weather monitoring.?' 3 e. Develop criteria ior dry weather analytical monitoring results whereby exceecance of the criteria will require follow-up Investigations to be conducted to identify the source causing the exceedance of the criteria. .i Dry weather analytical monitoring stations identified to exceed dry weather analytical monitoring criteria for any constituents shall continue to be screened in subsequent years. ") g. Develop procedures ior source identification follow uo investigations in the event of exceedance of dry weather analytical monitoring result criteria. These procedures shall b~ consistent with procedures required in section F.5.c. of this Order. , -.:; ~ h. Deveiop procedures to eliminate detected iilicit discharges and connections. These vocedures shall be consistent with each Copermitteeslllicit Discharge and Elimination component of its Jurisdictional Urban Runoff Management Plan as discussed in section F.5 of this Order. -, :i Suomit Drv We;other Analvtical Monitorino MaD and Procedures '" each Copermittee shall suomit its dry weather analytical monitoring map (including the Iv\S4, drainage watersheds, and station iocations) and dry weather analytical monitoring procedures to lhe Principal Permittee on the date prescribed by the Principal Permittee. The procedures shall, at ;0 minimum, address all issues inciuded in section 4. of this Attachment. The Principal Permittee shall collectively submit the dry weather monitoring analytical maps and procedures 10 the SDRWOC8 within 180 days of adoption of this Order. Implementation of dry weather analytical monitoring shall commence within 180 days of adoption of this Order. 6. Conduct Drv Weather Analvtical Monitorinq -, J E;och Copermlttee shall conduct dry weather analytical monitoring in accordance with its storm waler conveyance system map and dry weather analytical monitoring procedures as described in Tasks 1 - 4 above. If monitoring indicates an illicit connection or illegal discharge, conduct the follow-up investigation and eiimination activities as described in submitted dry weather analytical monitoring procedures and sections F.5.c. and F.5.d. of this Order. -l .i J ~ i j 7 The Colilert@ System tor Total Coliiorms and Escherichia CQli prepared by Stephen C. Edberg, Yale University School of tv1edicine; Frances Ludwig and Darrell B. Smith, South Central Connecticut Regional Water Authority; and Martin J. Allen, AWWA Research Foundation, April 1991. AWWA Research foundation Order Number: 90576. nttc:J/VMw .awwari .com/exsums/90576.htm a Comparison of the CoiBert@ Method and Standard Fecal Coliform Methods Prepared by Stephen C. t::dberg, Yale University School of Medi:::ine; and Darrell B. Smith, South Central Connecticut Regional Water Authority, May 1994 AWWA Research Foundation Order Number: 90647 htt;J:JAI/w........av."Nari.com/exsums/90647.htm , ., J Tentative Order No. 2001-01 c: \ WI r~ D ow S\TEM P\<lt~achmen tsA. EC.doc Page E-4 OCTOBER 11, 2000 During monitoring, the accuracy 01 ::s MS4 rc,a~ and shall be confirmed. Correct any ir.cccuracies in the either the MS4 mao or the Dry Weather Analytical Stations Map and resubmit the corrected maps In the next annual report. 7. Summarize and Reoort Drv Weat"er Analytical Monitorinq Results As part of its individual Jurisdictional URMP Annual Report, each Copermittee shall summarize and report on its dry weather analytical monitoring results.. The data shall be presented in tabular and graphical form. The reporting shall include analytical monitoring results, as well as follow up and elimination activities ior potential illicit discharges and connections. Dry weather analytical monitOring repor1s shall comply with all monitOring and standard reporting requirements In Attachments Band C of Order 2001-01. The Principal Permittee shall submit to the SDRWOCB the individual dry weather analytical monitoring reports as part of the unified Jurisdictional URMP Annual Report on January 31,2002, and every year thereafter. ATTACHMENT 2 ( ~~~ ~ ~~--~ - - -~ em OF CHULA VISfA OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER November 30, 2000 File No. 0780-72-KY181 San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board 9771 Clairemont Mesa Blvd. Suite A San Diego, CA 92124-1331 /l.Uention: Mr. Wayne Baglin, Chair NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIl\HNATION SYSTEM - TEl'.'TATIVE ORDER NO.lool-Ol The City of Chula Vista has been and is committed to improving water quality in compliance with the Clean Water Act, Porter Colonge Act and other clean water initiatives. We have made every effort to develop our eastern territories in a non-traditional manner for drainage. We no longer build large concrete channels, in the newer area, but instead, build naturalize earthen channels . We also require every developer to provide de-silting and retention basins to help with water quality and reduce down stream peak flows to those peak flows prior to the development. This permit is very long and inclusive. It impacts many sections of the City's operations as well as industry and family homes. Because of this Chula Vista staff needs a lot more time to analyze the impacts and understand the terms of the permit. We urge the board to continue the hearing 90-180 days. However, several concerns, issues, and co=ents have been made by city staff, which are included in this letter. The following is a set of issues or concerns, regarding the Tentative Municipal Stormwater Permit Order 2001-01, that the City of Chula Vista requests be reviewed and the Tentative Order be modified as necessary to ensure the Order is actionable, and doable, yet meets the goals of the Order: · The phrase "shall include for example" is used repeatedly throughout the document. This phrase is vague and ambiguous and is open to numerous interpretations, depending upon the reader and the reader's intentions. This phrase should be replaced with "may include for example" or other non-ambiguous language. 276 FOURTH AVENUE. CHULA VISTA. CALIFORNIA 9'910. (619) 691.5031. FAX (619) 409.5884 ,;: ~,.c.....~..... Ro.e.e-.<! "-, Mr. Wayne Baglin - 2 - !\'ovember 30. 2000 . More stringent and costly measures are required for storm water conveyance systems which discharge to Clean Water Act 303(d) listed water bodies than for systems which discharge to non- listed water bodies. Since the San Diego Bay is a 303(d) listed water body and all of the City's storm water conveyances are tributary to the bay, the City would be required to implement the more stringent measures without regard to the cause of impairment of designated beneficial uses or to the appropriate measures necessary to improve water quality for specific pollutants. The standard for Maximum Extent Practicable (MEP) has required that the Best Management Practices (BMP) utilized address pollutants of concern, that the cost of implementing those BMPs is reasonably related to the pollution control benefits received, and that the BMPs are technologically feasible. The requirements mandated by the Tentative Order for all storm water conveyance systems tributary to San Diego Bay do not appear to be based upon the MEP criteria, but take an overly broad approach to pollution prevention.' Findings 9 and 10 (page 3) refers to storm water runoff's potential contribution to the impairment of designated beneficial uses and the need to ".. . attain water quality objectives necessary to support designated beneficial uses". However, the Tentative Order fails to relate the pollutants to be removed by the required BMPs to the impairment of designated beneficial uses. Further, the required BMPs listed in the Tentative Order are not consistent with the "Comprehensive Management Plan for San Diego Bay", dated January I, 1998 and developed by the San Diego Bay Interagency Water Quality PaneL . Findings 16 and 17: The assertion that Copermittees "profit" from urbanization is not a fair finding of fact. Land development and urbanization occurs because property owners have the right to develop their land within legal parameters. Copermittees merely assure that, to the extent possible and allowed by law, the impacts of land development are properly mitigated and that public services can be provided to developed lands, regardless of whether or not the development is of benefit to the Copermittees. . Section A.4: "Site" should be dermed. · Section D. Lh: In order to implement the provisions of this section, the City will be required to implement a new permitting program for all industrial facilities in order to acquire the "authority to enter, sample, inspect, review and copy records, and require regular repons..." . Section F. La (5): Vi'hat level of mitigation is required? . Section F. L b (l)(g): Does the requirement regarding post-development runoff apply to both direct and indirect discharg-es to a 303(d) water body? · Section F.Lb (2)(b) iii: Does this provision refer to 303(d) water bodies within a development? . Section F.Lb (2(b) xv: Does the requirement regarding runoff from developments apply only to direct discharges to a 303(d) water body? · Section F. L b (2)(i) ill: Vi'here shall dry weather flows be diverted? · Section F.Lc (1)(g): How would this provision affect the Multiple Species Conservation Plan? CITY OF CHULA VISTA Mr. Wayne Baglin - 3 - l\ovember 30. 2000 . Section F.2.c (I)(b): This provision. as stated ("shall include for example") would preclude grading during wet weather periods. This requirement is not in the State's N.P.D.E.S. General Construction Permit and should nOl be in the City's N .P.D.E.S Municipal Permit. . Section F.2.c (I)(j): When would evidence of N .P.D.E.S. General Construction Permit be required (e.g., before issuance of a grading permit)? . Section F.2.e (2)(e): As stated above, all of Chula Vista is tributary to San Diego Bay. . Section F.2.f (2): It would be impossible to require more .stringent BMPs for a construction site than those required under the statewide General Construction Permit since the compliance level, in theory, required of construction sites for pollution prevention and elimination is identical for the statewide General Construction Permit and the Municipal Permit. This provision appears to be designed to transfer statewide General Construction Permit responsibilities to local agencies. . Section F.2.g (I)(a): Is there a criterion for weekly inspections? . Section F.3.b (5)(b): What testing standards are required? . Section F.3.c (2)(x): "Tributary" should be defined. . Section F.3.d (2): All residences in the City would be classified as "high priority" since the entire City is tributary to San Diego Bay. . Section F.5.f: There is no way to assure that the City is notified of all spills into its MS4. · How do land-use permitting agencies pass waste discharge requirements on to existing and new development, specifically what authority do they have for requiring compliance from third parries with the requirements of the Tentative Order, particularly for installation of strucrnral BMPs? Finding No. 10 and the associated permit requirements found in Section F - Jurisdictional Urban Runoff Mana!!:ement Procram (JURMp), impose upon the Copermittees the responsibility of implementing structural BMP's as necessary to achieve water quality objectives to the MEP at all levels within the watershed, including imposing specific Conditions of Approval on land development permits (F.Lb (1)). Since the Regional staff will not approve the Copermittees' Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plans (SUSMPs) which implements the JURMp with respect to new development and significant redevelopment, Regional staff, therefore, will not be approving the Copermittees' selected list ofBMP's either and apparently will not go so far as to even suggest levels of effectiveness that shall be expected of any particular structural BMP. How, then, do the Copermittees as the lead development entitlement agencies establish and impose upon the developer the minimum water quality objectives that MEP is supposed to meet through installation and operation of strucrnral BMP's? The Regional Board and staff must realize that CEQA and the Subdiv.ision Map Act do not confer upon municipalities any authority beyond that which is contained in their ability to impose exaction for improvements and mitigation measuresd(such as structural BMPs) that are found to be necessary and sufficient to reduce impacts to less CITY Of' CHULA VISTA Me. Wayne Baglin than significant levels. - 4 - November 30. lOOO . First priority for implementation is given to prevention BMPs, then to source control, then finally to treatment or removal of pollutants from runoff. But which types of BMPs of each are the most cost effective and should therefore be considered? For which land use and at what level within the watershed? The discussion of Finding No. 11 (in the Fact Sheet/Technical Report) gives the effectiveness ranges of undefmed types of structural BMPs, but makes no mention of the fact that the effectiveness of structural BMPs is also highly dependent on the scale of the BMP and its location within the watershed (relative to the source of the pollution). Before we can require compliance with specific onsite measures we must have some confidence that a minimum level of effectiveness can be demonstrated. . A Combination ofBMPs (prevention, source and treatment) is recommended. But what role does cost-effectiveness play in the decision to implement a range of BMPs? The discussion of Finding No. 12 concludes that due to the "enormous costs associated with pollutant removal, pollution prevention is the only approach that makes sense". Does this contradict Finding No. 10, that structural BMPs must be contained in the URMP to be most effective? If pollution prevention measures are truly effective as the "first line of defense" , then the effectiveness of structural BMPs, or any removal methodology for that maner, would be rendered more or less marginally effective. Is it really the intent of the Regional Board that MEP means implementation of enormously costly structural BMP's in order to achieve what may be a marginal improvement? . Is the Coperminees' ability to impose water quality limits on new development restricted by no! having numeric efrluent limits in effect? Finding No. 13 states conclusively !hat while receiving water limitations apply to MS4s, numeric effluent limitations are not established and reliance shall be placed on the iterative BMP process. This fmding is a lWo-edged sword for the Coperminees. On the one hand they are not, for the time being, held to numeric limits for discharges from MS4s and may utilize iterative "narrative BMPs" in their place as necessary to achieve the receiving water quality standard in effect. But a lack of numeric limits applied to what comes out of the pipe generally translates into a restriction, for the same reasons described in Finding 10 above, on what may be required of new developments to control what goes into the pipe. Particularly with respect to source and treatment controls, it may create a difficult case to be made for costly control measures. For example, new development is expected to comply to MEP, however the question that will always be asked is: What level of treatment, in terms of reduction of pollutants of concern is required to comply with the MEP standard currently in effect? Furthermore, the iterative BMP process may work for existing development, but in rapidly developing areas there is little opportunity for adjusting BMPs and redefining MEP in response to non-arrained water quality standards. This is especially true when considering !hat the most effective treatment BMPs must be applied at the source and integrated into the early stages of the planning for major development projects. CITY OF CHULA VISTA Mr. Wayne Baglin - 5 - November 30. 2000 . Due to the time required to fully develop the iterative BMP implementation approach to attainrnent of receiving water limitations, is it likely that the opportunity to achieve source reduction in new developments will be missed? Continuing along the same line of reasoning as finding 13 - that initial implementation of BMPs will not achieve the required water quality standards - finding No. 14 relies on the iterative process of BMP development, implementation, and assessment followed by redevelopment, implementation, reassessment, etc. to achieve the objective. In the Eastern Territory of Chula Vista fully 75% of area is in SPA level revjew or better. Meaning the specific plans, policies, land plans and conditions are being developed at this very moment. . The Land Development Section needs clear guidelines for land development projects that are already in the pipeline (i.e., EIRlSPA/TM in process). These projects may need to be exempted. Currently we, the City, are processing several EIRs (i.e., Eastlake III, Village 11, Village 6, Vista Mother Miguel, etc - over 6,000 dwelling units). Current timetables reflect the EIRs to be completed by rnid-2ool. Compliance with the new measures is not being addressed in these EIR and planning documents. In late 2001, we may have a Tentative Map and mass/rough grading plans approved prior to the permit being effective (by early 2002?). In addition, compliance with the new NPDES requirements may also be required at issuance of subsequent rough grading/construction permits for the individual projects (after mass gradi.c,g permit issuance). At that time, the only means for capruring pollutants, in the absence of project- wide strucrural BMPs, would be less efficient local measures (i.e., inlet traps), which may be costly to construct and maintain. . What, if any effective control can the City exercise over pollution generation in much of the new development, after it is built out? Findings 16 through 18 essentially rely on the municipalities' land use planning and approval authority to make the case for control of pollution during the three phases of development. When discussing source or prevention controls during the operational phase of a project, the Regional Board should acknowledge that there is a difference among types of land uses. It is true the municipality has certain on-going permit authority over use of property for commercial or industrial purposes after the issuance of a development permit. However in residential developments - in single-family subdivisions and most multi-family projects as well - there is a limit to what controls municipalities can enforce on property owners, Reliance on CC&Rs notwithstanding, we simply don't have the ability to effectively control the behavior of individuals within residential neighborhoods. This makes education and onsite treatment BMPs the only effective post-construction measures for most residential land uses. . What design storm (return period) shall be used to determine the pre-development peak rate or velocity that may not be exceeded with new development or significant redevelopment? (See: A, Prohibitions:- Discharges Prohibition No. 4) Also, please clarify: If the pollutant loads from a new development are shown to not cause or contribute to an exceedance of receiving water quality objectives, isn't the basic objective of the SUSMP met? Why further impose the MEP rule CITY or: CHULA VISTA Mr. Wayne Baglin - 6 - November 30. 2000 on the new development or redevelopment? Is there any consideration given to redevelopment that does not exceed the pollution levels of existing development being replaced? · Are manufactured or mitigation habitats or wetlands included in the discharge category: "Flows from riparian habitats and wetlands are prohibited only if the Coperminee identifies them as a significant source of pollution"(see section B. Prohibitions 2 j). What operational programs (resource agency permining agreements, monitoring and maintenance) would be required to allow such wetlands or habitat to be considered a non-prohibited discharge. . Individual residential car washing need not be prohibited under B 2 p, however the Coperminees are required to enforce a prohibition against hosing of iInpervious surfaces in residential areas (see D 1 b (5)) is it possible to wash ones car without also washing off the driveway or street? . For the purposes of establishing vesting of a tentative map: Does "grading or construction activities" include mass grading or site clearing? Funher definition of the activities that would allow a pnonty project to escape SUSMP requirements is necessary, or is it strictly the Coperminees' call as to when a project is vested under current requirements? . Does the entire impervious area of a significant redevelopment project fall subject to numeric sizing requirements if iInpervious area is added that is over 50 % of the existing developments impervious area? And does F.1.b. (2)(a) iii and F.1.b. (2)(a) viii apply to redevelopment projects also? Redevelopment does represent an opportUnity to correct pollution problems inherent in existing development. It also has been promoted has a way to reduce the need for developing new lands for housing and commercial space. However, stringent requirements that tend to reduce the viability of redevelopment projects can work to restrict these benefits and should be carefully considered. · In reference to sections F.1.b (1) g and F.1.b (2)(b) I: The RWQCB requirement to ensure that the post-development runoff and velocities from each constrUction site do not exceed the Pre- development runoff rate and velocities may be not prudent. ConstrUction sites vary in scope from a grading permit for a single family residential home to a massive land development project. We don't believe that the proliferation of small detention facilities is wise on the local and regional levels. As an alternative, we propose strategically located detention facilities that will capture excess runoff from numerous sites. . Tentative Order Section F.2.c (1) b: Limiting grading operations to coincide with the seasonal dry weather period has serious negative impacts on the ability of constructing large projects. In addition to the limitation during the wet season, projects are usually prevented from grading during the nesting season between March and June. We would like the RWQCB to either take the CITY 0;: CHULA VISTA Mr. Wayne Baglin - 7 _ position of requiring a total halt to grading operations cominue with specific mitigation requirements. November 30, :WOO during the wet season or allow it to · Does "directly adjacent" in F.I. b. (2)(a) vii apply if the development in question is hydrologically disconnected from the sensitive area? For example, if a roadway, ridge or other feature is between the development and the sensitive area preventing discharge from the development from ever reaching the area, is that development still a priority project? . Shall priority projects, from the outset of the establishment of the SUSMP, be conditioned to use all three forms of BMPs. . It is apparent that the intent of the Tentative Order and section F.l.b. (2)(b) and (c) in particular is that new development shall begin to install and maintain structural BMPs immediately upon adoption of the local SUSMPs and supporting ordinance amendments. This doesn't seem to correspond to the Copermittees obligation to implement iterative BMPs in response to receiving water quality limits. While it may eventually serve the interests of the Copermittees to exact the highest level of source and treattnent control (MEP) of all new development coming on-line, regardless of cost-effectiveness considerations, there are serious questions about our ability to do this without the necessary fmdings that the controls: 1) are required to address a significant impact, 2) are feasible mitigation measures that are necessary to substantially reduce adverse impacts, and 3) are capable of reducing the impact to a less than significant level according to adopted threshold criteria. . If a cost estimate can be generated for a structural treattnent BMP (in order to assess the amount of a waiver under F.l.b. (2)(h)) how can that same BMP then be considered infeasible? From the point of view of the developer the feasibility is primarily defmed by cost in terms of money or time. Except in some limited circumstances, for example, where there is a spatial constraint that would not allow the intended use of a property if treattnent controls were also installed, there is no difference between exacting the savings derived from not installing the controls and installing them. From an engineering standpoint, what is infeasible is that which simply cannot be built, no matter how much is spent; therefore, no savings can be estimated. Also, doesn't the waiver provision violate a fundamental premise that polluters shall not buy their way out of mitigation responsibilities? . If the waiver system is instituted, the proceeds should go only to mitigating pollution from existing sources, or for watershed-focused prevention programs. The Copermittees should resist proposals to use the Storm Water Mitigation Fund to offset pollution from new priority sources, unless there is a compelling rational for doing so. . The Grading Ordinance Update should attempt to distinguish (6) "natural hydrologic features" by some parameter, lO-yr. flow for example. And, (9) "Retention of sediments and other CITY OF CHULA VISTA Mr. Wayne Baglin - 8 - November 30. 2000 construction pollutants on-site" should be followed by: (lO)"Specific provisions for disposing of all retained sediments and construction pollutants shall be proposed and subject to City approval" . Page 8 of 50 A.4., Page 14 of 50 F. I a. (9), Page 15 of 50 F. I .b.(l leg), Page 17 of 50 F. I .b. (2)(b lei) - Clarification is required regarding the prohibition of post-development runoff that is greater in peak rate or velocity than pre-development runoff from the same site? . Page 9 of 50 B.3. and 4. - \\!hat constitutes a significant source of pollutants? How will the copermittee identifY the categories that are a.significant source of pollutants? . Page 9 of 50 B.3.c. (1) - How are the Copermittees to know which categories of non-storm water discharge will have a discharge and whether or not the discharge will be prohibited or not? . Page 9 of 50 B.3.c. (2) - How are the Copermittees to know which BMP is to be implemented before a discharge is anticipated (for example, air conditioning condensation, lawn watering, swimming pool discharges, etc....)? . Page I I of 50 D.I.g. - \\!hat kind of interagency agreements is required among the Copermittees and other owners that share the same Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4)~ . Page 16 of 50 F.I .b. (2)(a)(vii) - In the definition for "Discharging directly to", what constitutes "predominantly"? \\!hen is an outflow "not commingled with flows from adjacent lands"? . Page 19 of 50 F. I .b. (2)(i)(iii) - Does this mean that excess water from irrigation and residential car washes (sources of dry weather flows) should be diverted from lawns or grassy swales (infiltration devi ces )? . Page 19 of 50 F.I.b. (i)(vii) - \Vhat physical and chemical characteristics of soil are adequate? \\'hat constitutes proper infiltration duration and treatment of urban runoff? . Page 22 of 50 F.2.e., Page 25 of 50 F.3.a.(3)(a), Page 27 of 50 F.3.b.(3)(a), Page 37 of 50 H.1.a.(1)(f), Page 37 of 50 H.1.a.(2)(c), Page 37 of 50 H.1.a.(3)(c) - Vv'hat is the criteria to determine the high, medium, and low threats to water quality? Do some of the components weigh more heavily than others? . Page 23 of 50 F.2.f. (1), Page 26 of 50 F.3.a. (4)(b), Page 28 of 50 F.3.b.(4)(a), Page 37 of 50 H.1.a.(2)(d), Page 37 of 50 H.1.a.(3)(d).. How will BMPs differ for high, medium, and low threats to water quality? . Page 23 of 5 0 F.2.f.(4), Page 28 of 50 F.3.b.(4)(c) - \\!hat kind of additional controls are required? Are the controls required if they exceed the Maximum Extent Practicable (MEP)? . Page 24 of 50 F.2.i., Page 30 of 50 F.3.b.(8) - Is oral and written notification required if the discharge is fully recovered and prevented from reaching the receiving waters? Also, is the oral and written notification required for all types and source of pollutants? . Page 30 of 50 F.3.c.(2)(w) - \\!hat is the definition of a significant pollutant load? CITY OF CHULA VISTA Mr. Wayne Baglin - 9 - Kovember 30. 2000 . Page 35 of 50 F.5.f., Page 39 of 50 H.l.a.(7)(g) - What kind of mechanism can be used by the Coperminees to be sure that they are notified of all sewage spills? . Page 39 of 50 H.l.a.(8)(a), Page 41 of 50 J.2.f. - What kinds of public participation are required and to what extent, frequency and standards required? . Page 40 of 50 I.l.j. - \Vhat are the criteria to be used in the self-assessment? How are the criteria to be weighted? Is there a minimwn percent of compliance required that will prevent action being taken against the coperminee? . Page 41 of 50 J.2.g. - Who are the audiences that the watershed based education program apply to? . Anachment B-4 11.C.4. - How often are the samples to be taken during the wet season and dry seasons? . Anachment B-5 V.H. - Clarification is required on the requirements and qualifications that an independent comminee of peers need to review the monitoring reports prior to submittal to the SDRWQCB? . Anachment E-! 2.b. - How can a coperminee establish a monitoring station if the MS4 is underground and not accessible in the cell requiring a station? . Section G Page 36 - Some of the cities are already in the process of revising their own General Plan. It is not possible to expect that the new General Plan will be adopted in a period which may likely extend beyond the 6 months deadline. However, these cities will make every effort to submit to the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board a draft of the sections of the revised General Plan pertaining to drainage and water quality by the time frame indicated in the permit. . Anachment E, Paragraph 2, Page E-l - Selection of monitoring stations is based on random sampling. This method is costly and ineffective. Each municipality is aware of the problem areas in their jurisdiction, and types of pollution expected, based on the land use and other dara available. The Coperminees should have the choice of selection of stations, concentrating effons in problem areas, and reducing sampling where pollutants are not detected or where conveyance systems are dry for a few consecutive periods. . Anachment E, Paragraph 4.b, Page E-2 a) Water characteristics in ponded conditions during hot weather change drastically within a few hours. Presence or absence of pollutants in ponded water does not necessarily correspond to the discharge of polluted water or vice versa. It is suggested that ponded water be exempted from sampling. b) For the purpose of source identification, placing emphasis on frequent field screening and more extensive upstream investigations will be more effective than CITY OF CHULA VISTA Mr. Wayne Baglin - ] 0 - November 30. 2000 be provided as suggested leSIS to be performed in the case of suspect discharges as determined from field observations, field screening tests, and upstream land use. etc. . Anachment E, Paragraph 4.f, Page E-3 - Clarification is needed on whether in subsequent years the analytical monitoring is to be carried out only on the constituents that exceeded criteria in previous tests, or all 27 tests will need to be repeated. In the latter case what is the reason? . Anachment B, Page B-1 - The objectives for Receiving Water Monitoring are too general and ,'ague. The Receiving Water Monitoring program needs to be tailored to specific objectives. The results obtained from such program needs to have informational and practical benefits. . Section E, Page 12 - Various organizations have developed Best Management Practices (BMPs). Some of these BMPs are common sense and are certain to work irrespective of the location or prevailing conditions. Others may not be effective under different situations. The San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board requires the Copermittees to implement, or require implementation of Best Management Practices. Clarification is needed as to which BMPs are approved by the SDRWQCB and under what field conditions are they to be used. Are the Copermittees expected to develop implementation manuals for "unproven" BMPs that will work in the San Diego region, or will SDRWQCB provide reference to existing approved sources? . Section F.3.b, Page 27 - Definition ofIndustry is not clear. The Permit needs to clarify which Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) categories are intended to be covered by this section. The City of Chula Vista is actively implementing a storm water quality program through its Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance. The City has initiated activities beyond the requirements of the NPDES Permit in order to provide its citizens with a clean and safe environment, and protect the quality of regional and national water resources. We believe that for any program of this nature to be successful, it needs to be clear, practical and cost effective. Our comments above are therefore based on these principles. Thank you for providing us the opporrunity to comment on Tentative Order 2000-01 and for your consideration of the above comments. Please contact Muna Cuthbert, Civil Engineer at (619) 691-5278 if you should have any questions. d~/'d?~ DAVID D. ROWLANDS, JR. CITY MANAGER C: John Lippitt, Director of Public Works John Kaheny, City Attorney H:IHOMEIENGlNEER\AD\ 1'L"NINPDESINPDESNEWPERMITCOMME?\ '1'S .MC.doc CITY OF CHULA VISTA ATTACHMENT 3 November 30, 2000 Mr. Wayne Baglin, Chair San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board 9771 Clairemont Mesa Blvd., Suite A San Diego, CA 92124 SUBJECT: TENTATIVE ORDER NO. 2001-01 SAN DIEGO CO-PERMITTEES REGIONAL COMMENTS Dear Chairman Baglin: The San Diego Region Municipal Storm Water Co-permittees support the long awaited re-issuance of the Municipal Storm Water Permit. Since the release of the tentative order on October I 1, 2000, the Co-permittees have been reviewing the order in detail, assessing the cost impacts, and developing strategies to ensure permit compliance. While the re- issuance of the permit is intended to improve the water quality of the region's receiving waters, the current public hearing schedule established by the Regional Board does not allow the Co-permittees and other interested parties sufficient time to adequately review and comment on the specific permit requirements. As you are aware, requests to extend the public comment period by 90 days were denied by the Executive Officer. It is important that the permit be written in a manner that will facilitate, not hinder the maximum reduction of storm water pollutants through implementation of publicly funded programs. The tentative order, as written, contains some specific requirements that will produce less effective programs and increase the likelihood of third party lawsuits. Municipalities will find it difficult to implement all of the requirements within the timeframe proposed and could be deemed as non-compliant for specific elements. It is important for you to recognize that our ability to implement cost-effective programs is greatly hindered by the specificity contained v,'ithin the tentative order. Some of the specific requirements may not be reasonable, appropriate, or provide tangible water quality benefits. The Co-permittees held meetings on November 15, 2000 and November 21, 2000 to determine the highest priority issues. The following comments, not listed in priority order, resulted from these meetings: Mr. Wayne Baglin 1\o\'ember 30. 2000 Page 2 Schedule. We are very concerned that the implementation schedule proposed by the tentative order is unrealistic and unachievable. The schedule does not take into consideration time requirements for thorough legal review, hiring of additional staff, agreement negotiation with other watershed stakeholders, adoption requirements for municipal ordinances, public hearing at the local level for public participation, Coastal Commission approvals, or municipal budgeting cycles. The procedures, required by State law, which local jurisdictions must overcome to accomplish their work are often cumbersome and time consuming. There are also contradicting elements within the tentative. order, which could delay implementation. For example, although public participation is emphasized and stipulated, adequate time for public hearings at a local level is not included in the schedule. We contend that a reasonable implementation schedule can only be established after there is a work plan developed to show what specific steps and approval processes are needed to comply with the permit. Accordingly, we request that the tentative order be modified to require the Co-permittees to submit an implementation schedule, and the accompanying work plan, to the Regional Boardfor approval within 180 days from the adoption of the permit. Water Quality Outcomes. The tentative order, as written, is too focused on activity level criteria without providing adequate flexibility to the local jurisdictions to evaluate the cost or effectiveness of the proposed measures to improve water quality. This activity level criteria appears in over 20 locations. Although potentially useful to the Co-permittees, activity level details do not belong in the permit. In some cases such as infiltration, language is contradictory and unnecessary restrictions will impede cost-effective implementation. Flexibility is what is needed to provide cost-effective programs. The tentative order does not even provide the flexibility to tailor programs for beach versus inland cities. The tentative order merely needs to specify a framework to work within and the desired outcomes. Other inclusions such as self-assessment by "percent compliance with each component" provide no value other than to provide a subject for further debate or litigation. A narrative assessment should be acceptable. The tentative order should focus on defining watershed receiving water objectives and monitoring programs. Where there is evidence that objectives are not being met, Co-permittees within the watershed should be allowed to develop the most cost-effective means to bring into and maintain compliance with water quality objectives. It is recommended that activity level details (such as inspection frequencies and curbside collection of household hazardous waste) be removed from the tentative order. This information is more appropriately contained within a guidance document, which could be developed by your staff and provided to the Co-permittees separately. Mr. Wayne Baglin No\cmhcr 30, :WOO Page 3 Fiscal Impacts. The overall regional fiscal impacts of the tentative order are unknown at this time. However, various business and industry groups in addition to the Co-permittees are working to quantify the potential costs of this tentative order. We are concerned about costs of questionable requirements that do not result in tangible water quality benefits. One area where questionable requirements will drive up costs is the dry weather sampling, As written, the Co- permittees would be required to sample ponded water twice with 4 hours in between samples and test for all 31 constituents even when historical data indicates non-detectable contaminant levels. Nevertheless, it is apparent that the program costs will greatly increase with no identified additional funding source, It is imperative that we utilize our resources wisely as well as seek out new funding sources, Due to our shared concern for water quality, it would be very beneficial if the Regional Board staff worked with the Co-permittees to obtain funding to augment the various local programs. We recommend that the Regional Board conduct an economic analysis in accordance with the Porter-Cologne Act and the government code. We also recommend that the permit include provisions that the Regional Board will partner with Co-permittees to help identify and support projects to obtain funds through state andfederal grant programs. Regulation of Special Districts, State, and Federal Lands. The tentative order is giving local jurisdictions a responsibility that they cannot enforce under our current legal system. We do not have land use authority over state or federal agencies. We believe that it will be e},:t:remely difficult if not legally impossible to control the activities of other governmental agencies. Current State, Federal and District laws will need to be revised prior to municipalities having this authority. Although we acknowledge that cooperative approaches are beneficial, this should not be the requirement of local jurisdictions. The requirement for local jurisdictions to regulate Special Districts, State, and Federal operations should be removedfrom the tentative order. Dry Weather Monitoring Program. The dry weather monitoring section is a good example of where activity level specificity will hinder the ability to provide cost-effective programs. Over the past seven years, the Co-permittees have successfully implemented dry weather monitoring programs to detect and eliminate illicit connections and illegal discharges. We were pleased that the Regional Board staff responded to concerns expressed by the City of Encinitas and disclosed changes to the dry weather monitoring section at the November 16, 2000 workshop (i.e. flexibility to determine sampling locations and deletion of the Colilert study), Although we support those proposed changes, other areas hinder effective program implementation, for example: 1\11. Wayne Baglin :\o\cmoer 30. 200(J Pagc 4 . Samplinc of pondcd water twice over a four hour period would be unnecessary duplication. . Testine for all 3] parameters in all samples will yield a significant number of "nondetects". It adds a significant cost and would likely not provide any more valuable information. Residential versus commercial or industrial testing will need to have different parameters. The Co-permittees should be given the discretion to select the analytical paranleters based on what pollutants may be coming from upstream sources. For example, rather than testing for toxics in all the samples, it should be acceptable to test at major outfalls and utilize the bioassessment element of the new permit to indicate impairment. Rather than testing for nutrients in all the samples, it should be acceptable to test at major outfalls and look downstream for algae blooms. Our programs will certainly not be cost-effective if duplicative tests or tests of questionable benefit are required at a cost of roughly $1000 per location. It is recommended that the tentative order be revised to allow the Co-permittees to decide (with justification) the appropriate testing based upon their knowledge of the existing system and watershed information (business types, general land use, % impervious). The revisions should include a provision for Co-permittees to delete a constituent test when there is "nondetect" historical data. Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan (SUSMP). The Co-permittees support establishing common procedures incorporating Best Management Practices (BMPs) into new development and significant redevelopment projects. We share the same goal as the Regional Board to protect our local waters from further degradation due to urban runoff. The SUSMP provisions, as proposed, may not accomplish that objective. The SUSMP requirements are loosely based upon the Los Angeles SUSMP but have a number of added features, which were developed independently by the Regional Board staff without the benefit of a stakeholder group or public participation process. We believe that the stakeholder group process, at a minimum, is critical to successful implementation of this program. A modified SUSMP approach developed by the Co-permittees, to be completed within a reasonable timeframe will provide the greatest opportunity to reach our common goal of achieving water quality benefits. The Co-permittees would like to consider regional or multi-project approaches within the municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) before the receiving waters, which are currently disallowed by the tentative order. It is appropriate to consider all options that are feasible. A waiver provision is included in the tentative order for projects where implementation is not feasible. This provision was eliminated from the Los Angeles SUSMP because the issue was far more complicated than the local Board realized. The same complexity exists in San Diego yet Regional Board Mr. Wayne Baglin November 30. :2000 Page 5 staff has failed to recognize the issue as problematic. Co-permittees could. over the next three years with the cooperation of Regional Board staff, develop watershed management plans designed to ensure continuous maintenance of water quality objectives and to define Co-permittees responsibilities under that progran1. We recommend that the tentath'e order be revised to modify the SUSMP provisions to allow the Co-permittees to develop a regional SUSMP and determine the mitigation plan categories, BMPs, Numeric Sizing Criteria, Pollutants of Concern, and Implementation Process, over a three-year period. Implementation of the elements will be phased in and occur on an on-going basis. Dual Permitting. A dual (i.e. state and local) storm water permitting process for construction and industrial sites potentially burdens the applicants of these permits and introduces opportunities for conflict, confusion and legal challenge. The State has issued a general construction NPDES permit and a general industrial NPDES permit. In order to clearly define the roles and responsibilities of the Co-permittees and the Regional Board in enforcement of these permits, a written agreement should be developed. If the Co-permittees are determined to have the prime responsibility for enforcing industrial and construction general permits, the State should provide the required funding for implementing the program. Receiving Water Monitoring Program. The recelvmg water monitoring program as outlined in the tentative order is premature. The Co-permittees had an understanding with Regional Board staff that new monitoring program requirements would not be developed until the $250,000 assessment (as part of the Co-permittees' 2000-2001 Storm Water Monitoring & Reporting Program) now in progress was completed. The Board's staff and the Co-permittees had agreed that it was reasonable to base our future monitoring program on the findings and recommendations of our current receiving water program analysis. If the assessment is not used to develop future programs, the Co-permittees will have wasted $250,000 of public funds that could have been used for additional public education or monitoring. Analyzing our past and existing programs will determine any problems with the receiving waters. and will provide recommendations on how to cost-effectively address the problems to the maxinmm extent practicable. Also, it is ineffective to require the Co-permittees to institute a coastal storm drain monitoring program. as described in the tentative order. As stated in the draft Fact Sheet! Technical Report, this program should be "integrated and coordinated with similar monitoring programs". The problem caused by high levels of indicator bacteria in storm drains is insidious, requiring a coordinated, comprehensive effort. The continuation of "routine monitoring" will not aid in the .effective resolution of this problem. Relative to the Toxic Hot Spots I\lr. Wayne Baglin \'O\'ember 30. :WOO Page 6 monitoring requirement, only 9 of the 20 Co-permittees are located within the San Diego Bay watershed, It is recommended that the future monitoring program be based on the assessment being currently performed, that a coordinated coastal storm drain monitoring program be developed to address dry and wet weather water quality problems associated with coastal storm drains but not include it as a permit requirement at this time, and that clarification be added so only Co-permittees within the watershed are required to participate in the Toxic Hot Spots in the San Diego Bay program. Flow Retention. The tentative order dictates flow attenuation as the only option allowed for managing streambed erosion, Unfortunately, there is no "one size fits all" approach to addressing streambed erosion, The provisions in the tentative order do not recognize the complexity of the issue and if implemented as written, the result could be environmentally damaging, Multiple site retention, if not coordinated, can have the absolute opposite effect (e,g, not reduce the peak flows) and expose streams to extended periods of runoff. Excessive removal of sediments upstream can actually increase erosion potential of downstream channels. The permit should merely require the Co-permittees to protect natural channels and minimize stream erosion to the maximum extent practicable, It is recommended that the Co-permittees be required to address their control measures for streambed erosion on a drainage basin basis as part of the Urban Runoff Management Plan. Notification of Non-compliance. The cost-effectiveness of our programs will be greatly hindered by the proposed reporting requirements. It is burdensome to require the Co-permittees to report every violation, no matter how minor, to the Regional Board staff as with emergencies. Verbal notification within 24 hours and the submittal of a written report within 5 days for "any non-compliance with this Order" for relatively common mishaps such as a traffic accident coolant or oil spill is unwarranted. The notification requirement, as written, will be costly to comply with and provides no tangible water quality benefit. Given the number of minor violations, the Regional Board staff could conceivable receive hundreds of notices each day. The notification requirements should be limited to situations of "noncompliance that may endanger health or the environment". It is recommended that revisions to the notification provisions be made to exclude minor violations. Maintenance of the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4). Compliance with the stipulated annual cleaning requirement is very costly and will not provide direct water quality benefit. Cleaning of storm drains and channels are. scheduled based upon need. The Co-permittees are the most Mr. Wayne Baglin November 30, 2000 Page 7 knowledgeable about their systems and are the ones best suited to propose a maintenance schedule, which addresses pollutant elimination to the maximum extent practicable, Stipulating maintenance schedules without knowledge of the specific systems is the type of inflexibility that will result in a very expensive but less effective program, It may be more environmentally sensible to provide multi- year programs for similar types of conveyance systems, The 80/10 rule (i.e. 80% of your problems come from 20% of-your system) applies to conveyance systems. It is impossible, and environmentally damaging, to clean all unlined channels and streambeds annually due to permitting restrictions and during the endangered species nesting seasons. It is recommended that the tentative order be revised to require each Co-permittee to develop a maintenance program with specified schedules that address the removal of pollutants to the maximum extent practicable, Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) Support. The Regional Board and the Co-permittees have the same goal to protect beneficial uses of our local waters, We need the Regional Board Executive Officer's and staffs cooperation and assistance to make this program work, To maximize the effectiveness of our programs, the Regional Board staff needs to be an active participant in the program. Active participation includes creating regional programs, reviewing and providing comments on draft programs, coordination of regional monitoring programs, and providing direction and support to secure necessary funding from State and Federal sources to implement these programs. For example, the Ventura County Municipal Storm Water Permit includes a provision requiring participation in a grant funded non-point source study. The Co-permittees cannot implement cost-effective programs without the support of the Regional Board staff. We need the Regional Board staff to be available to review their proposed programs, provide feedback, and approve the submitted programs in an efficient and timely manner. We request that the Regional Board staff provide the Co-permittees with a written commitment to participate in their programs over the next 5 years and then follow through with active participation, support and involvement. In closing, we want to assure you that the Co-permittees share the Regional Board's goals to protect water quality in the region, Nevertheless, we cannot accomplish all requirements, as proposed, within the timeframes of the tentative order, In several places throughout the tentative order it states that compliance should be an "iterative process" that is comprehensive, effective, and flexible. The Co-permittees agree with this approach but the specificity of the tentative order seems to be in direct conflict with this approach, 1\1r. Wayne Baglin !\:ovemher 30.2000 Page 8 We want to work cooperatively with Regional Board staff to ensure implementation of the most cost-effective programs. We believe that a longer implementation period is warranted, given that the realities of the local jurisdictions do not appear to have been considered in developing the specific deadlines. Moreover, we strongly feel that our recommendations, if implemented, will ultimately improve the water quality. Sincerely, Karen Henry Storm Water Administrator City of San Diego, Prinicipal Permittee On behalf of the Co-permittees listed below. City of Carlsbad City ofChula Vista City of Coronado City of Del Mar City ofEI Cajon City ofEncinitas City of Escondido City ofImperial Beach City of La Mesa City of Lemon Grove City ofNationaI City City of Oceanside City of Po way City of San Diego City of San Marcos City of Santee City of Solana Beach City of Vista County of San Diego Port of San Diego The comments in this letter are a collective work product of the Co-permittees and each comment may not necessarily represent the views in entirety of the individual Co- permittees. KH Attachment cc: John Robertus, Executive Officer, SDRWQCB All San Diego Municipal Storm Water Co-permittees Attachment to TENTATIVE ORDER 1'0. 2001-01 SAN DIEGO CO-PERMITTEES REGIONAL COMMENTS ITEM Page No(s). Sedion(s) Dry Weather Monitoring E-2 4.b Program Dual Permitting 4 Finding 22 Fiscal Impacts 36 F.8 - Flow Retention 8, ]4, ]5, ] 7 AA, F.1.a (9), F.1.b.(I leg), F.1.b(2)(b)i Maintenance of MS4 26 FJ.a (5) Notification of Non- 24,29, C-5 F.2.i, F.3.b (8), B.6 Compliance Receiving Water B-], B-4 I, II C & E Monitoring Program Regulation of Special ]] D.1.g Districts, State and Federal Lands RWQCB Support N/A N/A Schedule 46 Q SUSMP ]5 F.1.b (2) Water Quality Objectives ] ],13,]4, ]5 D.], F.1.a, F.1.b (I), F.1.b (2) (a), ]6, ] 7,]8 F.1.b (2)(b), F.1.b (2)(c), F.1.b (2)(e), ]9,]9,20,2] F.1.b (2)(h), F.1.b.(2)(i), F.1.c(l), F.2.b, 22,22,23,25 F.2.c (I), F.2.e, F.2.g(2), F.3.a (3), 26,26,28 F J .a( 5)( c), F.3 .a( 6), F.3. b( 5)(b), 29,31,32,33 F.3.b(6)(b), FJ.d (2), F.4.a, FA.b, 34,36, E-], E2 FA.c, F7, Attachment E 2,4 ATTACHMENT 4 :\ATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM (NPDES) TENTATIVE MUNICIPAL PERMIT ORDER NO. 2001-01 TASKS ADDITIONAL TO THE PRESENT REQUlREMNETS 1. Each Copermittee will be responsible for enforcing Industrial and Construction NPDES Permit requirements within its jurisdiction, jointly with the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board (SDRWQCB). This requirement entails regular inspections of industrial and construction sites by City staff. 2. Each Copermittee shall develop an Urban Runoff Management Program (URMP). 3. City of Chula Vista is located within the San Diego Bay Watershed Management Area. San Diego Bay is listed as an impaired water body under Clean Water Act Section 303(d) for the following pollutants: 1. Coliform Bacteria 2. Metals 3. Toxicity 4. Benthic Community Degradation Although such pollutants may not originate from Chula Vista, the watershed approach of the new permit will require Chula Vista to participate in extensive monitoring programs. 4. The Grading and Storm Water Management Ordinances will need to be upgraded to establish legal authority in order to comply with the new permit requirements (inspections and administrative orders and citations) 5. The General Plan will need to be revised. 6. The Development Project Approval Processes will need to be modified. 7. Environmental Review Processes, including CEQA checklists will need to be revised. 8. Public Education efforts will need to be increased. 9. Municipalities will have to ensure that industrial applicants have obtained coverage under the General Industrial Permit. 10. Each Copermittee will be required to develop Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan (SUSMP), and shall ensure compliance by new developments and significant redevelopments. - 2- 11. Each Copermittee shall develop a watershed-based inventory of all construction sites and prioritize the list according to threat to water quality. 12. Each Copermittee shall develop a list of Best Management Practices (BMPs) to be implemented at each construction site. 13. Each Copermittee shall develop a watershed-based inventory of all municipal land use areas and activities and prioritize the inventory according to threat to water quality. 14. Each Copermittee shall develop a list of Best Management Practices to be implemented at each municipal area or activity. 15. A schedule of maintenance and cleaning shall be developed for all storm drainage facilities and implemented annually. 16. Best Management Practices shall be implemented to reduce pollution of storm drains by pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers from municipal areas and activities. 17. Each Copermittee shall develop a watershed-based inventory of all industrial sites, and prioritize the inventory according to threat to water quality. 18. Each Copermittee shall develop a list of Best Management Practices to be implemented at each industrial site. 19. High threat to water quality industrial sites shall be monitored for runoff, and non- compliant sites shall be reported to the SDRWQCB. 20. Each Copermittee shall develop an inventory of high priority commercial sites/sources. 21. Each Copermittee shall develop a list of Best Management Practices to be implemented at each high priority threat to water quality commercial site/source. 22. Each high priority commercial site shall be inspected on a regular basis and enforcement action taken if necessary. 23. Each Copermittee shall identify high priority residential areas and activities, designate a set of Best Management Practices, require implementation of designated BMPs, and enforce its own Storm Water Ordinance to maintain compliance. 24. Each Copermittee shall develop programs to educate various target groups on water quality issues, using all media as appropriate. 25. Each Copermittee shall implement an Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination Component through monitoring, investigation, enforcement of the ordinances, sewage spill prevention, public reporting and proper disposal of used oil and toxic materials. - 3 - The new permit requires much more extensive Dry Weather Analytical Monitoring than before. 26. Each Copermittee shall submit to the SDRWQCB a jurisdictional URMP Document. Said document will be the written account of the overall program to be conducted by each Copermittee within its jurisdiction during the five-year life of the new permit. 27. Each Copermittee shall submit to the SDRWQCB, on an annual basis, a report documenting the activities conducted by each Copermittee during the past annual reporting period. 28. Each Copermittee shall collaborate with other Copermittees within its watershed to identify and mitigate the highest priority water quality issues in the watershed. The Copermittees in the watershed shall jointly develop a watershed Urban Runoff Management Program. 29. The Copermittees within a watershed shall submit to the SDRWQCB, on an annual basis, a report documenting the activities conducted by the Copermittees to meet the requirements of all components of the watershed URMp during the past annual reporting period. 30. All Copermittees shall jointly execute and submit to the SDRWQCB a Memorandum of Understanding, Joint Powers Authority, or other instrument of formal agreement which provides a management structure for the following: . Designation of Joint Responsibilities . Decision Making . Watershed Activities . Information Management of Data and Reports . Other Collaborative Arrangements H:\HOME\ENGINEER\ADVPLAN\NPDES\order2001-01-j .doc