Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 2000/05/02 AGeNdA MAY 1, 1~0~ 4:~ P.M. C~L TO O~ER ROLL C~L: Co~ci~embcrs Davis, Moot, Padilla, Salas, ~d Mayor Ho~on. PLEDGE OF ~LEGI~CE TO THE FLAG, MOMENT OF SILENCE SPECI~ O~E~ OF THE DAY P~SENTATION OF A PROCL~ATION TO THE E~LOYEE OF THE MONTH, LO~ BE~ETT, ~M~ST~TIVE OFFICE SPECI~IST ~ THE P~CHAS~G DIVISION OF F~ANCE. P~SENTATION OF A PROCL~ATION PROCLAIM~G THE ~EK OF MAY 7 THROUGH MAY 12, 2000 AS YOUTH ~EK - ACCEPTED BY JO~ POXON, E~TED R~ER OF THE CH~A VISTA ELKS ~2011, ~ G~Y ~MEL, YOUTH ACTIVITIES CH~. · P~SENTATION OF A PROCL~ATION PROCL~G THE ~EK OF ~ 4 THROUGH ~E 10, 2000 AS M~AGEMENT ~EK - ACCEPTED BY HAUSER OF BF GOOD,CH. P~SENTATION OF A PROCL~ATION COMME~G THE ST~S OF LIFE - ACCEPTED BY MITCH MITCHELL, VICE P~SIDENT, P~LIC POLICY DIVISION OF THE SAN DIEGO ~GION~ CH~BER OF COMMERCE. CONSENT CALENDAR (Items 1 through 8) 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 Council member, a member of the public, 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) and submit it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting. Items pulled from the Consent Calendar will be discussed after Action Items. Items pulled by the public will be the first items of business. 1. 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 April 18, 2000, there were no actions taken which are required under the Brown Act to be reported. Staff recommendation: The letter be received and filed. 2 A. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AUTHORIZING AND APPROViNG THE BORROWING OF FUNDS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000-2001; THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF A 2000-2001 TAX AND REVENUE ANTICIPATION NOTE THEREFOR AND PARTICiPATION IN THE CALIFORNIA COMMUNITIES CASH FLOW FINANCING PROGRAM B. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO INCLUDE IN THE FISCAL YEAR 2000- 2001 PROPOSED BUDGET APPROPRIATIONS OF $114,500 FOR TAX AND REVENUE ANTICIPATION NOTE PROJECTED 1NTEREST AND ISSUANCE COSTS, AND ESTIMATED INTEREST REVENUES OF $114,500 FROM INVESTMENT OF THE NOTE PROCEEDS In order to address shortfalls that are projected to occur in the General Fund during Fiscal Year 2000-2001 due to the cyclical nature of some of our major revenue sources, it is recommended that the City again take advantage of the opportunity to borrow money on a short-term basis at the lowest cost by issuing a Tax and Revenue Anticipation Note (TRAN) through the pooled financing program sponsored by the League of California Cities. As has been done during the last three fiscal years, such a borrowing is recommended as an alternative to borrowing from other City funds. Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolutions. (Deputy City Manager Powell) 3. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AMEND1NG THE FISCAL YEAR 1999-2000 BUDGET BY APPROPRIATING $262,072 1N THE FLEET MANAGEMENT FUND FOR FUEL PRICE AND FUEL USAGE iNCREASES, FUEL-RELATED iNFRASTRUCTURE REPAIRS, AND THE PURCHASE AND UPGRADE OF COMPUTERS REQUIRED FOR THE NEW FLEET MANAGEMENT SYSTEM BASED ON UNANTICIPATED REVENUE FROM VEHICLE RENTALS TO THE GENERAL FUND AND TRANSIT FUND; AND APPROPRIATING $90,879 TO VARIOUS DEPARTMENTS' EQUIPMENT MAiNTENANCE ACCOUNTS TO FUND THESE iNCREASES FROM THE AVAILABLE FUND BALANCE iN THE GENERAL FUND (4/5THS VOTE REQUIRED) An increase in the Central Garage budget is needed because fuel prices and fuel usage have increased substantially over the amounts that were budgeted. In addition, repairs to the fuel delivery infrastructure are required for regulatory compliance, and computers and software are needed for fuel and vehicle management. Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolution. (Director of Public Works) Page 2 - Council Agenda 05/02/2000 4A. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING F1NAL "A" MAP NO. 2 FOR OTAY RANCH SPA ONE, VILLAGE ONE, CHULA VISTA TRACT NO. 96-04A, REJECTING ON BEHALF OF THE PUBLIC SANTA ANDREA STREET, PASEO RANCHERO AND OLYMPIC PARKWAY, ACCEPTING ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA THE LANDSCAPE BUFFER EASEMENTS, THE PUBLIC DRAINAGE AND ACCESS EASEMENTS, THE TRAIL EASEMENTS, THE SIDEWALK EASEMENTS, THE EMERGENCY ACCESS EASEMENTS AND THE ASSIGNABLE AND IRREVOCABLE GENERAL UTILITY AND ACCESS EASEMENTS GRANTED ON SAID MAP WITHIN SAID SUBDIVISION, ACKNOWLEDGING ON BEHALF OF THE PUBLIC THE IRREVOCABLE OFFERS OF DEDICATION OF FEE INTEREST FOR OPEN SPACE LOTS "C", "D", "E", "F", "G", "N" AND "R" AND LOT "O" FOR PUBLIC PARK PURPOSES B. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHLFLA VISTA APPROVING "A" MAP SUPPLEMENTAL SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT FOR CHULA VISTA TRACT NO. 96-04A, PORTION OF VILLAGE ONE, OTAY RANCH SPA ONE AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT On May 4, 1999, Council approved a Tentative Subdivision Map for Chula Vista Tract 96-04A, Otay Ranch SPA One, Village One, Phase 7. Condition No. 14 of the Resolution requires the developer to submit and obtain the approval of the City of a master final map ("A" Map) of the tentative map showing "super block" lots. The "A" map is also required to show the public street dedications and backbone utility easements required to serve the super block lots. All super block lots created are also required to have access to a dedicated public street. Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolution. (Director of Public Works) 5 A. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA CONDITIONALLY APPROVING FINAL MAP OF CHULA VISTA TRACT NO. 00-02, EASTLAKE BUSINESS CENTER II, ACCEPTING ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA THE PUBLIC EASEMENTS AND ON BEHALF OF THE PUBLIC THE STREET EASEMENTS, ALL AS GRANTED ON SAID MAP WITHIN SAID SUBDIVISION, AND APPROViNG THE SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT FOR THE COMPLETION OF IMPROVEMENTS REQUIRED BY SAID SUBDIVISION, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT B. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING SUPPLEMENTAL SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT FOR CHULA VISTA TRACT NO. 00-02, EASTLAKE BUSINESS CENTER II, REQUIRING THE EASTLAKE COMPANY TO COMPLY WITH CERTAIN UNFULFILLED CONDITIONS OF RESOLUTION NO. 19666, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT Page 3 - Council Agenda 05/02/2000 On November 16, 1999, by Resolution 19666, Council approved the Tentative Subdivision Map for Chula Vista Tract No. 00-02, EastLake Business Center II. The Tentative Map was approved based on certain conditions established in the Resolution with which The EastLake Company (the developer) agreed to comply. The Final Map, Subdivision Improvement Agreement and Supplemental Subdivision Improvement Agreement for the first phase of development of EastLake Business Center II are now before Council for consideration and approval. Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolution. (Director of Public Works) 6. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING THE EXCLUSION OF ONE TELEPHONE UTILITY POLE LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF PALOMAR STREET AND iNDUSTRIAL BOULEVARD FROM UTILITY UNDERGROUND1NG DISTRICT NO. 127 On December 17, 1996, the City Council held a public heating and adopted Resolution No. 18530 establishing Underground Utility District No. 127, along Palomar Street from 1-5 to Industrial Boulevard. The purpose of the district is to require the utility companies to underground all overhead lines including other associated facilities, and to remove all existing wooden utility poles within the established boundaries of the district. Pacific Bell has subsequently requested one pole to be excluded from this district. This pole is on the southeast comer of Palomar Street and Industrial Boulevard. Staff recommendation: Council adopt the resolution. (Director of Public Works) 7. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 1999-2000 BUDGET TO UPGRADE ONE POSITION FOR THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT/ENGINEERING DIVISION PREVIOUSLY APPROVED BY COUNCIL At the March 7, 2000 Council meeting, Council adopted a resolution amending the current year's budget to add various positions to the Engineering Division of the Public Works Department. One of the positions that was added was an Administrative Office Specialist position for the new Project Management and Design Section. It is requested that the position be reclassified to a Senior Administrative Office Specialist. Staffrecommendation: Council adopt the resolution. (Director of Public Works) 8 A. REPORT ON THE APPLICATION FOR THE FORMATION OF COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2000-1 (SUNBOW II) B. RESOLUTION OF THE CiTY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING THE INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS TO CONSIDER THE FORMATION OF A COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT FOR A PORTION OF THE SUNBOW DEVELOPMENT Page 4 - Council Agenda 05/02/2000 In compliance with Council Policy, ACI Sunbow, LLC has submitted an application for establishing Community Facilities District No. 2000-1 ("CFD 2000-1") to fund the construction of certain improvements serving some of the Sunbow II properties in the amount of approximately $19.5 million. Staff has reviewed the application and determined that the financial information provided is preliminary and general in nature, and that a complete analysis of the financial feasibility of the project can not be made at this time. Staff considem that adequate information and analysis will be generated during distfic, t .forn?ation for evaluating the developer's financial ability to bring the project to completion ~n compliance with the City's criteria. Therefore, staff is recommending that Council accept the report and initiate the formal proceedings for the proposed CFD. Council will also consider retaining a team of six consultants for CFD 2000-1. The companion Reimbursement Agreement requires the developer to advance funds to the City for the payment of all initial consulting and administration costs and expenses related to the formation of CFD 2000-1. Staff recommendation: Council accept the report on the application for the formation of CFD 2000-1 and adopt the resolution. (Director of Public Works) ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Persons speaking during Oral Communications may address the Council on any subject matter within the Council's jurisdiction 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. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND RELATED RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES 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 fill out a "Request to Speak"form (available in the lobby) and submit it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting. 5:00P.M. 9. PUBLIC HEARING TO REVIEW THE CITY OF CHULA VESTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) PROGRAM AND THE HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM WHICH INCLUDES CONSIDERATION OF FUNDING REQUESTS FOR PUBLIC SERVICES, COMMUNITY PROJECTS, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT, AND ADMINISTRATION AND PLANNING Each year, the City undertakes a process to solicit and approve programs and projects eligible for federal funding. This item addresses the review of the annual Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program and the HOME Investment Partnership (HOME) program. The public hearing provides an opportunity for the public and Council to make comments on how CDBG and HOME funds can be allocated to meet the City's housing and community needs. Staff recommendation: Council conduct the public hearing to review and accept comments regarding the Housing and Community Development needs for the 2000-2001 CDBG and HOME programs, accept the staff report, and direct staff to return on or about May 16, 2000 with the final funding recommendations. (Director of Community Development) Page 5 Council Agenda 05/02/2000 10. CONSIDERATION OF AN AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONS 1 AND 3 OF THE SALT CREEK RANCH TENTATIVE SUBDMSION MAP, CHULA VISTA TRACT 92-02, AND SECTION 3.2 OF THE SALT CREEK RANCH PUBLIC FACILITIES FINANCING PLAN TO ALLOW AN 1NCREASE IN THE NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS THAT MAY BE BUILT PRIOR TO SR-125 FREEWAY OPENING FOR PUBLIC ACCESS FROM OLYMPIC PARKWAY TO SR-54 The applicant, Pacific Bay Homes, submitted an application requesting an amendment to Conditions 1 and 3 within Section 7 of the Tentative Subdivision Map (Resolution Number 16834) of the Salt Creek Ranch Tentative Subdivision Map, Chula Vista Tract 92-02 (also known as "Rolling Hills Ranch"), and Section 3.2 of the Salt Creek Ranch Public Facilities Financing Plan to allow the applicant to proceed with development of a portion of Phase II prior to SR-125 freeway opening for public access. The Rolling Hills Ranch subdivision is located east of the future SR-125 and north of the existing Eastlake Business Center. Staff recommendation: Council conduct the public heating and adopt the following resolution: (Director o f Planning and Building) RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM ISSUED FOR THIS PROJECT, AND APPROVING AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONS NO. 1 AND 3 OF THE SALT CREEK RANCH TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP, CHULA VISTA TRACT 92-02, AND SECTION 3.2 OF THE SALT CREEK RANCH PUBLIC FACILITIES FINANCING PLAN TO ALLOW AN INCREASE 1N THE NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS THAT MAY BE BUILT PRIOR TO SR-125 FREEWAY OPENING FOR PUBLIC ACCESS FROM OLYMPIC PARKWAY TO SR-54 11. CONSIDERATION OF CONFIRMING ASSESSMENTS FOR ASSESSMENT · DISTRICT 97-01 FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO OXFORD STREET FROM FOURTH AVENUE TO FIFTH AVENUE IN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA On October 28, 1997, pursuant to the Improvement Act of 1911, also known as the 1911 Block Act, Council awarded a contract in the amount of $328,708 to MJC Construction for Oxford Street improvements from Fourth Avenue to Fifth Avenue. The work has been completed and improvements have been accepted by the City Manager. On March 21, 2000, Resolution 2000-091 was adopted accepting the filing o£the Engineer's report on the cost of construction and setting the public hearing on the assessments, and Resolution 2000-092 approved the deferral of liens and set deferral criteria. Staff Recommendation: Council conduct the public hearing and adopt the following resolutions (Director of Public Works): A. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA CONFIRMING THE ENGINEER'S REPORT BY THE CITY ENGINEER ON THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION AND SPREAD OF ASSESSMENTS FOR ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 97-01 B. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ADOPTING A NOTICE OF LIEN TO LEVY AND COLLECT ASSESSMENTS FOR ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 97-01 Page 6 - Council Agenda 05/02/2000 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. 12. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF AGREEMENTS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL AND ENGINEERING SERVICES AND FOR LEGAL CONSULTING SERVICES FOR THE SALT CREEK GRAVITY SEWER INTERCEPTOR, AND THE WOLF CANYON TRUNK SEWER The consultant, Dudek & Associates, is in the process of finalizing the preliminary design report for the Salt Creek Gravity Sewer Interceptor. The preliminary design report identified an alignment for the trunk sewer that will ultimately form the basis of the final design. The report also examined and identified all the environmental constraints that would be attributable to the alignment and the necessary permits that would be required for the approval of the project. Due to the current pace of development in the eastern territories of the City, and the need to expedite the completion of the final design plans, preparing the necessary environmental documents and processing the required permits under a very challenging time constraint has made it necessary to expand the scope of work of the consultant to meet the project objectives and deadlines. Staff recommendation: Council adopt the following resolutions: (Director of Public Works) A. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA WAIVING THE CONSULTANT SELECTION PROCESS AND APPROVING AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND DUDEK & ASSOCIATES, INC., FOR THE PROVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND ENGINEERING SERVICES REQUIRED FOR THE FiNAL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE SALT CREEK GRAVITY SEWER INTERCEPTOR AND THE WOLF CANYON TRUNK SEWER B. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING AN AGREEMENT WITH REMY, THOMAS AND MOOSE, LLP FOR THE PROVISION OF LEGAL CONSULTING SERVICES REQUIRED FOR THE SALT CREEK GRAVITY SEWER INTERCEPTOR AND THE GOLF CANYON TRUNK SEWER Page 7 - Council Agenda 05/02/2000 13. REPORT CONSIDERING AN ALL-WAY STOP AT THE INTERSECTION OF EAST J STREET AND LASENDA WAY Based on the provisions of the Safety Commission Policy, adopted by resolution of the City Council on March 14, 1995, whenever the Safety Cormnission and the City Engineer concur on the implementation of a traffic safety improvement, the resolution of the issue is considered final unless appealed by a member of the Council within 10 days of the decision of the Safety Commission. This report was generated as the result of a motion by Mayor Horton for a report to Council after a request to appeal was made by David Krogh, a member of the public, under oral communications at the Council meeting of December 7, 1999. The direction of the Council was for staff to return to the Safety Commission with a report which included the analysis provided by Mr. Krogh, and for staff and the Commission to reconsider this item. The first Safety Commission decision, to recommend the installation of an all-way stop, was reached at its meeting on November 11, 1999. On March 9, 2000, staff presented a new report and all-way stop evaluation to the Safety Commission which included Mr. Krogh's analysis, and the Commission again voted to accept staffs report and recommendation to install the all- way stop. Staff recommendation: Council accept the report. (Director of Public Works) 14. CONSIDERATION OF ACCEPTANCE OF A REPORT ON ADDITIONAL iNFORMATION REGARDING OPTIONS FOR SR-125 IMPLEMENTATION ITEMS PULLED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR OTHER BUSINESS 15. CITY MANAGER'S REPORTS A. Scheduling of meetings 16. MAYOR'S REPORTS A. Proposed City Council Committee Assignments 17. COUNCIL COMMENTS A. Councilmember Salas: Ratification of appointment to the Mobilehome Rent Review Commission - David Smith CLOSED SESSION 18. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDING ANTICIPATED LITIGATION PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.9(B) · One Case - Claim no. 99-00-009 Page 8 - Cotmcil Agenda 05/02/2000 19. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDING SIGNIFICANT EXPOSURE TO LITIGATION PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.9(B) · One Case 20. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDING EXISTING LITIGATION PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.9(A) ' · Brentwood Mobilehome Park v. City of Chula Vista, S26517 21. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIOATOR PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.8 Property: Lease of Property - Fourth Avenue & Beyer Way Negotiating Parties: U.S. Customs Services & the City of Chula Vista (Sid Morris) Under Negotiations: Price & terms of lease 22. 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 May 9, 2000, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. Page 9 Council Agenda 05/02/2000 COU~IL O~EICE~ ~LA ,V~STA. CA ~, C~11~10~ NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CITY OF CHULA VISTA FY 2000-01 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM AND ANNUAL PLAN NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL will hold a public hearing on HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT NEEDS and on proposals to meet these needs through the use of the COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT Program. The hearing will be held on Tuesday, May 2, 2000 at 5:00 p.m. City Council Chambers, Public Services Building, 276 Fourth Avenue. For FY 2000-01, the City of Chula Vista will receive a Community Development Block Grant Entitlement of $2,033,000. The City proposes to use these funds for public facilities and improvements, public services, fair housing, and other community needs. These activities will primarily benefit Iow and moderate income families, with a minimum of 70% of the funds targeted to benefit Iow-income households. The public is invited to testify on the proposed draft Annual Plan to address the housing and community development needs of the City and to comment on the use of CDBG funds. The following COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES are proposed: 1. Provide assistance to organizations serving the varied needs of the community 2. Construct public improvements and facilities 3. Promote economic development and job creation 4. Provide assistance to community organizations for neighborhood revitalization and affordable housing 5. Furnish fair housing information and counseling services. Information on the FY 2000-01 CDBG program and Annual Plan is available for examination at the Community Development Department, 276 Fourth Avenue and the City of Chula Vista Main Library, 356 F Street. For more information, please call Judith Atwood at 585-5722. al~ ~ under penalty of perjury that I am DATED: April 18, 2000 a~r~/l~yed by the City of Chula Vista in the ;~t~fice of the City Clerk ~,nd that. I posted ~his Age~,~:~i'~o,:ice on the Bulletin Board at Chris Salomone the ~u!)hc Serwces ~;.lqn.: ~nd at City Hall on Community Development Director DA'I-ED~ ~',/~/~,/~/~ S:GN~L) ,4'&/.-'~/u~.¢~ " NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO FORM ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 97-01 CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL will hold a public heating to consider the following: Formation of Assessment District 97-01 for the construction of street improvements on Oxford Street between Fourth Avenue and Fifth Avenue. These improvements include widening the street and constructing pedestrian ramps, curb, gutters, sidewalks, driveway approaches and traffic signal modifications. The properties listed below are located within the District boundary and will be subject to the assessments listed below. These assessment amounts are less than or equal to the amount estimated for these properties during the balloting process held in accordance with the requirements of Proposition 218 in June 1997. The assessment amount does not include any interest which the property owner will be required to pay if this amount is financed. The total cost of the project is $562,149. SAID PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE CITY COUNCIL on Tuesday, May 2, 2000, at 4:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Public Services Building, 276 Fourth Avenue, at which time any person desiring to be heard may appear. For more information, and information regarding appeals which must be filed with the City in writing no later than May 1, please contact Elizabeth Chopp, Civil Engineer, at (619) 691-5258. Assessments: 496 Oxford St. - $1116; 478 Oxford St. - $984; 472 Oxford St. - $1084; 470 Oxford St. - $$625; 462 Oxford St. - $2083; 446 Oxford St. - $969; 442 Oxford St. - $1465; 438 Oxford - $887; 1197 Oxford Ct. - $587; 1196 Fourth Ave. - $826; 497-495 Oxford St. - $663; 485 Oxford St. - $997; 481 Oxford St. - $894; 475 Oxford St. - $1506; 467-471 Oxford St. - $2442; 465 Oxford St. - $888; 459 Oxford St. - $769; 461 Oxford St. - $970; 453-453A Oxford St. - $815; 447-449 Oxford St. - $244; 445 Oxford St. - $1112; 441 Oxford St. - $828; 437 Oxford St. - $835; 433 Oxford St. - $1008; 429 Oxford St. - $870; 423 Oxford St. - $1056; 419 Oxford St. - $1459; 415 Oxford St. - $1227; 409 Oxford St. - $1228; 1208 Fourth Ave. - $372 "1 declare under ~rnployed by t; e Ci? of ;;hu!n Vs~a in the Office of the (~y this Agonda~N:,~ce ~:~rl t:~e ~He~in Board at the Public Services Bu ~i~ ~:nd az City Hall on DATED~~~IGN ED NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE CITY COUNCIL of the City of Chnla Vista, CA, in City Council Chambers located in the Public Services Building, Chnla Vista Civic Center, 276 Fourth Avenue to consider the following project: HEARING DATE and TIME: May 2, 2000, 4:00 p.m. CASE NUMBERS: PCS 99-06 APPLICANT: Pacific Bay Homes SITE ADDRESS: The intersection of Hunte Parkway & Proctor Valley Road PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Consideration of an amendment to Conditions 1 and 3 of the Salt Creek Ranch Tentative Subdivision Map, Chula Vista Tract 92-02, and Section 3.2 of the Salt Creek Ranch Public Facilities Financing Plan to allow the applicant to proceed with development of a portion of Phase II prior to SR- 125 freeway opening for public access. ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: An Initial Study has been prepared for the project (IS 00-05) Any written comments or petitions to be submitted to the City Council must be received in the Planning Department no later than noon on the date of the hearing. Please direct any questions or comments to Project Planner Stan Donn in the Planning and Building Department, Public Services Building, Chnla Vista Civic Center, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chnla Vista, CA 91910, or by calling 691-5101. Please include case noted above in all correspondence. If you wish to challenge the City's action on this application in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearings, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning at or prior to the public hearings described in this notice. A copy of the application and accompanying documentation and/or plans are on file and available for inspection and review at the City Planning Department. COMPLIANCE WITH AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA) The City of Chula Vista, in complying with the American With Disabilities Act, requests individuals who require special accommodation to access, attend and/or participate in a City meeting, activity or service request such accommodation at lease 48 hours in advance, for meetings, and 5 days for scheduled services and activities. Please contact Diana Vargas for specific information at (619) 691-5101. Service for the hearing impaired is available at 585-5647 (TDD). "1 declare un~er penalty of perjury that I am em~',o ,ed b~ ~i:e "ity of Chula Vista in the O;~ice,,: ~i;e {:i~ Cl~'c~, ~.; that I posted this AgenJa/i',,m~!:o ;)n ~he ~;Jul!e~il'l Board at the Fublic Sr::rvc~s Su[!;in:: ~nd at City Hall on CHY OF CHULA VISI-A MEMORANDUM April 27, 2000 To: The Honorable Mayor and City Council From: David D. Rowlands, Jr., City Manage Subject: Council Meeting of May 2, 2000 This will transmit the agenda and related materials for the regular City Council meeting of Tuesday, May 2, 2000. Comments regarding the Written Communications are as follows: la. 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 April 18, 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. DDR:mab CI'IY OF CHUIA VISTA OFFICE OF THE CITY A'I-FORNEY Date: April 19, 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 4/18/00 The Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista met in Closed Session on 4/18/00 to discuss: · CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.8: Property: 1) 565-010-30 and 567-011-25 Midbayfront 96.57 acres 2) 567-010-28 Bayfront Park 4.94 acres 3) 567-011-01, 565-010-12, 565-010-15 SDG&E ROW 9.8 acres (apprx) portion of 565-010-18 4) 567-021-11, portion of 565-290-39 SD&AE ROW 2.3 acres (apprx) 5) 565-310-09 & 565-310-25 Street Merziotis 6.35 acres 6) 567-011-04 Marina Motor Hotel 1.0 acres 7) 567-010-18 Cappos 2.01 acres 8) 567-010-19 Shangri La 2.73 acres 9} 567-021-32 Lagoon Drive Park 1.14 acres Negotiating Redevelopment Agency/City of Chula Vista (Chris Salomone); Parties: Chula Vista Capital, B.F. Goodrich, SDG&E, Tuchscher Development Enterprises, Inc. Under Price and terms for disposition/acquisition Negotiations: 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 CHULA VISTA CALIFORNIA 91910 (619) 691-5037. FAX (619) 409-5823 COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item ca Meeting Date May 2, 2000 ITEM TITLE: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AND APPROVING THE BORROWING OF FUNDS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000-01 THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF A 2000-01 TAX AND REVENUE ANTICIPATION NOTE THEREFORE AND PARTICIPATION IN THE CALIFORNIA COMMUNITIES CASH FLOW FINANCING PROGRAM RESOLUTION DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO INCLUDE IN THE FISCAL YEAR 2000-01 PROPOSED BUDGET APPROPRIATIONS OF $114,500 FOR TAX AND REVENUE ANTICIPATION NOTE PROJECTED INTEREST AND ISSUANCE COSTS, AND ESTIMATED INTEREST REVENUES OF $114,500 FROM INVESTMENT OF THE NOTE PROCEEDS SUBMITTED BY: Deputy City Manager Powell f REVIEWED BY: City Manager ~, (4/5ths Vote: Yes __No X ) SUMMARY: In order to address cash shortfalls that are projected to occur in the General Fund during Fiscal Year 2000-01 due to the cyclical nature of some of our major revenue sources, it is recommended that the City again take advantage of the opportunity to borrow money on a short-term basis at the lowest cost by issuing a Tax and Revenue Anticipation Note (TRAN) through the pooled financing program sponsored by the League of California Cities. As has been done during the last three fiscal years, such a borrowing is recommended as an alternative to borrowing from other City Funds. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the resolutions which: 1. Authorize the borrowing of a maximum of $2.5 million for fiscal year 2000-01 by issuance of a TRAN through the California Communities Cash Flow Financing Program dated July 1, 2000 and with a maturity not to exceed 15 months; 2. Authorize various financing documentation, including a purchase agreement (attached) and an Indenture which is on file in the Finance Department. Page 2, Item Meeting Date 5/2/00 3. Authorize the Deputy City Manager and the Treasury Manager to sign the financing documentation in connection with the issuance. 4. Approve the team of financing experts selected by CSCDA. 5. Direct the City Manager to include the estimated interest cost of the borrowing and estimated interest revenues from investment of the note proceeds in the fiscal year 2000-01 Proposed Budget. DISCUSSION: Not unlike most public agencies that rely on property tax revenues to fund a significant portion of their operations, the City's reserves are insufficient to provide enough cash during certain times of the year to cover our fairly consistent expenditure patterns until the tax revenue is received. This is most acute early in each fiscal year prior to receiving the first large property tax apportionment in mid- December. TRAN's are the most common vehicle used by local government entities to obtain large amounts of cash on a short-term basis, and as explained under Fiscal Impact, are typically less expensive than internal borrowing from other restricted Funds. Issuing TRAN's is an established annual event for many local government entities, including the County, and the Cities of San Diego, Oceanside, El Cajon, and La Mesa. In addition, many school districts also issue TRAN's on an annual basis. The City of Chula Vista has routinely issued TRAN's during each of the last four fiscal years. Basically, money is borrowed through the municipal market by issuing a one year note at short-term tax exempt rates and the proceeds are invested until needed to cover shortfalls. All money borrowed, plus interest is repaid near the end of the fiscal year from any unrestricted revenues of the City. With the difference in the interest rate earned vs. paid (current spread 2.50% - 2.75%), there is often the opportunity to actually earn a small amount of arbitrage (net earnings based on the difference in the interest rate paid v. earned) on this type of borrowing, although this possibility has been severely curtailed with recent federal tax law changes which limit the amount borrowed. The California Statewide Communities Development Authority (CSCDA), sponsored by the League of California Cities and the California State Association of Counties, has operated a pooled TRAN program for member agencies for several years. The CSCDA Pool for fiscal year 2000 included 65 different local government entities borrowing in excess of $300 million. For the small issuer as the City of Chula Vista Page 3, Item '"' Meeting Date 5/2/00 would be when compared to larger Counties and Schools, the pooled concept offers significant savings through sharing the costs of issuance, a streamlined process, greater market access normally afforded only large issuers, etc. The group of financial experts working on the program for fiscal year 2001 will be the identical panel from this fiscal year's process, including Sutro & Co. as financial advisor, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe as bond counsel, and Morgan Stanley & Co., Lehman Brothers, and E.J. De La Rosa & Co. as the underwriting team. These experts were selected through a competitive process for a multi-year engagement. When the TRAN is actually priced in mid-June, in the unlikely event that the interest rate actually achieved is so high as to make the TRANS borrowing more expensive than an internal borrowing, we can and will abort the transaction at that time with no cost to the City and return to Council with information regarding internal borrowing alternatives. In any event, an informational item describing the results of the process would be presented to Council at that time. FISCAL IMPACT: Very preliminary cash flow projections show that the General Fund could reach its lowest cash balance of $278,485 in early December based on a balanced budget of $88.0 million. Under current federal tax laws, the City may borrow on a tax exempt basis an amount not to exceed the projected maximum deficit plus a reasonable working capital reserve, which conservatively results in a maximum legal borrowing amount of $2.5 million. The CSCDA financing team is currently estimating an interest rate on the TRAN of approximately 4.0%, and a cost of issuance of $14,500 for the City. Given these projections, the cost of the TRAN would be approximately $114,500 (interest of $100,000 and cost of issuance of $14,500). Estimated revenue from investing the proceeds of the borrowing until needed is conservatively projected to be at least equal to the cost of the borrowing. Therefore, the net cost of the TRAN issue is estimated to be zero. PURCHASE AGREEMENT THIS PURCHASE AGREEMElh~I' (the "Purchase Agreement"), dated as of the purchase date (the "Purchase Date") specified in Exlfibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof, entered into by and between the signatory local agency designated in Exhibit A (the "Local Agency") and the California Statewide Communities Development Authority (the "Authority"), for the sale and delivery of the principal mount specified in Exhibit A of the Local Agency's 2000 Tax and Revenue Anticipation Note (the "Note") to be issued in conjunction with the notes of other Issuers (as hereinafter defined) participating in the Program (as hereinafter defined), as determined in the Pricing Confirmation (as hereinafter defined), pooled with notes of other Issuers and assigned to secure a series (the "Series") of bonds (the "Bonds") designated in Exhibit A; WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, local agencies are authorized by Sections 53850 to 53858, both inclusive, of the Government Code of the State of California (the "Act") (being Article 7.6, Chapter 4, Part 1, Division 2, Title 5 of the Government Code) to borrow money by the issuance of temporary notes; WHEREAS, the legislative body of the Local Agency (the "Legislative Body") has heretofore adopted its resolution finding that the Local Agency needs to borrow funds in its fiscal year ending June 30, 2001 ("Fiscal Year 2000-2001") in the principal amount set forth in Exhibit A and that it is necessary that said sam be borrowed at this time by the issuance of a note therefor in anticipation of the receipt of taxes, income, revenue, cash receipts and other moneys to be received by the Local Agency during or attributable to Fiscal Year 2000-2001; WHEREAS, on the resolution date set forth in Extfibit A, the Local Agency adopted (as specified in Extfibit A) a resolution or resolutions (collectively or singularly, as applicable, the "Resolution") authorizing the issuance and sale of the Note in the name and on behalf of the Local Agency; V~IEREAS, the Local Agency has determined that it is in the best interests of the Local Agency to participate in the California Commurfities Cash Flow Financing Program (the "Program"), whereby participating local agencies (the "Issuers") will simultaneously issue tax and revenue anticipation promissory notes for purchase by the Authority; V~cIEREAS, under the Program, the Authority will form one or more pools of notes (the "Pooled Notes") and assign each note to a particular pool (the "Pool") and sell a Series of Bonds secured by each Pool pursuant to an indenture, dated as of July 1, 2000 (the "Indenture"), by and between the Authority and Wells Fargo Bank, National Association (the "Trustee"), and sell each such Series to Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated, as representative of the undemrriters of the Program (collectively, the "Underwhter"); DOCSLA 1:334586.1 40929-205 M32 WHEREAS, if so indicated in Exhibit A, the payment by the Local Agency of its Note will be secured in whole or in part (jointly, but not severally, with notes of the other participating Issuers assigned to the same Series of Bonds) by a letter of credit, policy of insurance. proceeds received from a separate bond issue issued by the Authority for such purpose (the "Reserve Fund") or other credit instrument (collectively, the "Credit Instrument") to be issued by the entity or entities designated in Exhibit A as the credit provider (the "Credit Provider"); WHEREAS, such Credit Instrument may be issued pursuant to a reimbursement agreement, commitment letter, indenture or other agreement (the "Credit Agreement") as identified in Exhibit A; WHEREAS, in order to participate in the Program, the Local Agency has agreed to be responsible for its share of the fees and expenses of the Trustee, and, if applicable, the Credit Provider and the costs of issuing the Bonds, and the costs, if applicable, of issuing the Credit Instrument, which anticipated fees, expenses and costs of issuanc.e wiI1 be deducted from the purchase price set forth in Exhibit A and which unanticipated fees, expenses and costs of issuance ':,,ill be billed to the Local Agency as the same may arise; WHEREAS, the costs of issuance which will be deducted from the purchase price set forth in Exhibit A for the Local Agency shall not exceed one percent (1%) of the principal amount of each Note; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the Program, the Authority is submitting this offer to purchase the Note pursuant to this Purchase Agreement; NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows: Section 1. Obligation to Purchase. Upon the terms and conditions and in reliance upon the representations, warranties and agreements set forth herein, the Authority shall purchase from the Local Agency, and the Local Agency shall sell to the Authority, the Note, as described herein and in the Resolution. Section 2. Purchase Price. The purchase price of the Note shall be the purchase price set forth in the pricing confirmation attached hereto as Exhibit A (the "Pricing Confirmation"). The Note shall bear interest at an interest rate per annum set forth in the Pricing Confirmation, which is hereby agreed to by and between the Authority and the Local Agency by its duly authorized representative executing this Purchase Agreement on behalf of the Local Agency. Section 3. Adiustments to Principal Amount of Note and Purchase Price. The Authority and the Local Agency hereby agree that the principal amount of the Note purchased by the Authority and sold to the Authority by the Local Agency pursuant to this Purchase Agreement may be reduced, as determined by the Authority and each Local Agency, based upon the advice of Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP ("Bond Counsel"), in order that the proceeds produced from such sale of such Note will be an amount which will not be subject to either (i) yield restriction (in order for interest to be excluded from gross income under Section 103 of the internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the "Code")) or (ii) a rebate requirement (under Section t48 of the Code). The Authority and the Local Agency' hereb.v further agree thru the purchase price of the Note shall be reduced as a result of any reduction of the principal amount of the Note required by this section. Section 4. Delivery of and Payment for the Nole. The delivery of the Note (the "Closing") shall take place at 8:00 a.m., California time, on the closing date set forth in the Pricing Confirmation or at such other time or date as may be mutually agreeable to the Local Agency, the Authority and the Underwriter, at the Los Angeles office of Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP or such other place as the Local Agency, the Authority and the Underwriter shall mutually agree. At the Closing, the Local Agency shall cause the Note to be delivered to the Authority, dui>' executed and authenticated, together with the other documents hereinafter mentioned, and the proceeds of the purchase price of the Note set forth in the Pricing Confirmation shall be deposited in an amount indicated in the .-Pricing Confirmation as the Deposit to Proceeds Fund which shall be held by the Trustee for the Local Agency and the remainder in the Costs of Issuance Fund held thereunder. If at any time prior to 90 days after the Closing Date, any event occurs as a result of which information relating to the Local Agency included in the official statement of the Authority relating ~o the Series of Bonds to which the Note is assigned (the "Official Statement") contains an unt~'ue statement of a material fact or omits to state any material fact necessary to make the statements therein in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading, the Local Agency shall promptly notify the Authority and the Underwriter thereof, and if, in the opinion of the Authority or the Underwriter, such event requires the preparation and publication of a supplement or amendment to the Official Statement, the Local Agency shall cooperate with the Authority and the Underwriter in the preparation of an amendment or supplement to the Official Statement in a form and in a manner approved by the Authority and the Underwriter, and all reasonable expenses incurred thereby shall be paid by the Local Agency. .Section $. The Note. The Note shall be issued in substantially the form set forth in the Resolution, without coupons in the full principal amount set forth in Exhibit A. Section 6. Representations and Warranties of the Local Agenc.v. The Local Agency represents and warrants to the Authority and the Underwriter that: (a) All representations and warranties set forth in the Resolution are true and correct on the date hereof and are made for the benefit of the Authority and the Underwriter as if set forth herein. (b) The information relating to the Local Agency included in the Official Statement does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state any material fact necessary to make the statements therein in light of the circumstance under which they were made not misleading. (c) A cop5' of the Resolution has been delivered to the Authority and the Underwriter, and the Resolution ',','ill not be amended or repealed without the consent of the Authority and the Underwriter, which consent will not be unreasonably withheld. (d) The Local Agency acknowledges that the Authority is authorized to execute the Indenture, to assign the Note to the Trustee under the Indenture and to issue the Series of Bonds pursuant to the Indenture. (e) The Local Agency shall provide the required Payment Account Deposit Certification (upon a request therefor) in accordance with Section 5.06 of the Indenture. (f) The Local Agency has not issued and will not issue any obligation or obligations, other than the Note, to finance the working capital deficit for which the Note is being issued. ~ection 7. Conditions Precedent to the Closing. Conditions precedent to the Closing are as follows: (a) The execution and delivery of the Note consistent with the Resolution. (b) Delivery of a legal opinion addressed to the Local Agency (with a reliance letter addressed to the Authority and the Underwriter), dated the date of closing of Bond Counsel with respect to the validity of the Note in form and substance acceptable to the Authority and the Underwriter. (c) Deliver3, of a legal opinion, dated the date of Closing, of counsel to the Local A,gency, with respect to the due authorization, execution and delivery of the Note, in form and substance acceptable to Bond Counsel. (d) Approval by the Credit Provider of the credit of the Local Agency and inclusion of the Local Agency's Note in the assignment, together with notes of other Issuers, to a Series of Bonds. to secure the Series of Bonds, which approval in the event the Credit Instrument is the Reserve Fund shall be evidenced by the issuance of an "SP-I+" rating with respect to the applicable Series of Bonds by Standard & Poor's Ratings Services. (e) Delivery of each certificate, document, instrument and opinion required by the agreement between the Authority and the Underwriter for the sale by the Authority and purchase by the Underwriter of the Series of Bonds to which the Pooled Note is assigned. (f) Delivery of such other certificates, instruments or opinions as Bond Counsel may deem necessary or desirable to evidence the due authorization, execution and delivery of documents pertaining to this transaction and the legal, valid and binding nature thereof or as may be required by the Credit Agreement, as well as compliance of all parties with the terms and conditions thereof. 4/)929-2t)5 5132 4 Section 8. Events Permitting the Authority to Terminate. The Authority may terminate its obligation to purchase the Note at any time before the Closing if any of the following occurs: (a) Any legislative, executive or regulator3, action (including the introduction of legislation) or any court decision which, in the judgment of the Authority, casts sufficient doubt on the legality of obligations such as the Note, and the tax-exempt status of interest on obligations such as the Bonds, so as to impair materially the marketability or to reduce materially the market price of such obligations; (b) Any action by the Securities and Exchange Commission or a court which would require registration of the Note, the Bonds or any instrument securing the Note or Bonds under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, in connection with the public offering thereof, or qualification of the Resolution or the Indenture under the Trust Indenture Act of 1939, as amended; (c) Any restriction on trading in securities, or any banking moratorium, or the inception or escalation of any war or major military hostilities which, in the judgment of the Authority, substantially impairs the ability of the Underwriter to market the Bonds; or (d) The Underwriter terminates its obligation to purchase the Series of Bonds to which the Note is assigned pursuant to its agreement with the Authority for the purcbase of such Series of Bonds. Neither the Underwriter nor the Authority shall be responsible for the payment of any fees, costs or expenses of the issuance, offering and sale of the Local Agency's Note except the Underwriter shall be responsible for California Debt and Investment Advisory Commission fees and for its own internal costs. The fees, costs and expenses that are categorized in the "Costs of Issuance" definition in the indenture shall be paid from the Costs of Issuance Fund. The Local Agency shall pay any additional costs attributable to it as set forth in the Resolution other than the fees. costs and expenses so payab}e from the applicable Costs of Issuance Fund. Section 9. Indemnification. To the extent permitted by law, the Local Agency agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the Authority and the Underwriter and each person, if an>,, who controls (within the meaning of Section 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or of Section 20 of the Securities Act of 1934, as amended) the Authority or the Underwriter, and the officers, directors, agents and employees of the Authority and the Underwriter against any and all losses, claims, damages, liabilities and expenses arising out of any statement or information in the Preliminary Official Statement or in the Official Statement (other than statements or information regarding an Issuer other than the Local Agency) that is untrue or incorrect in any material respect or the omission or alleged omission therefrom of any statement or information (other than statements or information regarding an issuer other than the Local Agency) that should be stated therein or that is necessary to make the statements and information therein not misleading in any material respect. Section 10. Credit Agreement. The Local Agency shall comply with all lawful and proper requests of the Authority in order to enable the Authority to comply with all of the terms, conditions and covenants binding upon it under the Credit Agreement. Section 11. Notices. Any notices to be given to the Underwriter under the Purchase Agreement shall be given in writing to Morgan Stanley & Co. Incorporated, Attention: 555 California Street, Suite 2200, San Francisco, CA 94104. Any notices to be given to the Authority under the Purchase Agreement shall be given in writing to the Authority, 1100 "K" Street, Suite 101, Sacramento, CA 95814, Attention: Secretary. Any notices to be given to the Local Agency shall be given in writing to the address specified in Exhibit A. Section 12. No Assignment. The Purchase Agreement has been made by the Local Agency and the Authority, and no person other than the Local Agency and the Authority or their successors or assigns and the Underwriter shall acquire or have any right under or by virtue of the Purchase Agreement. All of the representations, warranties..and agreements contained in the Purchase Agreement shall survive the delivery of and payment by the Authority for the Note and any termination of the Purchase Agreement. Section 13. Applicable Law. The Purchase Agreement shall be interpreted, governed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of California. Section 14. Effectiveness. The Purchase Agreement shall become effective upon the execution hereof by the Authority and execution of the Pricing Confirmation by the Local Agency, and the Purchase Agreement, including the Pricing Confirmation, shall be valid, binding and enforceable from and after the time of such effectiveness. Section 15. Severability. In the event any provision of the Purchase Agreement shall be held invalid or unenforceable by any court of competent jurisdiction, such holding shall not invalidate or render unenforceable any other provision hereof. Section 16. Headin~os. Any headings preceding the text of several sections hereof shall be solely for convenience of reference and shall not constitute a part of this Agreement. nor shall they affect its meaning, construction or effect. Section 17. Execution in Counterparts. This Purchase Agreement may be executed and entered into in several counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original and all of which shatl constitute but one and the same instrument. EN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Purchase Agreement to be executed by their duly authorized representatives as of the Purchase Date set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein. CALIFORNIA STATEWIDE COMMUNITIES DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY By: Member of the Commission of the Authority D( )CSLA I :q34586 I 4~1929-2(~5 M32 7 CITY OF CHULA VISTA LOCAL AGENCY RESOLUTION NUMBER RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AND APPROVING THE BORROWING OF FUNDS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000-2001; THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF A 2000-2001 TAX AND REVENUE ANTICIPATION NOTE THEREFOR AND PARTICIPATION IN THE CALIFORNIA COMMUNITIES CASH FLOW FINANCING PROGRAM WHEREAS, local agencies are authorized by Section 53850 to 53858, both inclusive, of the Government Code of the State of California (the "Act") (being Article 7.6, Chapter 4, Part 1, Division 2, Title 5 of the Government Code) to borrow money by the issuance of temporary notes; WHEREAS, the legislative body (the "Legislative Body") of the local agency specified in Section 25 hereof (the "Local Agency") has determined that a sum (the "Principal Amount"), not to exceed the Maximum Amount of Borrowing specified in Section 25 hereof, which Principal Amount is to be confirmed and set in the Pricing Confirmation (as defined in Section 4 hereof), is needed for the requirements of the Local Agency, to satisfy obligations of the Local Agency, and that it is necessary that said Principal Amount be borrowed for such purpose at this time by the issuance of a note therefor in anticipation of the receipt of taxes, income, revenue, cash receipts and other moneys to be received by the Local Agency for the general fund of the Local Agency attributable to its fiscal year ending June 30, 2001 ("Fiscal Year 2000-2001"); WHEREAS, the Local Agency hereby determines to borrow, for the purposes set forth above, the Principal Amount by the issuance of the Note (as hereinafter defined); WHEREAS, it appears, and this Legislative Body hereby finds and determines, that the Principal Amount, when added to the interest payable thereon, does not exceed eighty- five percent (85%) of the estimated amount of the uncollected taxes, income, revenue (including, but not limited to, revenue from the state and federal governments), cash receipts and other moneys of the Local Agency attributable to Fiscal Year 2000-2001 and available for the payment of the principal of the Note and the interest thereon; WHEREAS, no money has heretofore been borrowed by or on behalf of the Local Agency through the issuance of tax anticipation notes or temporary notes in anticipation of the receipt of, or payable from or secured by, taxes, income, revenue, cash receipts or other moneys for Fiscal Year 2000-2001; WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 53856 of the Act, certain moneys which will be received by the Local Agency during and attributable to Fiscal Year 2000-2001 can be pledged for the payment of the principal o f the Note and the interest thereon (as hereinafter provided); WHEREAS, the Local Agency has determined that it is in the best interests of thc Local Agency to participate in the California Communities Cash Flow Financing Program (the "Progranf'), whereby participating local agencies (collectively, the "issuers") will simultaneously issue tax and revenue anticipation notes; WHEREAS, the Program requires the participating Issuers to sell their tax and revenue anticipation notes to the California Statewide Communities Development Authority (the "Authority") pursuant to note purchase agreements (collectively, "Purchase Agreements"), each between such individual Issuer and the Authority, and dated as of the date of the Pricing Confirmation, a form of which has been submitted to the Legislative Body; WHEREAS, the Authority, in consultation with Sutro & Co. Incorporated, as financial advisor for the Program (the "Financial Advisor"), will form one or more pools of notes (the "Pooled Notes") and assign each note to a particular pool (the "Pool") and sell a series (the "Series") of bonds (the "Bonds") secured by each Pool pursuant to an indenture (the "Indenture") between the Authority and Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as trustee (the "Trustee"), each Series distinguished by whether or what type(s) of Credit Instrument(s) (as hereinafter defined) secure(s) such Series, by the principal amounts of the notes assigned to the Pool or by other factors, and the Local Agency hereby acknowledges and approves the discretion of the Authority to assign the Note to such Pool and such Indenture as the Authority may determine; WHEREAS, as additional security for the owners of each Series of Bonds, all or a portion of the payments by all of the Issuers of the notes assigned to such Series may or may not be secured (by virtue or in form of the Bonds, as indicated in the Pricing Confirmation, being secured in whole or in part) by an irrevocable letter (or letters) of credit or policy (or policies) of insurance or proceeds of a separate bond issue issued for such purpose (the "Reserve Fund") or other credit instrument (or instruments) (collectively, the "Credit Instrument") issued by the credit provider or credit providers designated in the Indenture, as finally executed (collectively, the "Credit Provider"), pursuant to a credit agreement or agreements or commitment letter or letters or, in the case of the Reserve Fund, an indenture (the "Reserve Indenture") (collectively, the "Credit Agreement") between (i) in the case of an irrevocable letter (or letters) of credit or policy (or policies) of insurance, the Authority and the respective Credit Provider and (ii) in the case of the Reserve Fund, the Authority and Wells Fargo Bank National Association, as trustee o f the Reserve Indenture (the "Reserve Trustee"); WHEREAS, if, as designated in the Pricing Confirmation, the Credit Instrument is the Reserve Fund, bonds issued pursuant to the Reserve Indenture (the "Reserve Bonds") may, as indicated in the Pricing Confirmation, be secured by an irrevocable letter of credit or policy of insurance or other credit instrument (the "Reserve Credit Instrument") issued by the credit provider identified in the Reserve Indenture as finally executed (the "Reserve Credit Provider"), pursuant to a credit agreement or commitment letter (the "Reserve Credit Agreement") identified in the Reserve Indenture as finally executed, such Reserve Credit Agreement being between the Authority and the Reserve Credit Provider; WHEREAS, the net proceeds of the Note may be invested by the Local Agency in Permitted Investments (as defined in the Indenture) or in any other investment permitted by the laws of the State of California, as now in effect and as hereafter amended, modified or supplemented from time to time; WHEREAS, as part of the Program each participating Issuer approves the Indenture, the alternative forms of Credit Agreements, if any, and the alternative forms of Reserve Credit Agreements, if any, in substantially the forms presented to the Legislative Body, with the final form of Indenture, type of Credit instrument and corresponding Credit Agreement -2- and type of Reserve Credit Instrument and corresponding Reserve Credit Agreement, if any, to be determined and approved by delivery of the Pricing Confirmation; WHEREAS, pursuant to the Program each participating Issuer will be responsible for its share of (a) the fees of the Trustee and the costs of issuing the applicable Series of Bonds, and (b), if applicable, the fees of the Credit Provider, the fees of the Reserve Crcdit Provider (which shall be payable from, among other sources, investment earnings on the Reserve Fund and moneys in the Costs of Issuance Fund established and held under the Indenture), the issuer's allocable share of all Predefault Obligations and the Issuer's Reimbursement Obligations, if any (each as defined in the Indenture); WHEREAS, pursuant to the Program each participating Issuer will be responsible for its share of the fees of the Reserve Trustee and the costs of issuing the applicable Series of Reserve Bonds, all such costs and fees being payable from the proceeds of the applicable Series of Bonds (or, with rcspect to costs and fees of the Reserve Credit Provider, as may otherwise be provided in the Reserve Indenture); WHEREAS, pursuant to the Program, the underwriter will submit an offer to the Authority to purchase, in the case of each Pool of Notes, the Series of Bonds which will be secured by the indenture to which such Pool will be assigned; WHEREAS, it is necessary to engage the services of certain professionals to assist the Local Agency in its participation in the Program; NOW, THEREFORE, the Legislative Body hereby finds, determines, declares and resolves as follows: Section 1. Recitals. This Legislative Body hereby finds and determines that all the above recitals are tree and correct. Section 2. Authorization of Issuance. This Legislative Body hereby determines to borrow solely for the purpose of anticipating taxes, income, revenue, cash receipts and other moneys to be received by the Local Agency for the general fund of the Local Agency attributable to Fiscal Year 2000-2001, by the issuance of a note in the Principal Amount under Sections 53850 et seq. of the Act, designated the Local Agency's "2000 Tax and Revenue Anticipation Note" (the "Note"), to be issued in the form of one fully registered note at the Principal Amount thereof, to be dated the date of its delivery to the initial purchaser thereof, to mature (without option of prior redemption) not more than fifteen months thereafter on a date indicated on the face thereof and determined in the Pricing Confirmation (the "Maturity Date"), and to bear interest, payable at maturity (and if the maturity is more than twelve months from the date of issuance, payable on the interim payment date set forth in the Pricing Confirmation) and computed upon the basis of a 360-day year consisting of twelve 30-day months, at a rate not to exceed twelve percent (12%) per annum as determined in the Pricing Confirmation and indicated on the Pace of the Note (the "Note Rate"). If the Series of Bonds issued in connection with the Note is secured in whole or in part by a Credit Instrument or such Credit Instrument (other than the Reserve Fund) secures the Note in whole or in part and all principal of and interest on the Note is not paid in full at maturity or if payment of principal of and/or interest on the Note is paid (in whole or in part) by a draw under, payment by or claim upon a Credit Instrument which -3- draw, payment or claim is not fully reimbursed on such date, such Note shall become a Defaulted Note (as defined in the Indenture), and the unpaid portion (including the interest component, if applicable) thereof (or the portion (including the interest component, if applicable) thereof with respect to which a Credit instrument applies for which reimbursement on a draw, payment or claim has not been fully made) shall be deemed outstanding and shall continue to bear interest thereafter until paid at the Default Rate (as defined in the Indenture). If the Credit Instrument is the Reserve Fund and the Reserve Bonds issued to fund the Reserve Fund are secured by the Reserve Credit Instrument and a Drawing (as defined in the indenture) pertaining to the Note is not fully reimbursed by the Reserve Principal Payment Date (as defined in the Indenture), such Note shall become a Defaulted Reserve Note (as defined in the Indenture), and the unpaid portion (including the interest component, if applicable) thereof (or portion (including the interest component, if applicable) with respect to which the Reserve Fund applies for which reimbursement on a Drawing has not been fully made) shall be deemed outstanding and shall continue to bear interest thereafter until paid at the Default Rate. If the Note or the Series of Bonds issued in connection with the Note is unsecured in whole or in part and the Note is not fully paid at maturity, the unpaid portion thereof (or the portion thereof to which no Credit Instrument applies which is unpaid) shall be deemed outstanding and shall continue to bear interest thereafter until paid at the Default Rate. In each case set forth in the preceding three sentences, the obligation of the Local Agency with respect to such Defaulted Note or unpaid Note shall not be a debt or liability of the Local Agency prohibited by Article XVI, Section 18 of the California Constitution and the Local Agency shall not be liable thereon except to the extent of any available revenues attributable to Fiscal Year 2000-2001, as provided in Section 8 hereof. The percentage of the Note to which a Credit Instmment, if any, applies (the "Secured Percentage") shall be equal to the amount of the Credit Instrument divided by the aggregate amount of unpaid principal of and interest on the unpaid notes (or portions thereof) of all Issuers, expressed as a percentage (but not greater than 100%) as of the maturity date. The percentage of the Note to which the Reserve Credit Instrument, if any, applies (the "Secured Reserve Percentage") shall be equal to the amount of the Reserve Credit Instrument divided by the aggregate amount of unpaid principal of and interest on such unpaid notes (or portions thereof, including the interest component, if applicable), expressed as a percentage (but not greater than 100%) as of the Reserve Principal Payment Date. Both the principal of and interest on the Note shall be payable in lawful money of the United States of America. The principal of and interest on the Note at maturity shall be paid upon surrender of the Note at the corporate trust office of Wells Fargo Bank, National Association in Los Angeles, California. The Note shall be issued in conjunction with the note or notes of one or more other Issuers as part of the Program and within the meaning of Section 53853 of the Act. Section 3. Form of Note. The Note shall be issued in fully registered forn~ without coupons and shall be substantially in the form and substance set forth in Exhibit A as attached hereto and by reference incorporated herein, the blanks in said forms to be filled in with appropriate words and figures. Section 4. Sale of Note; Delegation. The Note shall be sold to the Authority pursuant to the Purchase Agreement. The form of the Purchase Agreement, including the form of the pricing confirmation supplement (the "Pricing Confirmation") set forth as Exhibit A thereto, presented to this meeting are hereby approved. The authorized representatives set forth in Section 25 hereof (the "Authorized Representatives") are each hereby authorized and directed to execute and deliver the Purchase Agreement in substantially said form, with such changes thereto as such Authorized Representative shall approve, such approval to be conclusively evidenced by his or her execution and delivery thereof; provided, however, that the Purchase Agreement shall not be effective and binding on the Local Agency until the execution and delivery of the Pricing Confirmation. The Authorized Representatives are each hereby further authorized and directed to execute and deliver the Pricing Confirmation in substantially said form, with such changes thereto as such Authorized Representative shall approve, such approval to be conclusively evidenced by his or her execution and delivery thereof; provided, however, that the interest rate on the Note shall not exceed twelve percent (12%) per annum, the discount on the Note, when added to the Local Agency's share of the costs of issuance of the Bonds, shall not exceed one percent (1.0%), and the Principal Amount shall not exceed the Maximum Amount of Borrowing. Delivery of an executed copy of the Pricing Confirmation by fax or tclecopy shall be deemed effective execution and delivery for all purposes. Section 5. Program Approval. The Pricing Confirmation shall indicate whether and what type of Credit Instrument and, if applicable, Reserve Credit Instrument will apply. The forms of Indenture, alternative general types and forms of Credit Agreements, if any, and alternative general types and forms of Reserve Credit Agreements, if any, presented to this meeting are hereby acknowledged, and it is acknowledged that the Authority will execute and deliver the Indenture, one or more Credit Agreements, if applicable, and one or more Reserve Credit Agreements, if applicable, which shall be identified in the Pricing Confirmation, in substantially one or more of said forms with such changes therein as the Authorized Representative who executes the Pricing Confirmation shall require or approve (substantially final forms of the Indenture, the Credit Agreement and, if applicable, the Reserve Credit Agreement are to be delivered to the Authorized Representative concurrent with the Pricing Confirmation), such approval of the Authorized Representative and this Legislative Body to be conclusively evidenced by the execution of the Pricing Confirmation. If the Credit Agreement identified in the Pricing Confirmation is the Reserve Indenture, it is acknowledged that the Authority will issue the Reserve Bonds pursuant to and as provided in the Reserve Indenture as finally executed. Any one of the Authorized Representatives of the Local Agency is hereby authorized and directed to provide the Financial Advisor or the underwriter with such information relating to the Local Agency as the Financial Advisor or the underwriter shall reasonably request for inclusion in the Preliminary Official Statement and Official Statement of the Authority. Upon inclusion of the information relating to the Local Agency therein, the Preliminary Official Statement and Official Statement or such other offering document is, except for certain omissions pemfitted by Rule 15c2-12 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Rule"), hereby deemed final within the meaning of the Rule with respect to the Local Agency and any Authorized Representative of the Local Agency is authorized to execute a certificate to such effect. If, at any time prior to the end of the underwriting period, as defined in the Rule, any event occurs as a result of which the information contained in the Preliminary Official Statement or other offering document relating to the Local Agency might include an untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state any material fact necessary to make the statements therein, in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading, the Local Agency shall promptly notify the Financial Advisor and the underwriter. Subject to Section 8 hereof, the Local Agency hereby agrees that if the Note shall become a Defaulted Note, the unpaid portion (including the interest component, if applicable) thereof or the portion (including the interest component, if applicable) to which a Credit Instrument applies for which full reimbursement on a draw, payment or claim has not been made by the Maturity Date shall be deemed outstanding and shall not be deemed to be paid until (i) any Credit Provider providing a Credit Instrument with respect to the Note or the Series of Bonds issued in connection xvith the Note, has been reimbursed for any drawings, payments or claims made under or from the Credit Instrument with respect to the Note, including interest accrued thereon, as provided therein and in the applicable Credit Agreement, and, (ii) the holders of the Note, or Series of the Bonds issued in connection with the Note, are paid the full principal amount represented by the unsecured portion of the Note plus interest accrued thereon (calculated at the Default Rate) to the date of deposit of such aggregate required amount with the Trustee. For purposes of clause (ii) of the preceding sentence, holders of the Series of Bonds will be deemed to have received such principal amount upon deposit of such moneys with the Trustee. Subject to Section 8 hereof, the Local Agency hereby agrees that if the Note shall become a Defaulted Reserve Note, the unpaid portion (including the interest component, if applicable) thereof or the portion (including the interest component, if applicable) to ~vhich a Reserve Credit Instrument, if any, applies for which full reimbursement on a Drawing has not been made by the Reserve Principal Payment Date shall be deemed outstanding and shall not be deemed paid until (i) any Reserve Credit Provider providing a Reserve Credit Instrument with respect to the Reserve Bonds (against the Reserve Fund of which such Drawing was made) has been reimbursed for any Drawing or payment made under the Reserve Credit Instrument with respect to the Note, including interest accrued thereon, as provided therein and in the Reserve Credit Agreement, and (ii) the holders of the Note, or Series of Bonds issued in connection with the Note, are paid the full principal amount represented by the unsecured portion of the Note plus interest accrued thereon (calculated at the Default Rate) to the date of deposit of such aggregate required amount with the Trustee. For the purposes of clause (ii) of the preceding sentence, holders of the Series of Bonds will be deemed to have received such principal amount upon deposit of such moneys with the Trustee. The Local Agency agrees to pay or cause to be paid, in addition to the amounts payable under the Note, any fees or expenses of the Trustee and, to the extent permitted by law, if the Local Agency's Note is secured in whole or in part by a Credit Instrument and, if applicable, a Reserve Credit Instrument (by virtue of the fact that the Series of Bonds is secured by a Credit Instrument and, if applicable, Reserve Bonds are secured by a Reserve Credit Instrument), any Predefault Obligations and Reimbursement Obligations (to the extent not payable under the Note), (i) arising out of an "Event of Default" hereunder (or pursuant to Section 7 hereof) or (ii) arising out of any other event (other than an event arising solely as a result of or otherwise attributable to a default by any other Issuer). In the case described in (ii) above with respect to Predefault Obligations, the Local Agency shall owe only the percentage of such fees, expenses and Predefault Obligations equal to the ratio of the principal amount of its Note over the aggregate principal amounts of all notes, including the Note, of the Series of which the Note is a part, at the time of original issuance of such Series. Such additional amounts will bc paid by the Local Agency within twenty-five (25) days of receipt by the Local Agency of a bill therefor from the Trustee. Section 6. No Joint Obligation. The Note will be issued in conjunction with a note or notes of one or more other Issuers, assigned to secure a Series of Bonds. In all cases, the obligation of the Local Agency to make payments on or in respect to its Note is a several and not a joint obligation and is strictly limited to the Local Agency's repayment obligation under this Resolution and the Note. Section 7. Disposition of Proceeds of Note. A portion of the moneys received from the sale of the Note in an amount equal to the Local Agency's share of the costs of issuance (which shall include any fees and expenses in connection with any Credit Instrument (and the Reserve Credit Instrument, if any) applicable to the Note or Series of Bonds and the corresponding Reserve Bonds, if any) shall be deposited in the Costs of Issuance Fund held and invested by the Trustee under the Indenture and expended as directed by the Authority on costs of issuance as provided in the Indenture. The balance of the moneys received from the sale of the Note to the Authority shall be deposited in the Local Agency's Proceeds Subaccount hereby authorized to be created pursuant to, and held and invested by the Trustee under, the Indenture for the Local Agency and said moneys may be used and expended by the Local Agency for any purpose for which it is authorized to use and expend moneys, upon requisition from the Proceeds Subaccount as specified in the Indenture. Amounts in the Proceeds Subaccount are hereby pledged to the payment of the Note. The Trustee will not create subaccounts within the Proceeds Fund, but will keep records to account separately for proceeds of the Bonds allocable to the Local Agency's Note on deposit m the Proceeds Fund which shall constitute the Local Agency's Proceeds Subaccount. Section 8. Source of Payment. (A) The principal amount of the Note, together with the interest thereon, shall be payable from taxes, income, revenue (including, but not limited to, revenue from the state and federal governments), cash receipts and other moneys which are received by the Local Agency for the general fund of the Local Agency and are attributable to Fiscal Year 2000-2001 and which are available for payment thereof. As security for the payment of the principal of and interest on the Note, the Local Agency hereby pledges certain unrestricted revenues (as hereinafter provided, the "Pledged Revenues") which are received by the Local Agency for the general fund of the Local Agency and are attributable to Fiscal Year 2000-2001, and the principal of the Note and the interest thereon shall constitute a first lien and charge thereon and shall be payable from the first moneys received by the Local Agency from such Pledged Revenues, and, to the extent not so paid, shall be paid from any other taxes, income, revenue, cash receipts and other moneys of the Local Agency lawfully available therefor (all as provided for in Sections 53856 and 53857 of the Act). The term "unrestricted revenues" shall mean all taxes, income, revenue (including, but not limited to, revenue from the state and federal governments), cash receipts, and other moneys, intended as receipts for the general fund of the Local Agency attributable to Fiscal Year 2000-2001 and which are generally available for the payment of current expenses and other obligations of the Local Agency. The Noteholders, Bondholders, Credit Provider and, if applicable, the Reserve Credit Provider shall have a first lien and charge on such certain unrestricted revenues as hereinafter provided which are received by the Local Agency and are attributable to Fiscal Year 2000-2001. 7 In order to effect the pledge referenced in the preceding paragraph, the Local Agency hereby agrees and covenants to establish and maintain a special account within the Local Agency's general fund to be designated the "2000 Tax and Revenue Anticipation Note Payment Account" (the "Payment Account") and further agrees and covenants to maintain the Payment Account until the payment of the principal of the Note and the interest thereon. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if the Local Agency elects to have Note proceeds invested in Permitted Investments to be held by the Trustee pursuant to the Pricing Confirmation, a subaccount of the Payment Account (the "Payment Subaccount") shall be established for the Local Agency under the Indenture and proceeds credited to such account shall be pledged to the payment of the Note. The Trustee need not create a subaccount, but may keep a record to account separately for procceds of the Note so held and invested by the Trustee which record shall constitute the Local Agency's Proceeds Subaccount. Transfers from the Payment Subaccount shall be made in accordance with the Indenture. The Local Agency agrees to transfer to and deposit in the Payment Account the first amounts received in the months specified in the Pricing Confirmation as Repayment Months (each individual ~nonth a "Repayment Month" and collectively "Repayment Months") (and any amounts received thereafter attributable to Fiscal Year 2000- 2001 ) until the amount on deposit in the Payment Account, together with the amount, if any, on deposit in the Payment Subaccount, and taking into consideration anticipated investment earnings theron to be received by the Maturity Date, is equal in the respective Repayment Months identified in the Pricing Confirmation to the percentage of the principal and interest due on the Note specified in the Pricing Confirmation. In making such transfer and deposit, the Local Agency shall not be required to physically segregate the amounts to be transferred to and deposited in the Payment Account from the Local Agency's other general fund moneys, but, notwithstanding any commingling of funds for investment or other purposes, the amounts required to be transferred to and deposited in the Payment Account shall nevertheless be subject to the lien and charge created herein. Any one of the Authorized Representatives of the Local Agency is hereby authorized to approve the determination of the Repayment Months and percentages of the principal and interest due on the Note required to be on deposit in the Payment Account and/or the Payment Subaccount in each Repayment Month, all as specified in the Pricing Confirmation, by executing and delivering the Pricing Confirmation, such execution and delivery to be conclusive evidence of approval by this Legislative Body and such Authorized Representative; provided, however, that the maximum number of Repayment Months shall be six and the maximum amount of Pledged Revenues required to be deposited in each Repayment Month shall not exceed fifty percent (50%) of the aggregate principal and interest due on the Note. In the event on the day in each such Repayment Month that a deposit to the Payment Account is required to be made, the Local Agency has not received sufficient unrestricted revenues to permit the deposit into the Payment Account of the Full amount of Pledged Revenues to be deposited in the Payment Account from said unrestricted revenues in said month, then the amount of any deficiency shall be satisfied and made up from any other moneys of the Local Agency lawfully available for thc payment of the principal of the Note and the interest thereon, as and when such other moneys are received or are otherwise legally available. (B) Any moneys placed in the Payment Account or the Payment Subaccount shall be for the benefit of (i) the holder of the Note and the holders of Bonds issued in connection with the Notes, (ii) (to the extent provided in the Indenture) the Credit Provider, if any, and (iii) (to the extent provided in the Indenture and, if applicable, the Credit Agreement) the Reserve Credit Provider, if any. The moneys in the Payment Account and the Payment Subaccount shall be applied only for the purposes for which such Accounts are created until the principal of the Note and all interest thereon are paid or until provision has been made for the payment of the principal of the Note at maturity with interest to maturity (in accordance with the requirements for defeasance of the Bonds as set forth in the Indenture) and, if applicable, (to the extent provided in the Indenture and, if applicable, the Credit Agreement) the payment of all Predefault Obligations and Reimbursement Obligations owing to the Credit Provider and, if applicable, the Rcserve Credit Provider. (C) The Local Agency hereby directs the Trustee to transfer on the Note Payment Deposit Date (as defined in the Indenture), any moneys in the Payment Subaccount to the Bond Payment Fund (as defined in the Indenture). In addition, on the Note Payment Deposit Date, the moneys in the Payment Account shall be transferred by the Local Agency to the Trustee, to the extent necessary (after crediting any transfer pursuant to the preceding sentence), to pay the principal of and/or interest on the Note or to reimburse the Credit Provider for payments made under or pursuant to the Credit Instrument. In the event that moneys in the Payment Account and/or the Payment Subaccount are insufficient to pay the principal of and interest on the Note in full when due, such moneys shall be applied in the following priority: first to pay interest on the Note; second to pay principaI of the Note; third to reimburse the Credit Provider for payment, if any, of interest with respect to the Note; fourth to reimburse the Credit Provider for payment, if any, of principal with respect to the Note; fifth to reimburse the Reserve Credit Provider, if any, for payment, if any, of interest with respect to the Note; sixth to reimburse the Reserve Credit Provider, if any, for payment, if any, of principal with respect to the Note; and seventh to pay any Reimbursement Obligations of the Local Agency and any of the Local Agency's pro rata share of Predefault Obligations owing to the Credit Provider and Reserve Credit Provider (if any) as applicable. Any moneys remaining in or accruing to the Payment Account and/or the Payment Subaccount after the principal of the Note and the interest thereon and any Predefault Obligations and Reimbursement Obligations, if applicable, have been paid, or provision for such payment has been made, shall be transferred to the general fund of the Local Agency, subject to any other disposition required by the Indenture, or, if applicable, the Credit Agreement. Nothing herein shall be deemed to relieve the Local Agency from its obligation to pay its Note in full on the Maturity Date. (D) Moneys in the Proceeds Subaccount and in the Payment Subaccount shall be invested by the Trustee pursuant to the indenture as directed by the Local Agency in Permitted Investments as described in and under the terms of the Indenture. Any such investment by the Trustee shall be for the account and risk of the Local Agency, and the Local Agency shall not be deemed to be relieved of any of its obligations with respect to the Note, the Predefault Obligations or Reimbursement Obligations, if any, by reason of such investment of the moneys in its Proceeds Subaccount or the Payment Subaccount. (E) At the written request of the Credit Provider, if any, or the Reserve Credit Provider, if any, the Local Agency shall, within ten (10) Business Days following the receipt of such written request, file such report or reports to evidence the transfer to and deposit in the Payment Account required by this Section 8 and provide such additional financial information as may be required by the Credit Provider, if any, or the Reserve Credit Provider, if any. -9- Section 9. Execution of Note. Any one of the Authorized Representatives of the Local Agency or any other officer designated by the Legislative Body shall be authorized to execute the Note by manual or facsimile signature and the Secretary or Clerk of the Legislative Body of the Local Agency, or any duly appointed assistant thereto, shall be authorized to countersign the Note by manual or facsimile signature. Said Authorized Representative of the Local Agency, is hereby authorized to cause the blank spaces of the Note to be filled in as may be appropriate pursuant to the Pricing Confirmation. The Authorized Representative is hereby authorized and directed to cause the Authority to assign the Note to the Trustee, pursuant to the terms and conditions of the }>urchasc Agreement, this Resolution and the Indenture. In case any Authorized Representative whose signature shall appear on any Note shall cease to be an Authorized Representative before the delivery of such Note, such signature shall nevertheless be valid and sufficient for all purposes, the same as if such officer had remained in office until delivery. The Note need not bear the seal of the Local Agency, if any. Section 10. Intentionally Left Blank. This section has been included to preserve the sequence of section numbers for cross-referencing purposes. Section 11. Representations and Covenants of the Local Agency. The Local Agency makes the following representations for the benefit of the holder of the Note, the owners of the Bonds, the Credit Provider, if any, and the Reserve Credit Provider, if any: (A) The Local Agency is duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of California and has all necessary power and authority to (i) adopt this Resolution and perform its obligations thereunder, (ii) enter into and perform its obligations under the Purchase Agreement, and (iii) issue the Note and perform its obligations thereunder. (B) (i) Upon the issuance of the Note, the Local Agency shall have taken all action required to be taken by it to authorize the issuance and delivery of the Note and the performance of its obligations thereunder, and (ii) the Local Agency has full legal right, power and authority to issue and deliver the Note. (C) The issuance of the Note, the adoption of the Resolution and the execution and delivery of the Purchase Agreement, and compliance with the provisions hereof and thereof do not conflict with, breach or violate any law, administrative regulation, court decree, resolution, charter, by-la~vs or other agreement to which the Local Agency is subject or by which it is bound. (D) Except as may be required under blue sky or other securities laws of any state or Section 3(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, there is no consent, approval, authorization or other order of, or filing with, or certification by, any regulatory authority having jurisdiction over the Local Agency required for the issuance and sale of the Note or the consummation by the Local Agency of the other transactions contemplated by this Resolution, except those the Local Agency shall obtain or perform prior to or upon the issuance of the Note. (E) The Local Agency has (or will have prior to the issuance of the Note) duly, regularly and properly adopted a preliminary budget for Fiscal Year 2000-2001 setting forth -10 cxpected revenues and expenditures and has complied with all statutory and regulatory requirements with respect to the adoption of such budget. The Local Agency hereby covenants that it shall (i) duly, regularly and properly prepare and adopt its final budget for Fiscal Year 2000-2001, (ii) provide to the Trustee, the Credit Provider, if any, the Reserve Credit Provider, if any, and the Financial Advisor and the underwriter, promptly upon adoption, copies of such final budget and of any subsequent revisions, modifications or amendments thereto and (iii) comply with all applicable laws pertaining to its budget. (F) The sum of the principal amount of the Local Agency's Note plus the interest payable thereon, on the date of its issuance, shall not exceed fifty percent (50%) of the estimated amounts of the Local Agency's uncollected taxes, income, revenue (including, but not limited to, revenue from the state and federal governments), cash receipts, and other moneys to be received by the Local Agency for the general fund of the Local Agency attributable to Fiscal Year 2000- 2001, all of which will be legally available to pay principal of and interest on the Note. (G) The Local Agency (i) has not defaulted within the past twenty (20) years, and is not currently in default, on any debt obligation and (ii), to the best knowledge of the Local Agency, has never defaulted on any debt obligation. (lq) The Local Agency's most recent audited financial statements present fairly the financial condition of the Local Agency as of the date thereof and the results of operation for the period covered thereby. Except as has been disclosed to the Financial Advisor and the underwriter, the Credit Provider, if any, and the Reserve Credit Provider, if any, there has been no change in the financial condition of the Local Agency since the date of such audited financial statements that xvill in the reasonable opinion of the Local Agency materially impair its ability to perfom~ its obligations under this Resolution and the Note. The Local Agency agrees to furnish to the Authority, the Financial Advisor, the underwriter, the Trustee, the Credit Provider, if any, and the Reserve Credit Provider, if any, promptly, from time to time, such information regarding thc operations, financial condition and property of the Local Agency as such party may reasonably request. (I) There is no action, suit, proceeding, inquiry or investigation, at law or in equity, before or by any court, arbitrator, governmental or other board, body or official, pending or, to the best knowledge of the Local Agency, threatened against or affecting the Local Agency questioning the validity of any proceeding taken or to be taken by the Local Agency in connection with the Note, the Purchase Agreement, the Indenture, the Credit Agreement, if any, the Reserve Credit Agreement, if any, or this Resolution, or seeking to prohibit, restrain or enjoin the execution, delivery or performance by the Local Agency of any of the foregoing, or wherein an unSavorable decision, ruling or finding would have a materially adverse effect on the Local Agency's financial condition or results of operations or on the ability of the Local Agency to conduct its activities as presently conducted or as proposed or contemplated to be conducted, or would materially adversely affect the validity or enforceability of, or the authority or ability of the Local Agency to perform its obligations under, the Note, the Purchase Agreement, the Indenture, the Credit Agreement, if any, the Reserve Credit Agreement, if any, or this Resolution. (J) Upon issuance of the Note and execution of the Purchase Contract, this Resolution, the Purchase Contract and the Note will constitute legal, valid and binding -11 agreements of the Local Agency, enforceable in accordance with their respective terms, except as such enforceability may be limited by bankruptcy or other laws affecting creditors' rights generally, the application of equitable principles if equitable remedies are sought, the exercise of judicial discretion in appropriate cases and the limitations on legal remedies against local agencies, as applicable, in the State of California. (K) The Local Agency and its appropriate officials have duly taken, or will take, all proceedings necessary to be taken by them, if any, for the levy, receipt, collection and enforcement of the Pledged Revenues in accordance with law for carrying out the provisions of this Resolution and the Note. (L) The Local Agency shall not incur any indebtedness secured by a pledge of its Pledged Revenues unless such pledge is subordinate in all respects to the pledge of Pledged Revenues hereunder. (M) So long as the Credit Provider, if any, is not in payment default under the Credit Instrument or the Reserve Credit Provider, if any, is not in default under the corresponding Reserve Credit Agreement, the Local Agency hereby agrees to pay its pro rata share of all Predefault Obligations and all Reimbursement Obligations attributable to the Local Agency in accordance with provisions of the Credit Agreement, if any, the Reserve Credit Agreement, if any, and/or the Indenture, as applicable. Prior to the Maturity Date, moneys in the Local Agency's Payment Account and/or Payment Subaccount shall not be used to make such payments. The Local Agency shall pay such amounts promptly upon receipt of notice from the Credit Provider or from the Reserve Credit Provider, if applicable, that such amounts are due to it. (N) So long as any Bonds issued in connection with the Notes are Outstanding, or any PredePault Obligation or Reimbursement Obligation is outstanding, the Local Agency will not create or suffer to be created any pledge of or lien on the Note other than the pledge and lien of the Indenture. Section 12. Tax Covenants. (A) The Local Agency shall not take any action or fail to take any action if such action or failure to take such action would adversely affect the exclusion from gross income of the interest payable on the Note or Bonds under Section 103 of the lntemal Revenue Code of 1986 (the "Code"). Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the Local Agency shall not make any use of the proceeds of the Note or Bonds or any other funds of the Local Agency which would cause the Note or Bonds to be an "arbitrage bond" within the meaning of Section 148 of the Code, a "private activity bond" within the meaning of Section 141(a) of the Code, or an obligation the interest on which is subject to federal income taxation because it is "federally guaranteed" as provided in Section 149(b) of the Code. The Local Agency, with respect to the proceeds of the Note, will comply with all requirements of such sections of the Code and all regulations of the United States Department of the Treasury issued or applicable thereunder to the extent that such requirements are, at the time, applicable and in effect. (B) The Local Agency hereby (i) represents that the aggregate face amount of all tax- exempt obligations (including any tax-exempt leases, but excluding private activity bonds), issued and to be issued by the Local Agency during calendar year 2000, including the Note, is -12- not reasonably expected to exceed $5,000,000; or~ in the alternative~ (ii) covenants that the Local Agency will take all legally permissible steps necessary to ensure that all of the gross proceeds of the Note wilI be expended no later than the day that is six months after the date of issuance of the Note so as to satisfy the requirements of Section 148(f)(4)(B) of the Code. (C) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Resolution to the contrary, upon the Local Agency's failure to observe, or refusal to comply with, the covenants contained in this Section 12, no one other than the holders or former holders of the Note, the owners of the Bond, the Credit Provider, if any, the Reserve Credit Provider, if any, or the Trustee on their behalf shall be entitled to exercise any right or remedy under this Resolution on the basis of the Local Agency's failure to observe, or refusal to comply with, such covenants. (D) The covenants contained in this Section 12 shall survive the payment of the Note. Section 13. Events of Default and Remedies. If any of the following events occurs, it is hereby defined as and declared to be and to constitute an "Event of Default": (A) Failure by the Local Agency to make or cause to be made the transfers and deposits to the Payment Account, or any other payment required to be paid hereunder, including payment of principal and interest on the Note, on or before the date on which such transfer, deposit or other payment is due and payable; (B) Failure by the Local Agency to observe and perform any covenant, condition or agreement on its part to be observed or performed under this Resolution, for a period of fifteen (15) days after written notice, specifying such f:ailure and requesting that it be remedied, is given to the Local Agency by the Trustee, the Credit Provider, if applicable, or the Reserve Credit Provider, if applicable, unless the Trustee and the Credit Provider or the Reserve Credit Provider, if applicable, shall all agree in writing to an extension of such time prior to its expiration; (C) Any xvarranty, representation or other statement by or on behalf of the Local Agency contained in this Resolution or the Purchase Agreement (including the Pricing Confirmation) or in any requisition or any financial report delivered by the Local Agency or in any instrument furnished in compliance with or in reference to this Resolution or the Purchase Agreement or in connection with the Note, is false or misleading in any material respect; (D) A petition is filed against the Local Agency under any bankruptcy, reorganization, arrangement, insolvency, readjustment of debt, dissolution or liquidation law of any jurisdiction, whether now or hereafter in effect and is not dismissed within 30 days after such filing, but the Trustee shall have the right to intervene in the proceedings prior to the expiration of such thirty (30) days to protect its and the Bond Owners' (or Noteholders') interests; (E) The Local Agency files a petition in voluntary bankruptcy or seeking relief under any provision of any bankruptcy, reorganization, arrangement, insolvency, readjustment of debt, dissolution or liquidation law of any jurisdiction, whether now or hereafter in effect, or consents to the filing of any petition against it under such law; or 13 (F) The Local Agency admits insolvency or bankruptcy or is generally not paying its debts as such debts become due, or becomes insolvent or bankrupt or makes an assignment for thc benefit of creditors, or a custodian (including without limitation a receiver, liquidator or trustee) of the Local Agency or any of its property is appointed by court order or takes possession thereof and such order remains in effect or such possession continues for more than 30 days, but the Trustee shall have the right to intervene in the proceedings prior to the expiration of such thirty (30) days to protect its and the Bond Owners' or Noteholders' interests. Whenever any Event of Default referred to in this Section 13 shall have happened and be continuing, the Trustee, as holder of the Note, shall, in addition to any other remedies provided herein or by law or under the indenture, if applicable, have the right, at its option without any further demand or notice, to take one or any combination of the following remedial steps: (1) Without declaring the Note to be immediately due and payable, require the Local Agency to pay to the Trustee, as holder of the Note, an amount equal to the principal of the Note and interest thereon to maturity, plus all other amounts due hereunder, and upon notice to the Local Agency the same shall become immediately due and payable by the Local Agency without further notice or demand; and (2) Take whatever other action at law or in equity (except for acceleration of payment on the Note) which may appear necessary or desirable to collect the amounts then due and thereafter to become due hereunder and under the Note or to enforce any other of its rights hereunder. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if the Local Agency's Note is secured in whole or in part by a Credit Instrument (other than the Reserve Fund) or if the Credit Provider is subrogated to rights under the Local Agency's Note, as long as the Credit Provider has not failed to comply with its payment obligations under the Credit Instrument, the Credit Provider shall have the right to direct the remedies upon any Event of Default hereunder, and, not withstanding the foregoing, if a Reserve Credit Instrument is applicable, as long as the Reserve Credit Provider has not failed to comply xvith its payment obligations under the Reserve Credit Agreement, the Reserve Credit Provider shall have the right (prior to the Credit Provider) to direct the remedies upon any Event of Default hereunder, in each case so long as such action will not materially adversely affect the rights of any Bond Owner, and the Credit Provider's and Reserve Credit Provider's (if any) prior consent shall be required to any remedial action proposed to be taken by the Trustee hereunder. If the Credit Provider is not reimbursed for any drawing, payment or claim, as applicable, used to pay principal of and interest on the Note due to a default in payment on the Note by the Local Agency, or if any principal of or interest on the Note remains unpaid after the Maturity Date, the Note shall be a Defaulted Note, the unpaid portion (including the interest component, if applicable) thereof or the portion (including the interest component, if applicable) to which a Credit Instrument applies for which reimbursement on a draw, payment or claim has not been made shall be deemed outstanding and shall bear interest at the Default Rate until the Local Agency's obligation on the Defaulted Note is paid in full or payment is duly provided for, all subject to Section 8 hereof. 14- If the Credit Instrument is the Reserve Fund and the Reserve Bonds are secured by the Reserve Credit Instrument and all principal of and interest on the Note is not paid in full by the Reserve Principal Payment Date, the Defaulted Note shall become a Defaulted Reserve Note and the unpaid portion (including the interest component, if applicable) thereof (or the portion thereof with respect to which the Reserve Fund applies for which reimbursement on a Drawing has not been fully made) shall be deemed outstanding and shall bear interest at the Default Rate until the Local Agency's obligation on the Defaulted Reserve Note is paid in full or payment is duly provided for, all subject to Section 8 hereof. Section 14. Trustee. The Local Agency hereby directs and authorizes the payment by the Trustee of the interest on and principal of the Note when such become due and payable, from amounts received by the Trustee from the Local Agency in the manner set forth herein. The Local Agency hereby covenants to deposit funds in such account or fund, as applicable, at the time and in the amount specified herein to provide sufficient moneys to pay the principal of and interest on the Note on the Note Payment Deposit Date. Payment of the Note shall be in accordance with the terms of the Note and this Resolution. Section 15. Sale of Note. The Note shall be sold to the Authority, in accordance with the terms of the Purchase Agreement, hereinbefore approved, and issued payable to the Trustee, as assignee of the Authority. Section 16. Intentionally Left Blank. This section has been included to preserve the sequence of section numbers for cross-referencing purposes. Section 17. Approval of Actions. The aforementioned Authorized Representatives of the Local Agency are hereby authorized and directed to execute the Note and cause the Trustee to accept delivery of the Note, pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Purchase Agreement and the Indenture. All actions heretofore taken by the officers and agents of the Local Agency or this Legislative Body with respect to the sale and issuance of the Note and participation in the Program are hereby approved, confirmed and ratified and the Authorized Representatives and agents of the Local Agency are hereby authorized and directed, for and in the name and on behalf of the Local Agency, to do any and all things and take any and ail actions and execute any and all certificates, agreements and other documents which they, or any of them, may deem necessary or advisable in order to consummate the lawful issuance and delivery of the Note in accordance with, and related transactions contemplated by, this Resolution. The Authorized Representatives of the Local Agency referred to above in Section 4 hereof are hereby designated as "Authorized Local Agency Representatives" under the Indenture. In the event that the Note or a portion thereof is secured by a Credit Instrument, any one of the Authorized Representatives of the Local Agency is hereby authorized and directed to provide the Credit Provider and, if applicable, the Reserve Credit Provider, with any and all information relating to the Local Agency as such Credit Provider or Reserve Credit Provider may reasonably request. Section 18. Proceedings Constitute Contract. The provisions of the Note and of this Resolution shall constitute a contract between the Local Agency and the registered owner of the Note, and such provisions shall be enforceable by mandamus or any other appropriate suit, action or proceeding at law or in equity in any court of competent jurisdiction, 15 and shall be irrepealable. The Credit Provider, if any, and the Reserve Credit Provider, if any, are third party beneficiaries of the provisions of this Resolution and the Note. Section 19. Limited Liability. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein or in the Note or in any other document mentioned herein or related to the Note or to any Series of Bonds to which the Note may be assigned, the Local Agency shall not have any liability hereunder or by reason hereof or in connection ~vith the transactions contemplated hereby except to the extent payable from moneys available therefor as set forth in Section 8 hereof. Section 20. Amendments. At any time or from time to time, the Local Agency may adopt one or more Supplemental Resolutions with the written consents of the Authority, the Credit Provider, if any, and the Reserve Credit Provider, if any, but without the necessity for consent of the owner of the Note or of the Bonds issued in connection with the Note for any one or more of the follo,ving purposes: (A) to add to the covenants and agreements of the Local Agency in this Resolution, other covenants and agreements to be observed by the Local Agency which are not contrary to or inconsistent with this Resolution as theretofore in effect; (B) to add to the limitations and restrictions in this Resolution, other limitations and restrictions to be observed by the Local Agency which are not contrary to or inconsistent with this Resolution as theretofore in effect; (C) to confirm, as further assurance, any pledge under, and the subjection to any lien or pledge created or to be created by, this Resolution, of any monies, securities or funds, or to establish any additional funds or accounts to be held under this Resolution; (D) to cure any ambiguity, supply any omission, or cure or correct any defect or inconsistent provision in this Resolution; or (E) to amend or supplement this Resolution in any other respect; provided, however, that any such Supplemental Resolution does not adversely affect the interests of the owners of the Note or of the Bonds issued in connection with the Notes. Any modifications or amendment of this Resolution and of the rights and obligations of the LocaI Agency and of the owner of the Note or of the Bonds issued in connection with the Note may be made by a Supplemental Resolution, with the written consents o£ the Authority, the Credit Provider, if any, and the Reserve Credit Provider, if any, and with the written consent of the owners of at least a majority in principal amount of the Note and of the Bonds issued in connection with the Note outstanding at the time such consent is given; provided, however, that if such modification or amendment will, by its terms, not take effect so long as the Note or any Bonds issued in connection with the Note remain outstanding, the consent of the owners of such Note or of such Bonds shall not be required. No such modification or amendment shall per[nit a change in the maturity of the Note or a reduction of the principal amount thereof or an extension of the time of any payment thereon or a reduction of the rate of interest thereon, or a change in the date or amounts of the pledge set forth in this Resolution, without the consent of the owners of such Note or the owners of all the Bonds issued -16- in connection with the Note, or shall reduce the percentage of the Note or Bonds the consent of thc owners of which is required to effect any such modification or amendment, or shall change or modify any of the rights or obligations of the Trustee without its written assent thereto. Section 21. Severability. In the event any provision of this Resolution shall be held invalid or unenforceable by any court of competent jurisdiction, such holding shall not invalidate or render unenforceable any other provision hereof. Section 22. Appointment of Bond Counsel. The law firm of Orhck, Hcrrington & Sutcliffe LLP, Los Angeles, California is hereby appointed as Bond Counsel for the Program. The Local Agency acknoxvledges that Bond Counsel regularly performs legal services for many private and public entities in connection with a wide variety of matters, and that Bond Counsel has represented, is representing or may in the future represent other public entities, underwriters, trustees, rating agencies, insurers, credit enhancement providers, lenders, financial and other consultants who may have a role or interest in the proposed financing or that may be involved with or adverse to Local Agency in this or some other matter. Given the special, limited role of Bond Counsel described above the Local Agency acknowledges that no conflict of interest exists or would exist, waives any conflict of interest that might appear to exist, and consents to any and all such relationships. Section 23. Appointment of Financial Advisor and Underwriter. Sutro & Co. Incorporated, Los Angeles, California is hereby appointed as financial advisor for the Program. Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc., together with such co-underwriters, if any, identified in the Purchase Contract, is hereby appointed as underwriter for the Program. Section 24. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect from and after its date of adoption. Section 25. Resolution Parameters. (A) Name of Local Agency: City of Chula Vista (B) Maximum Amount of Borrowing: $2,500,000 (C) Authorized Representatives: l. David D. Rowlands, Jr., City Manager 2. Robert Powell, Deputy City Manager 3. Nadine Mandery, Treasury Manager Presented by Approved as to form by Jo ' Robert Powell, Deputy City Manager ~ M. I< e y, City Att6eere~ 17 EXHIBIT A CITY OF CHULA VISTA 2000 TAX AND REVENUE ANTICIPATION NOTE, [SERIES ]*/ Date of Interest Rate Maturity Date Original Issue REGISTERED OWNER: PRINCIPAL AMOUNT: TWO MILLION FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS FOR VALUE RECEIVED, the Local Agency designated above (the "Local Agency"), acknowledges itself indebted to and promises to pay to the registered owner identified above, or registered assigns, on the maturity date set forth above, the principal sum specified above in lawful money of the United States of America, and to pay interest thereon [on , 2000 and] at maturity at the rate of interest specified above (the "Note Rate"). Principal of and interest on this Note are payable in such coin or currency of the United States as at the time of payment is legal tender for payment of private and public debts. Principal and interest at maturity shall be paid upon surrender hereof at the principal corporate trust office of Wells Fargo Bank, National Association in Los Angeles, California, or its successor in trust (the "Trustee"). Interest shall be calculated on the basis of a 360-day year, consisting of twelve 30- day months. Both the principal of and interest on this Note shall be payable only to the registered owner hereof as the same shall fall due~ provided, however, no interest shall be payable for any period after maturity during which the holder hereof fails to properly present this Note for payment. If the Local Agency fails to pay this Note ~vhen due or the Credit Provider (as defined in the Resolution hereinafter described and in that certain indenture of Trust, dated as of 1, 2000 (the "Indenture"), by and between the California Statewide Communities Development Authority and Wells Fargo Bank National Association, as trustee), if any, is not reimbursed in full for the amount drawn on or paid pursuant to the Credit Instrument (as defined in the Resolution and the Indenture) to pay all or a portion (including the interest component, if applicable) of this Note on the date of such payment, this Note shall become a Defaulted Note (as defined in the Resolution and the Indenture and with the consequences set forth in the Resolution and the Indenture, including, without limitation, that this Note as a Defaulted Note (and any related reimbursement obligation with respect to a credit instrument) shall bear interest at the Default Rate, as defined in the Indenture). It is hereby certified, recited and declared that this Note represents the authorized issue of the Note in the aggregate principal amount authorized, executed and delivered pursuant * If more than one Series of Bonds is issued under the Program in Fiscal Year 2000-2001 and if the Note is pooled with notes issued by other Issuers (as defined in the Resolution). to and by authority of certain resolutions of the Local Agency duly passed and adopted heretofore, under and by authority of Article 7.6 (commencing with Section 53850) of Chapter 4, Part 1, Division 2, Title 5 of the California Government Code (collectively, the "Resolution"), to all of the provisions and limitations of which the owner of this Note, by acceptance hereof, assents and agrees. The principal of the Note, together with the interest thereon, shall be payable from taxes, income, revenue, cash receipts and other moneys which are received by the Local Agency for the general fund of the Local Agency and are attributable to Fiscal Year 2000-2001 and which are available for payment thereof. As security for the payment of the principal of and interest on the Note, the Local Agency has pledged the first amounts of unrestricted revenues of the Local Agency received on the last day of and (and any amounts received thereafter attributable to Fiscal Year 2000-2001) until the amount on deposit in the Payment Account (as defined in the Resolution), together with available amounts, if any, on deposit in the Payment Subaccount (as defined in the Resolution) in each such month, is equal to thc corresponding percentages of principal of and interest due on the Note as set forth in the Pricing Confirmation (as defined in the Resolution) (such pledged amounts being hereinafter called the "Pledged Revenues"), and the principal of the Note and the interest thereon shall constitute a first lien and charge thereon and shall be payable from the Pledged Revenues, and to the extent not so paid shall be paid from any other moneys of the Local Agency lawfully available therefor as set forth in the Resolution. The full faith and credit of the Local Agency is not pledged to the payment of the principal of or interest on this Note. The Local Agency and the Trustee may deem and treat the registered owner hereof as the absolute owner hereof for the purpose of receiving payment of or on account of principal hereof and interest due hereon and for all other purposes, and the Local Agency and the Trustee shall not be affected by any notice to the contrary. It is hereby certified that all of the conditions, things and acts required to exist, to have happened and to have been performed precedent to and in the issuance of this Note do exist, have happened and have been performed in due time, form and manner as required by the Constitution and statutes of the State of California and that the amount of this Note, together with all other indebtedness of the Local Agency, does not exceed any limit prescribed by the Constitution or statutes of the State of California. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Legislative Body of the Local Agency has caused this Note to be executed by the manual or facsimile signature of a duly Authorized Rcpresentative of the Local Agency and countersigned by the manual or facsimile signature of the Secretary or Clerk of the Legislative Body as of the date of authentication set forth below. CITY OF CHULA VISTA By: Title: Countersigned By: Title: RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO INCLUDE IN THE FISCAL YEAR 2000-01 PROPOSED BUDGET APPROPRIATIONS OF $114,500 FOR TAX AND REVENUE ANTICIPATION NOTE PROJECTED INTEREST AND ISSUANCE COSTS AND ESTIMATED INTEREST REVENUES OF $114,500 FROM INVESTMENT OF THE NOTE PROCEEDS WHEREAS, very preliminary cash flow projections show that the General Fund could reach its lowest cash balance of $769,000 in early December based on a balanced budget of $85.0 million; and WHEREAS, under current federal tax laws, the City may borrow on a tax exempt basis an amount not to exceed the projected maximum deficit plus a reasonable working capital reserve; and WHEREAS, this formula results in a maximum borrowing level of $2.5 million; and WHEREAS, given these projections, the cost of the Tax and Revenue Anticipation Note (TRAN) would be $114,500 (interest of $100,000 and cost of issuance of $14,500); and WHEREAS, estimated revenue from investing the proceeds of the borrowing until needed is conservatively projected to be at least equal to the cost of borrowing, therefore, the net cost of the TRANS issue is estimated to be zero. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby direct the City Manager to include in the fiscal year 2000-01 proposed budget appropriations of $114,500 for tax and revenue anticipation note projected interest and issuance costs and estimated interest revenues of $114,500 from investment of the note proceeds. Presented by Approved as to form by Robert Powell, Director of Jo~M. Kaheny, Ci~t~6rney Finance /~ RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AMENDING THE FY 1999-00 BUDGET BY APPROPRIATING $262,072 IN THE FLEET MANAGEMENT FI/ND FOR FUEL PRICE AMD FUEL USAGE INCREASES, FUEL-RELATED INFRASTRUCTURE REPAIRS, AND THE PURCHASE AND UPGRADE OF COMPUTERS REQUIRED FOR THE NEW FLEET MANAGEMENT SYSTEM BASED ON UNANTICIPATED REVENUE FROM VEHICLE RENTALS TO THE GENERAL FUND AND TRANSIT FUND; AND APPROPRIATING $90,879 TO VARIOUS DEPARTMENT'S EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE ACCOUNTS TO FUND THESE INCREASES FROM THE AVAILABLE FUND BALANCE IN THE GENERAL FUND WHEREAS, fuel prices in the FY 1999-00 Central Garage budget, for both unleaded gasoline and diesel, were estimated to be $1.15 per gallon; and WHEREAS, the average price paid for the fiscal year through the end of February was $1.20 per gallon; $1.59 per gallon was the highest amount with taxes, and $1.02 per gallon the lowest; and WHEREAS, the total gallons budgeted for the year was 599,200, and 509,546 gallons have already been purchased and it is estimated that an additional 165,120 gallons of fuel over budget will be purchased before the end of the fiscal year requiring approximately $247,700 in additional funds based on an estimated average price of $1.50 per gallon; and WHEREAS, an additional $113,272 is needed for infra- structure repairs, fuel system changes and computer upgrades; and WHEREAS, therefore, the Central Garage will need a total of $360,972 ($274,700 + $113,272) for the remainder of the current fiscal year, however, $98,900 has already been encumbered for fuel purchases, leaving a required balance of $262,072 to appropriate from the Fleet Maintenance Fund. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby amend the FY 1999-00 Budget by appropriating $262,072 in the Fleet Management Fund for fuel price and fuel usage increases, fuel-related infrastructure repairs, and the purchase and upgrade of computers required for the new Fleet Management System based on unanticipated revenue from vehicle rentals to the General Fund and Transit Fund. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the amount of $90,879 is hereby appropriated to various department's Equipment Maintenance accounts from the available fund balance in the General Fund to fund the increases as follows: DEPARTMENT DEPT. NUMBER AMOUNT Police Uniform Patrol 14221 30,000.00 Police Investigation 14321 14,652.00 Fire Suppression 15700 21,050.00 Park Maintenance 16783 25,177.00 TOTAL $90,879.00 Presented by Approved as to form by John P. Lippitt, Director of Jo~· M. Kaheny, ,~____._~t~t~Q~ty At rney Public Works / H: ~home~attorneykreso~fuel app COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item ~ Meeting Date 5/02/00 ITEM TITLE: Resolution Amending the FY1999-00 Budget by appropriating $262,072 in the Fleet Management Fund for fuel price and fuel usage increases, fuel-related infrastructure repairs, and the purchase and upgrade of computers required for the new Fleet Management System based on unanticipated revenue from vehicle rentals to the General Fund and Transit Fund; and appropriating $90,879 to various department's Equipment Maintenance accounts to fund these increases from the available fund balance in the General Fund ? SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public Works~ REVIEWED BY: City Manager~I ~ (4/5ths Vote: Yes_~X No ) An increase in the Central Garage budget is needed because fuel prices and fuel usage have increased substantially over the amounts that were budgeted. In addition, repairs to the fuel delivery infrastructure have been made to meet Federal regulations. There are additional compliance-related repairs that must be completed this fiscal year, and computers and software that must be purchased for new Fleet Management System. RECOMMENDATION: That the Council adopt the resolution amending the FY1999-00 Budget by appropriating $262,072 in the Fleet Management Fund for fuel price and fuel usage increases, fuel-related infrastructure repairs, and the purchase and upgrade of computers required for the new Fleet Management System based on unanticipated revenue from vehicle rentals to the General Fund and Transit Fund; and appropriating $90,879 to various department's Equipment Maintenance accounts to fund these increases from the available fund balance in the General Fund. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable DISCUSSION: Fuel prices in the FY1999-00 Central Garage budget, for both unleaded gasoline and diesel, were based on an estimate of $1.15 per gallon. The average price paid for fuel through the end of February was $1.20 per gallon; $1.59 per gallon was the highest price, and $1.02 per gallon was the lowest price. The fuel budget was based on usage of 599,200 gallons; however, 509,546 gallons have already been purchased. It is estimated that an additional 165,120 gallons of fuel (over the 599,200 gallons) will be purchased before the end of the fiscal year. This increase will require approximately Page 2, Item __ Meeting Date 5/02/00 $247,700 in additional funds based on an estimated average price of $1.50 per gallon. When the City Council approved the current fuel purchasing agreement on February 15, 2000, staff indicated that an additional appropriation might be required. Furthermore, an additional $113,272 is needed for infrastructure repairs, fuel system changes and computer upgrades. This work includes the modification to the fuel island at the existing Corporation Yard ($62,772); replacement of outdated hardware for the automated fuel management system ($16,400); monitoring of contaminated soil at the site of a fuel tank recently removed ($13,100); purchasing a tank leak detection system at Fire Station #2 ($6,000); and purchasing computers and software for the new Fleet Management System ($15,000). Therefore, the Central Garage will need a total of $360,972 ($247,700 + $113,272) for the remainder of the current fiscal year. However, $98,900 has been already been encumbered for fuel purchases, leaving a required balance of $262,072 to be appropriated. Staff will spread this cost increase to the departments with vehicles, using a formula based on rental rates and mileage driven. Most departments will be able to absorb the additional cost of $262,072 in their existing Equipment Maintenance accounts. However, four divisions, as shown below in Table 1, will not be able to absorb the increase. An appropriation of $90,879 from the General Fund to their Equipment Maintenance accounts will be needed to cover these additional costs. Table 1 Department Department Number Appropriation Police Uniform Patrol 14221 $30,000.00 Police Investigation 14321 $14,652.00 Fire Suppression 15700 $21,050.00 Park Maintenance 16783 $25,177.00 TOTAL $90,879.00 Chula Vista Transit will pay $55,700 from its existing budget for an additional 37,100 gallons expected to be used for an increase in route miles. FISCAL IMPACT: The Central Garage's budget is an internal service fund in which funds must be expended from other departments in order for the section to operate and purchase capital items for equipment maintenance. Appropriations to fund Central Garage must be made in two places. The first place is an appropriation to Central Garage to authorize expenditures for supplies, services and capital items. The second appropriation (which in total is the same as the amount for Central Garage) is made to each division so that they can be charged for vehicle usage. Funds are collected on an annual basis through each affected department's operating budget. However, when additional funds are needed, these funds must be appropriated to the Garage and the Page 3, Item __ Meeting Date 5/02/00 various divisions. These costs are then spread to various divisions based on the rental rates. The total appropriation to the Central Garage budget is $262,072. The $15,000 for the purchasing of computers and software for the new Fleet Management System should be placed in the computer equipment account; the $98,272 for infrastructure-related work should be placed in the appropriate service and capital accounts; and the $148,800 for fuel should be placed in the fuel account. The total appropriation from the General Fund is $90,879 and represents an appropriation for those divisions that cannot absorb additional costs, as indicated in Table 1. The Chula Vista Transit budget has sufficient funds to pay a total of $55,700 for 37,100 gallons to be used for the anticipated increase in route miles. The remaining $115,493 can be absorbed by the affected departments and will be spread to the various departments based on the rental rates. File: 1320-20-A H:\SHARED\Public Works Operations~All3 Fuel Approprlation4_fp.doc 4/25/00 3:35:08 PM 4/05/00 APPROPRIATION INCREASE APPORTIONING Page DEPARTMENT 260 11100 COMMLrNITY DEVELOPMENT ............... 514 DEPARTMENT 440 8700 PURCHASING ............... 257 DEPARTMENT 62~ 12553 LAbTDSCAPE DESIGN ............... 0 DEPART~_ENT 1011 14100 POLICE ADMINISTRATION ............... 257 DEPARTMENT 1030 14411 POLICE SUPPORT SERVICES ............... 129 DEPARTMENT 1040 14221 POLICE UNIFORM PATROL ............... 40509 DEPARTI~ENT 1050 14321 POLICE INVESTIGATION .............. ; 9131 DEPARTMENT 1100 14700 ANIMAL REGULATION ............... 2570 DEPARTMENT 1211 15100 FIRE ADMINISTRATION ............... 1290 DEPARTMENT 1212 15300 FIRE TRAINING ............... 129 DEPARTMENT 1230 15900 FIRE PREVENTION ............... 1290 DEPARTMENT 1240 15700 FIRE SUPPRESSION ............... 13117 DEPARTMENT 1320 12333 BUILDING & HOUSING INSP ............... 2570 DEPARTMF-/T~ 1327 12350 CODE ~NFORCEME1TI ............... 0 DEPARTMENT 1402 16710 PUBLIC WORKS OPERATIONS A ............... 129 DEPARTMENT 1420 16333 DESIGN ENGINEERING ............... 0 DEPARTMENT 1423 16335 CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION ............... 3858 DEPARTMENT 1427 16337 SURVERYORS ............... 0 DEPARTMENT 1430 16393 TRAFFIC ENGINEERING ............... 388 DEPARTMENT 1431 16395 TRAFFIC SIGNAL & ST LIGHT ............... 1290 DEPARTMENT 1432 16723 TRAFFIC OPERATIONS MAINTE ............... 2570 DEPARTMENT 1435 16725 GRAFITTI REMOVAL ............... 0 DEPARTMENT 1436 16721 TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ADMIN ............... 0 DEPARTMENT 1440 16731 STREET MAIIN-TENlkNCE ............... 6430 DEPARTMENT 1445 16783 PARK MAINTENANCE ............... 15689 DEPARTMENT 1446 16785 PAP, K MAiNT/J ST MARINA ............... 1290 DEPARTMENT 1447 16791 OPEN SPACE DISTRICTS ............... 1290 DEPARTMENT 1~%8 16787 PARK RANGER ............... 960 DEPARTMENT 1449 16781 PARK OPERATIONS ADMIN ............... 0 DEPAi~TMENT 1450 16740 STREET TREE MAINTENANCE ............... 2570 DEPARTMENT 1459 16793 DISTRICT LANDSCAPING ............... 0 DEPARTMENT 1460 16753 SANITARY SEWER MAINTENAI%IC ............... 13117 DEPARTMENT 1461 16755 WASTEWATER LIFT STATION M ............... 1290 DEPARTMENT 1462 16751 WA~TEWATER OPS ADMIN ............... 0 DEPARTMENT 1463 16757 STORMWATER MAINTENANCE ............... 0 DEPARTMENT 1470 16761 BUILDING MAINTENANCE & RE ............... 2570 DEPARTMEN~ 1471 16763 CUSTODiAJu MAINTENANCE ............... 386 DEPARTMENT 1480 16765 COM1WUNICATIONS ............... 514 DEPARTMENT 1711 18311 SYSTEM ADMINISTRATION ............... 386 · DEPARTMENT 1747 18539 BALLPIELD MGMT ............... 643 DEPARTMENT 2300 24100 PAR.KING METER ............... 1290 DEPARTMENT 2709 28130 LVR.BAN CORPS ............... 514 DEPARTMENT 4020 40200 CHIILA VISTA TRANSIT ............... 257 DEPARTMENT 4150 42100 BAYFRONT CONSERVANCY TRUS ............... 0 DEPARTMENT 7000 39120 CENTRAL GARAGE ............... 1290 GRAND TOTAL .................................................... 130482 Zoo~ SHHOM Olq~]d ¥iSIA YqflH0 9~6£ I69 619 IVH rZ:oI IHH oo/Ao/ro COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item ~ Meeting Date 5/2/00 ITEM TITLE: Resolution Approving Final "A" Map No. 2 for Otay Ranch SPA One Village One, Chula Vista Tract No. 96-04A. Rejecting on behalf of the Public, Santa Andrea Street, Paseo Ranchero and Olympic Parkway. Accepting on behalf of the City of Chula Vista the Landscape Buffer Easements, the Public Drainage Easements, the Trail Easements, the Sidewalk Easements, the Emergency Access Easements and the Assignable and Irrevocable General Utility and Access Easements Granted on Said Map within Said Subdivision. Acknowledging on behalf of the Public the Irrevocable Offers of Dedication of Fee Interest for Open Space Lots "C", "D", "E", "F", "G", "N" and "R" and Lot "O" for Public Park Purposes. Resolution Approving "A" Map Supplemental Subdivision Improvement Agreement for Chula Vista Tract No. 96-04A, Portion of Village One, Otay Ranch SPA One and authorizing the Mayor to Execute Said Agreement. SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public Works 0~// REVIEWED BY: City Manager t' ¢,--v' (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. Condition No. 14 of the Resolution requires the developer to submit and obtain the approval of the City of a master final map CA" Map) of the tentative map showing "super block" lots. The "A" map is also required to show the public street dedications and backbone utility easements required to serve the super block lots. All super block lots created are also required to have access to a dedicated public street. RECOMMENDATION: That Council approve the Resolution approving the Final "A" Map and the "A" Map Supplemental Subdivision Improvement Agreement. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable. DISCUSSION: The project is generally located south of East Palomar Street and north of future Olympic Parkway and east of Paseo Ranchero within the area of Otay Ranch Village One designated as Phase 7 (or as the Purple Phase on the amended SPA One Plan). Chula Vista Tract 96-04A, Otay Ranch SPA One Village 1, Phase 7 tentative map consists of a total of five "Super Block" lots, (which will be further subdivided into 383 single family units by Page 2, Item Meeting Date 5~2\00 subsequent "B" Maps), three multiple-family sites (totaling 819 units), two commercial lots, two Community or Public Facility (CPF) lots, seven public open space lots, one public neighborhood park lot (Heritage Park, 10.17 acres), one private park lot, one public street (Santa Andrea). The "A" Map submitted for approval, however, shows the three multi-family lots as "Not-a-Part". The future development of these lots is contingent on the submittal and approval of final parcel maps over these lots, at which time a Community Park PAD fee will be collected for each multi- family unit. The approval of a final parcel map(s) on these sims will also increase the cumulative EDUs that shall be counted against the Otay Ranch Company's Olympic Parkway Agreement threshold at a ratio of .84 EDU per unit. A plat of the subdivision is attached herewith as Attachment 2. The final map for said subdivision has been reviewed by the Public Works Department and found to be in substantial conformance with the approved Tentative Map. Approval of the map constitutes acceptance by the City of all assignable and irrevocable general access and utility easements and all public drainage easements within the subdivision. Approval of the map constitutes rejection on behalf of the public of Santa Andrea Street, Olympic Parkway and Paseo Ranchero. Approval of the map also constitutes acknowledgment on behalf of the public of Irrevocable Offers of Dedication for Lot "O" for Public Park Purposes, Lots "C" through "G", "N" and "R" for Open Space. The dedicated streets are being rejected because the developer does not have an obligation to guarantee construction of the public streets with the "A" Map until future phases of the project are considered for approval ("B" Maps) in accordance with the conditions of approval of the tentative map. However, such offers of dedication are to remain open subject to future acceptance. Olympic Parkway and Pasco Ranchero Dedications Olympic Parkway between Paseo Ranchero and the easterly boundary of Otay Ranch Company's ownership in Village One and Pasco Ranchero south of East Palomar were originally offered for dedication and rejected on the first Village One "A" Map. Those original offers of dedication are abandoned on this final map. The final alignments of these roadways Olympic Parkway are reflected on the "A" Map and offered for dedication. These improvements will be secured in accordance with the Olympic Parkway and Related Roadway Improvements Agreement. Under Section 66477.2 of the Subdivision Map Act, these irrevocable offers of dedication may be accepted at any time and will be accepted when security, as required by the Olympic Parkway Agreement, is provided. Drainage easements appurtenant to the Olympic Parkway Dedication and located southerly of Olympic Parkway are not within the subdivision and are granted by separate instrument. Re~subdivision of the Heritage Park Site (Lot "O") The "A" Map includes the Village One Neighborhood Park site as Lot "O". The site was previously offered for dedication as Lot "F" on the first Village One "A" Map. Since the approval of the first "A" Map, the plans for Heritage Park were submitted and have undergone revision. An outcome of the park design review process has been the separation of the pool and Page 3, Item __ __ Meeting Date 5X2\00 the pond sites out of the public park dedication area. The ownership and maintenance responsibility of the pool will remain with the developer until it is turned over to the Master Homeowner's Association. The pond, however, will be treated differently. It has been the Developer's intent that the Village One open space maintenance district (CFD 97-1) will maintain the pond. In order for the pond to be eligible for maintenance by the CFD, it would have to be within a dedicated open space. This is why there is an irrevocable offer of dedication for Lot The developer has executed an "A" Map Supplemental Subdivision Improvement Agreement which addresses several on-going conditions of the tentative map. FISCAL IMPACT: None to the City. Developer has paid all costs associated with the proposed "A" Map and agreement. Attachments: Attachment 1: Minutes of 5/4/99 (Resolution No. 19448) Attachment 2: Plat - Chula Vista Tract 96-04A, Otay Ranch, Village One, Phase 7 H:\HOME\ENGINEER\AGENDA\V 1 MAPA2.113 DRS/drs File No. 0600-80-OR165F Action Agenda - Page 2 05/04/99 PUBLIC HEARINGS AND RELATED RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES (Continued) 11. 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 SUBDIVISION MAP REVISION FOR PHASE SEVEN (PURPLE PHASE) IN VILLAGE ONE OF THE OTAY RANCH SPECIFIC PLANNING AREA ONE PLAN, TRACT 96-04A Resolution #19448 was adopted (5-0). ACTION ITEMS 12.A. RESOLUTION 19449, APPROVING THE CONSOLIDATED ANNUAL PLAN FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999/2000 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) AND HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP (HOME) PROGRAM BUDGETS AND AUTHORIZING TRANSMITTAL OF THE CONSOLIDATED ANNUAL PLAN TO THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT (HUD) 2. RESOLUTION 19450, AUTHORIZING REALLOCATION OF $269,876 FROM PRIOR YEAR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDS TO INCORPORATE IN THE FISCAL YEAR 1999/2000 ENTITLEMENT RECEIVED FROM HUD (4/5TH'S VOTE REQUIRED) Council held a public hearing on April 13, 1999 to review and receive public comment on projects and programs being considered for CDBG and HOME funding. The City is eligible to receive $2,020,000 in CDBG entitlement funds from HUD for 1999/2000. In addition to the HUD entitlement, staff has identified $269,876 in prior year CDBG funds that are eligible to receive $843,000 in HOME funds from HUD. Combining both CDBG and HOME entitlements, the City will be able to invest into the community a grant total of $3,132,876 for 1999/2000. Resolutions #19449 and #19450 were adopted (5-0). OTHER BUSINESS 13. CITY MANAGER'S REPORTS There were none. 14. MAYOR'S REPORTS Motion to ratify the appointment of John McCann to the Housing Advisory Commission (5-0). Mayor Horton thanked Community Development Director Salomone and his staff for an efficient CDBG process. Action Agenda - Page 3 05/04/99 15. COUNCIL COMMENTS RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING FINAL "A' MAP NO. 2 FOR OTAY RANCH SPA ONE VILLAGE ONE, CHULA VISTA TRACT NO. 96-04A, REJECTING ON BEHALF OF THE PUBLIC, SANTA ANDREA STREET, PASEO RANCHERO AND OLYMPIC PARKWAY, ACCEPTING ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA THE LANDSCAPE BUFFER EASEMENTS, THE PUBLIC DRAINAGE AND ACCESS EASEMENTS, THE TRAIL EASEMENTS, THE SIDEWALK EASEMENTS, THE EMERGENCY ACCESS EASEMENTS AND THE ASSIGNABLE AND IRREVOCABLE GENERAL UTILITY AND ACCESS EASEMENTS GRANTED ON SAID MAP WITHIN SAID SUBDIVISION. ACKNOWLEDGING ON BEHALF OF THE PUBLIC THE IRREVOCABLE OFFERS OF DEDICATION OF FEE INTEREST FOR OPEN SPACE LOTS "C", "D", "E", "F", "G", "N" AND "R" AND LOT "O" FOR PUBLIC PARK PURPOSES. 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, VILLAGE ONE "A' MAP NO. 2, and more particularly described as follows: A portion of Parcel Map No. 18349, together with Lot "F" of Otay Ranch, Village One "A" Map No. 1 according to Map thereof No. 13592. Gross Area: 263.622 Acres No. of Lots: 29 Numbered Lots: 12 Lettered Lots: 17 Public Open Space Lots: 37.565 Acres Public Park Lot: 10.169 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 sixty-two (62) foot wide general utility and access easements within Lots l, 2, 3, 4, 9 and "A" for installation of public utilities, and hereby accepts on behalf of the City of Chula Vista the easements ibr: public drainage and access, trails, sidewalks, landscape buffers, and emergency access, noting that use of said general utility and general access easements, and easements for public drainage and access, trails, sidewalks, landscape buffers, and emergency access 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 subdivision, subject to the conditions set forth thereon. H:\SHARED~ATTORNEY~OR 165 RESO.DOC 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, and the easements for public drainage and access, trails, sidewalks, landscape buffers, and emergency 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, said Council hereby rejects on behalf of the City of Chula Vista, the offer of dedication of the easement for street purposes and other public purposes on this map within this subdivision, noting that Section 66477.2 of the Government Code of the State of California provides that an offer of dedication shall remain open and subject to future acceptance by the City; and has acknowledged on behalf of the City of Chula Vista the Irrevocable Offers of Dedication of Fee Interest in Lots "C", "D", "E", "F", "G", "N", and "R" for Public Open Space and Lot "O" for Public Park Purposes, all as shown on this map within this subdivision noting that Section 7050 of the Government Code of the State of California provides that an offer of dedication shall remain open and subject to future acceptance by the City. 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. Presented by Approved as to form by John P. Lippitt, Director of John M. Kaheny, City Attorney Public Works H:\SHAREDLATTORNEY\OR 165 RESO.DOC RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING "A" MAP SUPPLEMENTAL SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT FOR CHULA VISTA TRACT NO. 96-04A, PORTION OF VILLAGE ONE, OTAY RANCH SPA ONE, AI~D AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT WHEREAS, the developer of Chula Vista Tract No. 96-04A, Portion of Village One, Otay Ranch SPA One has executed a Supplemental Subdivision Improvement Agreement; and WHEREAS, staff has reviewed said Agreement and determined that it satisfies all the applicable tentative map conditions for final map approval and recommends Council approval. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby approve the "A" Map Supplemental Subdivision Improvement Agreement for Chula Vista Tract No. 96-04A, Portion of Village One, Otay Ranch SPA ONE, a copy of which is on file with the office of the City Clerk. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor of the City of Chula Vista is hereby authorized and directed to execute said Agreement for and on behalf of the City of Chula Vista. Presented by Approved as to form by John P. Lippitt, Director of John M. Kaheny, City Attorney Public Works H: ~home~attorney\r~so\MAP960~a SUP 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 VILLAGE 1, PHASE 7 OF THE OTAY RANCH PROJECT SUPPLEMENTAL SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT (Conditions 1, ~, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 1t, 14, 22, 23, 24, 34, 40, 56, 84, 85a and b, 88b, 91, 92, 93, 104, 105, 108, 109, 114, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 132, 136, and 144) This Supplemental Subdivision Improvement Agreement ("Agreement") is made this day of May, 2000, by and between THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, California ("City" or "Grantee" for recording purposes only) and OTAY PROJECT, L.P., a California Limited Partnership, ("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 Attachment "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein ("Property"). The Property is within approved Tentative Subdivision Map Chula Vista Tract 96-04A (Resolution No. 19448 on 1 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. "0wner" 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 "A" 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; and Otay Project sold SPA One Planning Area R-19 to Prowswood- Matsushita 0ray Ranch Partners,LLC; and 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 Developer had also applied for and the City approved the Tentative Subdivision Map commonly referred to as Chula Vista Tract 96-04. Said tentative map included Neighborhood Park P-1 that was subsequently offered for dedication on the first Village 1 "A" Map, Map No. 13592 thereof, as Lot "F". Lots "0" "P" and "Q" of the herein incorporated Property are a re- subdivision of Lot "F". F. 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. The conditions are attached hereto as Schedule G. 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. H. The following defined terms shall have the meaning set forth herein, unless otherwise specifically indicated: C: kAgreemenu s \Vil 1A~%apNo. 2 2.doc 2 a. For purposes of this Agreement, "B" Map means any final map subsequent to the "A" Map and within the "A" Map boundaries. 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 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)Prowswood-Matsushita Otay Ranch Partners,LLC e. "Guest Builder" means those entities obtaining any interest in the Property or a portion of the Property, after the "A" 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. "Preserve/Owner Manager" is the entity or entities defined 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. "0tay 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. "Backbone Improvement Plans" means all the onsite and offsite improvements required to serve the lots created by the C: ~Agreemen~s\Vill~apNo. 2 2.doc 3 "A" 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. NOW, THEREFORE, in exchange for the mutual covenants, terms and conditions herein contained, the parties agree as set forth below. 1. Performance Obligation. 0ray 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 paragraphs 10 a, b and d, 11 and 12 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 Attachment "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 exercise 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 or 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, 4 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 not, 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; iii. The conveyance of a school site as identified in the SPA One Plan to a school district; iv. The execution of a purchase agreement for the sale of a Commercial or Community Purpose Facility lot as identified in SPA One Plan; or v. The issuance of a permit for the development of a multifamily lot as identified in the SPA One Plan. 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 C:\Agreements\VillAmapNo.~2.doc 5 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 the Resolution, 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. 2 - (General Preliminary). In satisfaction of Condition No. 2 the Resolution the Developer hereby agrees to all of the terms, covenants and conditions contained herein shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the heirs, successors, assigns and representatives of the Developer as to any or all of the Property. 5. 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 deny the issuance of building 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. 6. 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 6 entitlements and approvals issued by the City in connection with the Project. 7. 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. 8. Condition Nos. 8, 10 and 11- (Conveyance Obligation). In partial satisfaction of Condition Nos. 8, 10 and 11, the Developer agrees as follows: a. prior to approval of each "B" Map and each parcel map for Neighborhood C-1/CPF-1/R-47, or Neighborhood R-15/CPF-2 of the SPA One Plan, the Developer shall be in compliance with all applicable requirements of the RMP 2. b. Prior to approval of the first "B" Map, or a parcel map for Neighborhood C-1/CPF-1/R-47, or Neighborhood R-15/CPF-2 of the SPA One Plan, Developer shall convey open space land in accordance with the RMP 2 for all applicable backbone street lots, open space lots, paseos, and park lots as shown on the "A" Map. c. Developer acknowledges that property within the boundaries of the "A" Map which will be the subject of future final maps or parcel maps may have conveyance obligations to fulfill for all development areas, including applicable streets, open space lots, paseos, pedestrian parks shown on the "A" Map. 9. Condition No. 9 (CEQA). In satisfaction of Condition No. 9 of the resolution, Prior to approval of each final "B" Map, 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 No. ) and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (on file in the City Clerk's Office as Document No. C096-057 and No. } · 10. Condition No. 14 (Multi-family Lots). In partial satisfaction of Condition No. 14 of the the Developer agrees that in the event the areas designated as Neighborhood R-15, R-19 or R-47 as shown in the SPA One Plan are proposed for development, a parcel map shall be prepared, submitted and approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of a building permit. Developer shall satisfy all the applicable conditions of approval of the Tentative Subdivision Map, as determined by the City Engineer and the Director of Planning and Building. 11. Condition No. 22, 23 and 24 (streets, right-of-way 7 and public improvements). In partial satisfaction of Condition Nos. 22, 23 and 24 of the Resolution Developer hereby agrees as follows: a. Off-site Improvements. The Developer shall construct all Otay Ranch SPA One public improvements and provide security satisfactory to the City Engineer in accordance with the first "B" Map Supplemental Subdivision Improvement Agreement for Village One and attachment Exhibit "E" thereto approved by City Council Resolution No. 19211. b Backbone Improvements. Developer agrees to construct Backbone Improvements in accordance with the approved Improvement Plans for Otay Ranch Village One Phase 7 Drawing Nos. 99-768 through 99-788. Prior to the earlier of the following: the first "B" Map approval, or the approval of a parcel map for either Neighborhood C-1/CPF-1/R-47, or Neighborhood R-15/CPF-2 of the SPA One Plan, the developer shall enter into an Agreement and shall secure said improvements in accordance with Section 18.16.220 of the Municipal Code ¢. Neighborhood Improvements. Developer agrees to guarantee, prior to the approval of each "B" Map or the approval of a parcel map, for either Neighborhood C-1/CPF-1/R-47, or Neighborhood R-15/CPF-2 of the SPA One Plan, all public on and off-site improvements required to serve that particular "B" Map or Neighborhood C-1/CPF-1/R-47, or Neighborhood R-15/CPF-2 as determined by the City Engineer. d. Monu~entation. Developer agrees to furnish and deliver to the City, 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 Fifteen Thousand Dollars and no cents ($15,000) to secure the installation of monuments within the Project. It is further agreed that if the monumentation work is not completed within thirty (30) days following completion of the Backbone Improvements described in 8b above, the sums provided by said improvement securities may be used by the City for the completion of the monumentation within said Project in accordance with the applicable provisions of the City of Chula Vista Subdivision Manual, 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 the City, and after certification by the Director of Finance that all costs hereof are fully paid, the whole amount, or ant part thereof not required for payment thereof, may be released to 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 design and administration of construction (including a reasonable allocation 8 of overhead). 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, except to the limits established by approved security in accordance with the requirements of the State Subdivision Map Act and the provisions of Title 18 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code. 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. Developer further understands and agrees that City, (as "Indemnitee") 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 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 attorney'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 Improvements 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 9 Developer or its successors, assigns or agents concerning construction of the 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. The approval of plans for the 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 Improvements. 12. 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. 13. Condition No. 40 (Encroach_merit 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. 14. 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. 15. Condition Nos. 84 (Neigb_borhood Parks). In partial satisfaction of Condition No. 84 of the Resolution, Developer has entered into the Otay Ranch Park Agreement wherein the Developer agrees to construct neighborhood parks (P-1 and P-2 in Village One) in accordance with the terms of said Otay Ranch Park Agreement and consistent with the Parks Master Plan. The Developer also agrees to comply with the City's Parklands and Public Facilities Ordinance and any future modification thereof. The Otay Ranch Park Agreement also provides for reimbursement of park development fees and assignment of fee and/or land credits C ~ ~Agree~nt s \Vil 1A~apNo ~ 2 - 2 doc 10 to the Developer as applicable. The Developer acknowledges that Lot "N" of the final map is Irrevocably Offered for Dedication thereon as Open Space for the express purpose of its future acceptance, and the pond improvements located thereon, by the Open Space Maintenance District known as Community Facility District 97-1 (CFD 97-1). The maintenance responsibility for the pond improvements are incorporated into the overall open space maintenance obligation of CFD 97-1 and that the maximum revenue generated by the existing Maximum Special Tax that can be levied within CFD 97-1 is sufficient to satisfy the cost of pond maintenance. The Developer further acknowledges the following: a. that no additional neighborhood park land credits shall be assigned to the Developer, or its successors in interest due to the fact that Lot "N" was Irrevocably Offered for Dedication. b. the terms of the Otay Ranch Park Agreement currently provide for the cost of the pond improvements to included in the calculation of park development fee credits to be assigned to the Developer and that no credits shall be granted in addition to those provided by said Agreement. 16. Condition Nos. 85. (Community Parks). In partial satisfaction of Condition No. 85 a and b of the Resolution, Developer entered into the Park Agreement to satisfy the SPA One Community Park obligation, which includes the dedication of park land and payment of per unit community park development fees prior to the approval of each final "B" Map. Therefore, in accordance with said Agreement, the Developer has offered for dedication a 15-acre community park site within the Otay Ranch General Development Plan area known as "Village Two". To satisfy the Developer's obligation to pay community park development fees for each dwelling unit within the project in compliance with the Park Agreement and the City's Parklands and Public Facilities Ordinance, the Developer, or its successors, heirs and assigns, agrees that, prior to the approval of any final "B" Map, the Developer, or its successors, heirs and assigns, shall pay the per unit community park development fee, which shall be determined by the Director of Planning and Building. Developer agrees to pay the PAD Fee obligation in accordance with the provisions of the Otay Ranch Park Agreement, Chula Vista Municipal Code Section 17.10.100 and Resolution No. 16146, as may be amended from time to time. For the areas shown as Neighborhood R-19, Neighborhood R-47 and Neighborhood R-15 in the SPA One Plan, and included within the legal description of the land covered by this Agreement, the Developer shall submit to and obtain the approval of the City Engineer for a parcel map prior to the issuance of a building permit. Developer agrees to pay all applicable fees, including the PAD fee, prior to the approval of said parcel map. Parcel Map shall be in accordance with the 11 City of Chula Vista Municipal Code Chapter 18.20. 17. Condition No. 88b - (Maintenance Agreement). In partial satisfaction of Condition No. 88b of the Resolution the Developer shall: a. Enter into a maintenance agreement prior to the acceptance by the City of the Public Right-of-Way and any improvements constructed within the Public Right-of-Way granted on the final map as Santa Andrea Street and rejected thereon. The agreement shall assign to the Developer and its successors in interest, including the Master Homeowners Association, the responsibility for maintenance activities within Santa Andrea Street that will not be assumed by the City or, specifically, by the Community Facilities District 97-1. The agreement shall also describe the maintenance standards and grant an easement to the Developer and its successors in interest to allow the Developer and its successors in interest to perform its maintenance responsibilities within Santa Andrea Street. b. Prior to acceptance of Public Park P-1 shown as Lot "0" on the final map by the City of Chula Vista, cause the area of Lot "P" on the final map to be annexed to the Master Homeowners Association to be maintained in accordance with the provisions of Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions of said Master Homeowners Association for maintenance of Covered Property and Improvements located thereon by said Master Homeowners Association. 18. Condition No. 91 - (No Protest of Maintenance District or Assessment District). In satisfaction of Condition No. 91 of the Resolution, Developer hereby agrees not to protest the formation of or the inclusion in, a maintenance district, including a community facility district or a benefit zone, for the maintenance of landscaped medians and scenic corridors along streets within and adjacent to the subject subdivision. 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 assessment, which may be imposed due to the addition of these new improvements and shall not interfere with the right of any person to vote in a secret ballot election. 19. Condition No. 92. (Open Space lots). In satisfaction of Condition No. 93 of the Resolution, Developer agrees to provide the City, prior to execution of this Agreement, with irrevocable offer{s) of dedication (IODs), in accordance with Government Code Section 7050, a fee interest, free and clear of all encumbrances, in the real properties shown on the "A" Map as park lots and open space lots and offered to the City for acceptance on such map. The IODs are attached to this Agreement as Attachment "C". 12 20. Condition No. 93. (Public Facilities Development Impact Fee). In partial satisfaction of Condition No. 93 of the Resolution, Developer agrees to fund the revision of the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee ("PFDIF") Program, which shall be prepared by the City, as directed by the City Manager or his designee. The Developer shall receive 100% credits towards future ?FDIF fees for funding this update. All cost of revising the PFDIF shall be borne by the Developer. In partial satisfaction of Condition No. 93, Developer has deposited $20,000 for commencement of said revision. Developer has requested that the City allow full satisfaction of Condition No. 93 of the Resolution be continued until such time as the City completes and approves the ("PFDIF") Program revisions. In order for the City to allow said continuance of satisfaction of this obligation, Developer agrees to pay the "PFDIF" in effect at the time of building permit issuance. 21. Condition No. 104 (Withhold Building Permits and Hold Harmless). 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: a That the City may withhold building permits for any and all 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 have been reached. ii. Traffic volumes, levels of service, public utilities and/or services exceed the adopted City threshold standards in the then effective Growth Management Ordinance. 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 PFFP 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 13 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 To permit all cable television companies franchised by the City of Chula Vista equal opportunity to place conduit to and provide cable television service for each lot or unit within the Project. Developer further agrees to grant, by license or easement, and for the benefit of, and to be enforceable by, the City of Chula Vista, conditional access to cable television conduit within the properties situated within the Project only to those cable television companies franchised by the City of Chula Vista the condition of such grant being that (a) such access is coordinated with Developer's construction schedule so that it does not delay or impede Developer's construction schedule and does not require the trenches to be reopened to accommodate the placement of such conduits; and (b)any such cable company is and remains in compliance with, and promises to remain in compliance with, the terms and conditions of the franchise and with all other rules, regulations, ordinances and procedures regulating and affecting the operation of cable television companies as same may have been, or may from time to time be, issued by the City of Chula Vista. Developer hereby conveys to the City of Chula Vista the authority to enforce said covenant by such remedies as the City determines appropriate, including revocation of said grant upon a determination by the City of Chula Vista that they have violated the conditions of the grant. f To include in the Articles of Incorporation or Charter for the Homeowners' 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 determination and allow the 14 Developer reasonable time to cure said breach. 22. 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 SANDAG 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. 23. Condition Nos. 108 and 109 - (School Sites). In partial satisfaction of Condition Nos. 108 and 109 of the Resolution, Developer agrees to: a. Deliver to the School District, a graded elementary school site including utilities provided to the site and an all weather access road acceptable to the District, located within Village Five, prior to issuance of the 2,500th residential building permit (750 students) within SPA One. The all weather access road shall also be acceptable to the Fire Department. This schedule is subject to modification by the School District as based on District facility needs. b. deliver to the School District, a graded elementary school site including utilities provided to the site and an all weather access road acceptable to the District, located west of Paseo Ranchero, prior to issuance of the 4,500th residential building permit (1,350 students) within SPA One. The all weather access road shall also be acceptable to the Fire Department. This schedule is subject to modification by the School District as based on District facility needs. 24. 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 15 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 discretionary applications (SPAs and tentative maps), projected construction dates, corresponding public facility needs per the adopted threshold standards, and identifying financing options for necessary facilities as described in Chapter 9, "Growth Management" of the Otay Ranch General Development Plan". 25. Condition No. 121. - (Development Phasing Plan). In partial satisfaction of Condition No. 121 of the Resolution, Developer agrees that if phasing is proposed within an individual map or through multiple final maps, the developer shall submit and obtain approval of a development phasing plan by the City Engineer and Director of Planning and Building prior to approval of any final map or parcel map as applicable. Improvements, facilities and dedications to be provided with each phase or unit of development shall be as determined by the City Engineer and Director of Planning and Building. The City reserves the right to require said improvements, facilities and/or dedications as necessary to provide adequate circulation and to meet the requirements of police and fire departments. The City Engineer and Director of Planning and Building may, at their discretion, modify the sequence of improvement construction should conditions change to warrant such a revision. 26. 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 III). 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 16 Eastern 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 III 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. 27. 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. 28. 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. 29. 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. b. Signal Participation Fees. c. Ail applicable sewer fees, including but not limited to sewer 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 17 30. 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. 31. 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. 32. 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 (particularly 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 amendments to the Growth Management Ordinance. 33. Condition No. 136 - (Guarded Entrances). In satisfaction of Condition No. 136 of th Resolution, Developer agrees that guarded entrances will not have physical barriers and that the entrances will be staffed from dusk until dawn. 34. 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. 35. Satisfaction of Conditions. City agrees that the execution of this Agreement constitutes satisfaction or partial 18 satisfaction of Developer's obligation of Condition Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 22, 23, 24, 34, 40, 56, 84, 85a and b, 88b, 91, 92, 93, 104, 105, 108, 109, 114, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 132, 136 and 144 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. 36. 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. 37. Previous Agreements. The Developer acknowledges that nothing in this Agreement shall supersede, nullify or otherwise negatively impact the terms of the first Village 1 "A" Map Agreement, Map No. 13592 thereof or all prior "B" Map Agreements for Village 1, unless specifically noted herein. This Agreement affirms and reflects the terms, conditions and provisions of the first "A" Map Agreement, all subsequent Final "B" Map Agreements and of the Tentative Map 96-04 conditions applicable specifically to the Final Map for the Property. 38. Recording. This Agreement, or an abstract hereof shall be recorded simultaneously with the recordation of the Final Map. 39. 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. 40. 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. 19 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 South Bay Project, LLC 191 West wilbur Road, Suite 102 Thousand Oaks, CA 91360 Attention: David Green Fax (805) 379-4472 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; Attactunents. 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 TWO SIGNATURE PAGES] [PAGE ONE OF TWO SIGNATURE PAGES TO SUPPLEMENTAL SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT FOR VILLAGE i "A" MAP NO. 2] 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 M. Kaheny City Attorney [NEXT PAGE IS PAGE TWO OF SIGNATURE PAGES] 22 [PAGE TWO OF TWO SIGNATURE PAGES TO SUPPLEMENTAL SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT FOR VILLAGE i "A" MAP NO. 2] DEVELOPERS: 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: PROWSWOOD-MATSUSHITA OTAY R3~NCH PARTNERS, LLC, a California limited liability company By: (Attach Notary Acknowledgment) List of Attacb_ments Attachment A Legal Description of Property Attachment B Open Space and Park IODs Schedule 1 Conditions of Approval for Chula Vista Tract No. 96-04A ATTACHMENT "A" Legal Description of Property CHULA VISTA TP~ACT NO. 96-04A OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 1 "A" MAP NO. 2, BEING PA~RCELS 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 /LND 9 P/LRCEL M3~P NO. 18349 FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY ON SEPTEMBER 29, 1999, EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION OF PARCEL 9 LYING SOUTHERLY OF OLYMPIC PARKWAY, TOGETHER WITH LOT "F" OF OTAY RANCH, VILLAGE 1 "A" MAP NO. 1 ACCORDING TO MAP THEREOF NO. 13592, FILED IN THE OFFICE OF SAID COUNTY RECORDER JUNE 24, 1998, ALL IN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, STATE OF CALI FORNIA. ATTACHMENT "B" Irrevocable Offers of Dedication of Open Space and Park Lots Attachment "C" consists of twelve pages of separately recorded instruments, which irrevocably offer Lots "D" through "H" inclusive and Lot "R" for Open Space and other Public Purposes and Lot "P" for Public Park Purposes. 26 SCHEDULE 1 Phase Seven (Purple) Tentative Subdivision Map (C.V.T. 96-04A) CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Unless otherwise specified or required by law: (a) the conditions and Code requirements set forth below shall be completed prior to the related final map as determined by the Director of Planning and Building, and the City Engineer, (b) unless otherwise specified, "dedicate" means grant the appropriate easement, rather than fee title. Where an easement is required the applicant shall be required to provide subordination of any prior lien holders in order to ensure that the City has a first priority interest in such land unless otherwise excused by the City. Where fee title is granted or dedicated to the City, said fee title shall be free and clear of all encumbrances, unless otherwise excused by the City. Should conflicting wording or standards occur between these conditions of approval, any conflict shall be resolved by the City Manager or designee. GENERAL/PRELIMINARY 1. Comply with all requirements and guidelines of the Parks, Recreation Open Space and Trails Plan, Public Facilities Financing Plan, Ranch Wide Affordable Housing Plan, Spa One Affbrdable Housing Plan, and the Non-Renewable Energy Conservation Plan, as amended from time to time, unless specifically modified by the appropriate department head, with the approval of the City Manager. These plans may be subject to minor modifications by the appropriate department head, with the approval of the City Manager, however, any material modifications shall be subject to approval by the City Council. 2. All of the terms, covenants and conditions contained herein shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the heirs, successors, assigns and representatives of the Developer as to any or all of the Property. For purposes of this document the term "Developer" shall also mean "Applicant". 3. If any of the terms, covenants or conditions contained herein sh~tll 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 revoke or modify all approvals herein granted including issuance of building permits, 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 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. 27 4. Applicant shall 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 any or all entitlements and approvals issued by the City in connection with the Project. 5. The applicant shall comply with all applicable SPA conditions of approval. 6. Any and all agreements that the applicant is required to enter in hereunder, shall be in a form approved by the City Attorney. 7. The terms, conditions and time limits associated with this tentative map shall be consistent with the Development Agreement approved by Ordinance No. 2679 by the City Council on July 16, 1996 ("Development Agreement") and as amended on October 22, 1996. 8. The applicant shall comply with the terms of the Conveyance Agreement, as may be amended from time to time, adopted by Resolution No. 18416 by the City Council on October 22, 1996 ("Conveyance Agreement"). ENVIRONMENTAL 9. Prior to approval of each final "B" Map, 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 No. ) and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (on file in the City Clerk's Office as Document No. CO96-057 and No. ). 10. Prior to the approval of each final "B" Map, the applicant shall comply with all applicable requirements of the Phase 2 Resource Management Plan (RMP) as approved by the City Council on June 4, 1996 and as may be amended from time to time by the City. 11. Prior to the approval of each final "B" Map, the applicant shall comply with the Otay Ranch Resource Preserve Conveyance Plan. 12. The Applicant shall comply with any applicable requirements of the California Department of Fish and Game, the U.S. Department of Fish and Wildlife and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. SPECIAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 13. The following conditions of approval are based upon the project having multiple final maps for the entire subdivision which shall be referenced hereinafter as "final 'B' Maps". Unless 28 otherwise specified, all conditions and code requirements listed below shall be fully completed to the City's satisfaction prior to approval of the first Final "B" Map. 14. Prior to approval of the first final map within each Village the tentative map, the developer shall submit and obtain the approval of the City of a master final map ("A" Map) over the portion of the tentative map within each Village area showing "super block" lots corresponding to the units and phasing or combination of units and phasing thereof. Said "A" map shall also show open space lot dedications, the backbone street dedications and utility easements required to serve the "super block" lots created by this "A" Map. All "super block" lots created by this "A" Map or previous parcel map shall have access to a dedicated public street. Said "A" map shall not be considered the first map as indicated in other conditions of approval unless said map contains single or multiple family lots or a subdivision of the multiple family lots shown on the tentative map. A lot line adjustment, if utilized in accordance with City standards and procedures, shall not be considered the first "A" Map. The "A" Map may contain single family residential units. 15. The subsequent development of a multiple family lot which does not require the filing of a "B" Map shall meet, prior to issuance of a building permit for that lot, all the applicable conditions of approval of the tentative map, as determined by the City Engineer. Construction of non-backbone streets adjacent to multiple family lots will not need to be bonded for with the final "A" Map which created such lot. However, such improvements will be required to be constructed under the Municipal Code provisions requiring construction of street improvements under the design review and building permit issuance processes. 16. In the event of a filing of a final map which requires oversizing (in accordance with the restrictions of state law and City ordinances) of the improvements necessary to serve other properties, said final map shall be required to install all necessary improvements to serve the project plus the necessary oversizing of facilities required to serve such other properties. DESIGN 17. A street connecting Montera Street and Carneros Street shall be installed as part of the improvements for Neighborhoods R-18 and R-48. The connection shall be located near lots 54 and 55 in R-18 and lots 26 and 27 in R-48. The connection shall be designed as a Residential Street - Condition "A". The northerly ends of Montera Street and Carneros Street may utilize the "Modified Cul-de-Sac" design depicted on the Tentative Map if they are less than 150 feet in length. The exact location of the connecting street shall be determined by the City Engineer and the Director of Planning and Building. 18. Any proposed monumentation/signage shall be consistent with the Village Design Plan and shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Planning and Building prior to approval of the appropriate final map. 29 19. In addition to the requirements outlined in the City of Chula Vista Landscape Manual, privately maintained slopes in excess of 25 feet in height shall be landscaped and irrigated to soften their appearance as follows: one 5-gallon or larger size tree per each 150 square feet of slope area, one 1-gallon or larger size shrub per each 100 square feet of slope area, and appropriate groundcover. Trees and shrubs shall be planted in staggered clusters to soften and vary the slope plane. Landscape and irrigation plans for private slopes shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Planning and Building prior to approval of the appropriate final map. 20. A comprehensive wall plan indicating color, materials, height and location shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Plmming and Building prior to approval of any final "B" Map. Materials and color used shall be compatible and all walls located in corner side-yards or rear yards facing public or private streets or pedestrian connections shall be constructed of a decorative masonry and/or wrought iron material. A revised acoustical analysis indicating if view fencing, such as a combination of masonry and wrought iron, is allowable at the ends of cul-de-sacs backing up to, Olympic Parkway, and Paseo Ranchero, shall be prepared prior to submittal of the wall plan indicated above. If such fencing is allowable per the final acoustical analysis it shall be provided at the ends of the following streets:--Weaverville Street, Greenfield Street, Hayfork Place, Carneros Street, Santa Rita East, Grayson Street, Delano Street, Belmont Street, and Atherton Street. View fencing shall be provided at the ends of all other open cul-de-sacs where a sound wall is not required. Any combination free standing/retaining walls shall not exceed 8.5 feet in height. The applicant shall submit a detail and/or cross section of the maximum/minimum conditions for all "combination walls" which include retaining and free standing walls. Said detail shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Planning and Building prior to the approval of the first final map. The maximum height of all retaining walls shall be 2.5 feet in height when combined with freestanding walls which are six feet in height. A 2-3 foot separation shall be provided between free standing and retaining walls where the combined height would otherwise exceed 8.5 feet. 21. Lots backing or siding onto pedestrian paseos or parks shall be provided with view fencing, such as three feet of wrought iron on top of a three foot masonry wall, subject to approval by the Fire Marshal and the Director of Planning and Building STREETS, RIGHT-OF-WAY AND PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS 22. Install public facilities in accordance with the Otay Ranch SPA One, Public Facilities Finance Plan as may be amended from time to time or as required by the City Engineer to meet threshold standards adopted by the City of Chula Vista. The City Engineer and Director of Planning and Building may, at their discretion, modify the sequence of improvement 3o construction should conditions change to warrant such a revision. The Developer shall construct the public improvements and provide security satisfactory to the City Engineer as set forth in the first final "B" map Supplemental Subdivision Improvement Agreement for Village One and attachment Exhibit "E" thereto, approved by City Council Resolution No. 19211 on October 6, 1998. 23. Dedicate for public use all the public streets shown on the tentative map within the subdivision boundary. Prior to the approval of the applicable "B" Map, the applicant shall enter into an agreement to guarantee the construction of all street improvements as required by the PFFP for each particular phase. 24. Secure in accordance with Section 18.16.220 of the Municipal Code, as necessary, the construction and/or construct full street improvements for all on-site and off-site streets deemed necessary to provide service to the subject subdivision. Said improvements shall include, but not be limited to, asphalt concrete pavement, base, concrete curb, gutter and sidewalk, sewer, reclaimed water and water utilities, drainage facilities, street lights, signs, landscaping, irrigation, fencing and fire hydrants. Street cross sections shall conform to the cross sections shown on the Tentative Map, unless otherwise conditioned or approved herein. All other design criteria shall comply with the current Chula Vista Design Standards, Chula Vista Street Design Standards, and the Chula Vista Subdivision Manual unless otherwise conditioned or approved herein. 25. As part of the improvement plans associated with the final "B" Map which triggers the installation of the related street improvements, install a fully activated traffic signal including interconnect wiring at the following intersections: a. East Palomar Street and Paseo Ranchero b. Olympic Parkway and Paseo Ranchero Install underground improvements, standards and luminaries with construction of street improvements, and install mast arms, signal heads and associated equipment as determined by the City Engineer. 26. Submit to and obtain approval by the City Engineer of striping plans for all collector or higher classification streets simultaneously with the associated improvement plans. 27. Design all vertical and horizontal curves and intersection sight distances to conform to the Caltrans Highway Design Manual. All streets which intersect other streets at or near horizontal or vertical curves must meet intersection design sight distance requirements in accordance with City standards. Sight visibility easements shall be granted as necessary to comply with the requirements in the Caltrans Highway Design Manual. 33_ 28. All cul-de-sacs and knuckles not conforming to City standards shall have a design waiver submitted by the Engineer-of-Work to the City Engineer stating the deviations from City standards and explaining that, in their professional opinion, no safety considerations wilt be compromised. The waiver will be subject to approval or disapproval at the discretion of the City Engineer. 29. Two (2) points of vehicular access shall be provided to each Neighborhoods/Sites as follows: a. Neighborhood R- 19 b. Neighborhood R-47 c. CPF-1/C-1 d. Neighborhood R- 15 e. CPF-2 The Developer shall construct and complete the required access improvements prior to occupancy of any building within the above Neighborhood/Sites. The exact locations of the two (2) points of vehicular access for each Neighborhood/Site shall be approved by the Director of Planning and Building prior to Site Plan approval. The Director of Planning and Building may waive the requirement for one or more of the points of access to any Neighborhood/Site upon site plan approval in his/her sole discretion. 30. Access to East Palomar Street from the tentative map shall be relinquished on the final "A" map. 31. The private paseo located in Neighborhood R-15/CPF-2 shall be constructed concurrent with the development of Neighborhood R-15 and completed prior to occupancy of the first dwelling unit in R-15. The exact location, alignment and landscaping of the Paseo in Neighborhood R-15/CPF-2 shall be approved by the Director of Planning and Building at the time of Site Plan approval for R-15/CPF-2. The applicant may request reconsideration of the requirement for the paseo which the Director of Planning and Building may determine at his/her sole discretion. 32. The General Utility Easement at the end of Santa Andrea leading to the emergency access road shown on the Tentative Map at the easterly end of Fieldbrook Street shall be included within the boundaries of Neighborhood R-16 and shall be granted on the final "B" map for R-16. The easement shall include pedestrian access improvements, construction of which shall be secured prior to the approval of the first final "B" map for R-16 and shall be approved by 32 the Director of Planning and Building. Security shall be provided in the form of a bond or as otherwise approved by the City Engineer. 33. Install all street trees in accordance with Section 18.28.10 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code. All street trees shall be planted in parkways which have been selected from the revised list of appropriate tree species described in the Village Design Plan, and shall be approved by the Director of Planning and Building and Director of Public Works. The applicant shall provide root control methods per the requirements of the Director of Plarming and Building, and provide a deep watering irrigation system for the trees. An irrigation system shall be provided from each individual lot to the adjacent parkway. A street tree improvement plan shall be submitted prior to or concurrent with the second submittal of street improvement plans for each subdivision. The street tree improvement plans, including final selection of street trees, for the street parkways shall be approved by the Director of Planning and Building and the City Engineer. 34. Construct sidewalks and construct pedestrian ramps on all walkways to meet or exceed the "Americans with Disabilities Act" standards and as approved by the City Engineer. 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 by federal law, City ADA standards may be considered vested, as determined by Federal regulations, only after construction has commenced. 35. Alley openings shall be per San Diego Regional Standard Drawing No. G-I7, or approved modifications thereto. Additional requirements may be imposed by the City on alleys to address specific geometric and other design issues that may arise during the review of the site plan and/or improvement plans for Neighborhood R-16. These requirements shall include but are not limited to: a minimum turning radius for alleys, comer chamfers, alley signage, lighting, and unit addressing. 36. The applicant shall construct a 20-foot wide, ali-weather concrete (6 inch minimum depth) emergency access road (secondary Village One Core access) from Olympic Parkway to the easterly end of Fieldbrook Street, upon the request of the City Engineer. The emergency access road shall be secured by a bond or as otherwise approved by the City Engineer prior to the approval of the "A" Map. The cross-section of the emergency access road shall be as shown on the Tentative Map. Upon the request of the City Engineer, the applicant shall submit a full set of road improvement plans; including but not limited to: horizontal alignment, vertical profiles, intersection details, drainage appurtenances and access control, all as approved by the City Engineer and the Fire Marshal. Emergency entrances shall be provided with mechanical gates and an "Opticom" system, or some other automated system with backup and/or fail safe features acceptable to the Police and Fire Chief. 33 37. Provide (1) twenty feet setback on driveways from property line to garage and (2) sectional roll-up type garage doors at all properties fronting on streets where cul-de-sacs are 150 feet or less in length except as provided for in the Planned Community District Regulations or approved by the City Engineer and the Director of Planning and Building. 38. Residential Street Condition A as denoted on the cover page of the tentative map is the preferred section and shall be implemented on all residential streets, including the connecting street in Neighborhood R-15 as defined in SPA One. Unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer and Director of Planning and Building. However, Mount Maclure Drive, between Fieldbrook Street and Greenfield Street, and the easterly side of Santa Rita, between Fieldbrook Street and Carneros Street shall be constructed with five foot sidewalks in lieu of the four foot sidewalks indicated on the Tentative Map cross-sections. 39. Requested General Waivers 1, 2 and 4, as indicated on the cover sheet of the tentative map, are hereby approved. Specific Waivers 1 and 2 are approved subject to the condition that one-way circulation be provided at the north-south streets adjacent to park P-12, unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. 40. Not install privately owned water, reclaimed water, or other utilities crossing any public street. This shall include the prohibition of the installation of sleeves for future construction of privately owned facilities. The City Engineer may waive this requirement if the following is accomplished: a. The developer enters into an agreement with the City where the developer agrees to the following: (1) Apply for an encroachment permit for installation of the private facilities within the public right-of-way. (2) Maintain membership in an advance notice such as the USA Dig Alert Service. (3) Mark out any private facilities owned by the developer whenever work is performed in the area. The terms of this agreement shall be binding upon the successors and assigns of the developer. b. Shutoff devices as determined by the City Engineer are provided at those locations where private facilities traverse public streets. 41. Prior to the approval of any improvement plan within the tentative map, submit and obtain preliminary approval for proposed street names from the Director of Planning and 34 Building and the City Engineer. No two imersections shall have the same name. Street name suffixes shall comply with City standards. 42. The applicant shall construct emergency access roads to East Palomar Street at the end of Weaverville Street and Fieldbrook Street upon the request of the City Engineer. The access roads shall be secured by a bond or as otherwise approved by the City Engineer and City Attorney in an amount approved by the City Engineer, prior to the approval of the final map for Neighborhood R-48 and R-18 respectively. The emergency access roads shall be contained within general access easements granted to the City of Chula Vista. Emergency access entrances shall be provided with mechanical gates and an "Opticom" system, or some other automated system with backup and/or fail safe features acceptable to the Police and Fire Chief. 43. The City of San Diego Water Line (Otay Lakes Pipeline No. 2) within the Tentative Map shall be relocated or a revised Tentative Map for Neighborhood R-17 shall be approved prior to the approval of the first Final Map within Neighborhood R-17. 44. Street light locations shall be approved by the City Engineer. 45. Prior to the approval of the first final "B" map, the applicant shall process and obtain the approval of a Parcel Map, or similar plat or instrument, whereupon the right-of-way for Olympic Parkway from Brandywine Avenue to SR-125 is offered for dedication to the City of Chula Vista. The alignment of Olympic Parkway shall substantially conform to the final Olympic Parkway Feasibility Report prepared by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. If the City and Applicant enter into the Agreement for Financing and Construction of Olympic Parkway and Related Roadway_Improvements which requires the dedication of Olympic Parkway as described above, the Developer shall conform to that agreement. 46. The typical cross section of Olympic Parkway including the right-of-way, regional trail, and meandering sidewalks shall conform to the final Olympic Parkway Master Landscape Plan by Estrada Land Planning, Inc. The regional trail shall be located on the north side of Olympic Parkway, within the 20 foot landscape easement. Where the Poggi Canyon Channel crosses to the southerly side of Olympic Parkway, the developer shall provide an additional 12 foot wide flat area behind the Olympic Parkway right-of-way. GRADING AND DRAINAGE 47. Storm drain systems that collect water from private property shall be designated private on grading and drainage and/or improvement plans to the point of connection with a public system or to the point at which storm water that is collected from public street right-of-way, public park or open space areas is first introduced into the system. Downstream from that point, the storm drain system shall be public. An encroachment permit shall be processed and approved by the City for private storm drains within the public right-of-way or within C.F.D. maintained Open Space lots. 35 48. Submit with grading and drainage and/or improvement plans as applicable hydrologic and hydraulic studies and calculations, including dry lane calculations for all public streets. Calculations shall also be provided to demonstrate the adequacy of downstream drainage structures, pipes and inlets. 49. The developer shall submit notarized letters of permission to grade for all off-site grading. 50. Storm drain design shall conform to the requirements of the Subdivision Manual and the Grading Ordinance as may be amended from time to time. 51. Design the storm drains and other drainage facilities to include Best Management Practices to minimize non-point source pollution, satisfactory to the City Engineer. 52. Provide a setback, as determined by the City Engineer, between the property lines of the proposed lots and the top or toe of any slope to be constructed where the proposed grading adjoins undeveloped property or property owned by others. The City Engineer shall not approve the creation of any lot that does not meet the required setback. 53. Submit a list of proposed lots with the appropriate grading plan indicating whether the structure will be located on fill, cut or a transition between the two situations unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. 54. Grant on the appropriate final "B" Map a 15 feet minimum drainage and access easement for storm drain lines located between residential units unless otherwise directed by the City Engineer. All other easements shall meet City standards for required width. 55. Prior to approval of the first final "B" Map or grading permit for land draining into Poggi Canyon or grading permit which requires construction of the Poggi Canyon Channel, whichever is earlier, the developer shall: a. Guarantee the construction of the applicable drainage facility, unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer including a runoff detention/desilting basin and naturalized channel in Poggi Canyon; The City Engineer may approve that these facilities are constructed at a later time if the developer provides private temporary runoff detention basins or other facilities, approved by the City Engineer, which would reduce the quantity of runoff from the development to an amount equal to less than the present 100 year flow. Said temporary facilities shall comply with all the provisions of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and the Clean Water Program. Prior to issuance of any grading permit which approves any temporary 36 facility, the developer shall enter into an agreement with the City to guarantee the adequate operation and maintenance (O & M) of said facility. The developer shall provide security satisfactory to the City to guarantee the O & M activities, in the event said facilities are not maintained to City standards as determined by the City Engineer. The developer shall be responsible for obtaining all permits and agreements with the environmental regulatory agencies required to perform this work. b. Prepare a maintenance program including a schedule, estimate of cost, operations manual and a financing mechanism for the maintenance of the applicable facilities. Said program shall be subject to approval of the City Engineer, the Director of Planning and Building, and the applicable environmental agencies. c. Enter into an agreement with the City of Chula Vista and the applicable environmental agencies (Fish and Game, Fish and Wildlife) wherein the parties agree to implement the maintenance program. d. Enter into an agreement with the City where the developer agrees to the following: (1) Provide for the maintenance of the proposed naturalized channel and detention basin in Poggi Canyon until such time as maintenance of such facilities is assumed by the City or an open space district. (2) Provide for the removal of siltation in the Poggi Canyon Channel (including detention basins) until all upstream grading within the development is completed and erosion protection planting is adequately established as determined by the City Engineer and Director of Planning and Building. (3) Provide for the removal of any siltation in the Poggi Canyon Channel (including detention basins) attributable to the development for a minimum period of five years after maintenance of the facility is accepted by the City or an open space district. 56. Comply with all the provisions of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and the Clean Water Program. 57. Provide runoff detention basins or any other facility approved by the City Engineer to reduce the quantity of runoff from the development to an amount equal to or less than the present 100-year frequency runoff. 37 58. Storm drain clean outs shall not be located on slopes or in inaccessible areas for maintenance equipment. Public storm drains shall be installed as close to perpendicular to the slope contours as possible but in no case greater than 15 degrees from perpendicular to the contours. 59. Brow ditches that flow over a slope greater than 10 feet in height and are steeper than a 3:1 shall not be allowed. Drainage shall be collected in an inlet and carried to the bottom of the slope in an underground storm drain. 60. Ensure that brow channels and ditches emanating from and/or running through City Open Space are not routed through private property and vice versa. 61. Provide a graded access (12 feet minimum width) and access easements as required by the City Engineer to all public storm drain inlet structures, including but not limited to the following: a. The 8 ft. by 8 ft. box culvert located at the southeast comer of Paseo Ranchero and Olympic Parkway. b. Both ends of the box culvert crossing Olympic Parkway in the vicinity of the Emergency Access Road. c. To a secondary drainage channel along the southerly side of Olympic Parkway easterly of the point where the Poggi Canyon Channel crosses to the southerly side of Olympic Parkway, if such a channel is indicated on the grading plans for that area. The access road and easement may be deleted with the development of Village Two by approval of the City Engineer. Improved access as determined by the City Engineer shall be provided to public drainage structures located in the rear yard of any residential lot 62. Provide additional graded maintenance access roads along both sides of the proposed onsite and offsite portions of the Poggi Canyon Channel. The width of said roads shall be 12 feet unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. The final dimensions and location of the access roads shall be as determined by the City Engineer. The maintenance access roads shall be designed to accommodate the space required for the 20 foot wide tree planting nodes as depicted on the Olympic Parkway Landscape Master Plan by Estrada Land Planning, Inc. 63. Provide a protective fencing system around (1) the proposed detention basins at Poggi Canyon, and (2) inlets and outlets of storm drain structures, as directed by the City Engineer. The final design and types of construction materials shall be subject to approval of the Director of Planning and Building and the City Engineer. 38 64. Designate all drainage facilities draining private property to the point of connection with public facilities as private. 65. Provide a 6 inch thick concrete access road to the bottom of the proposed detention basins. This access shall have a minimum width of 12 feet, a maximum slope of 8%, and a heavy broom finish on the ramp as directed by the City Engineer. 66. Obtain a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) from the Federal Emergency Management Agency revising the current National Flood Insurance Program maps of the downstream end of Poggi Canyon Channel west of Brandywine Avenue to reflect the effect of the proposed drainage improvements. The LOMR shall be completed prior to acceptance by the City of the proposed detention facility. 67. Obtain, prior to approval of the first final "B" Map, the approval of the Director of Public Works of any amendment necessary to make the Master Drainage plan consistent with the approved Tentative Map. 68. Prepare and obtain approval by the City Engineer and Director of Planning and Building an erosion and sedimentation control plan and landscape/irrigation plans as part of the grading plans. 69. Indicate on all affected grading plans that all walls which are to be maintained by open space districts shall be constructed entirely within open space lots dedicated to the City. 70. Prior to issuance of any grading permit for any land that is contained within the Tentative Map or within the Poggi Canyon Basin, the applicant shall: a. secure the approval of an amendment to the Otay Ranch Phase Two Resource Management Plan by the City Council. b. secure the required permits from the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) and the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). Grading plans that do not require ACOE or CDFG permits may be approved by the City Engineer. No grading adjacent to the Poggi Canyon shall occur without prior consultation with the City Mitigation Monitor, the City Engineering Inspector, the ACOE, and the CDFG. SEWER 71. All sewer access points (manholes) shall be located at the centerline of streets or cul-de- sacs unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer and Director of Public Works. 39 72. Provide an improved access road with a minimum width of 12 feet to all sanitary sewer manholes. The roadway shall be designed for an H-20 wheel load or other loading as approved by the City Engineer. 73. Grant on the appropriate final "B" Map a 20 feet minimum sewer and access easement for sewerlines located between residential units unless otherwise directed by the City Engineer. All other easements shall meet City standards for required width. 74. No diversion from the natural boundaries of the Poggi Canyon Sewer Basin will be allowed, unless approved by the City Engineer. 75. Prior to the approval of the first final "B" map or site plan approval, whichever comes first, for any portion of the tentative map which was within the Poggi Canyon Basin prior to any grading, the applicant shall submit a study analyzing the capacity of sewer facilities within and downstream from the Poggi Canyon Basin. The study shall be approved by the City Engineer and shall consider all approved land development projects and anticipated future land uses that would utilize the downstream facilities. The sewer study shall update the "Overview of Sewer Service for SPA One at the Otay Ranch Project" (SPA One Sewer Report) prepared by Wilson Engineering dated June 4, 1996. PARKS/OPEN SPACE/WILDLIFE PRESERVATION 76. The SPA One project shall satisfy the requirements of the City's Park Land Dedication Ordinance (PLDO) (Chapter 17.10). The ordinance establishes a requirement that the project provide three (3) acres of local parks and related improvements per 1,000 residents. Local parks are comprised of community parks, neighborhood parks and pedestrian parks (to the extent that pedestrian parks receive partial park credit as defined below). Two thirds (2 acres/I,000 residents) of local park requirement shall be satisfied through the provision of turn-key neighborhood and pedestrian parks within SPA One. The remaining requirement (1 acre/I,000 residents) shall be satisfied through the payment of Park Acquisition and Dedication (PAD) fees, dedication of land, or a combination thereof. 77. All local parks shall be consistent with the SPA One PFFP, as may be amended from time to time, and shall be installed by the Applicant. A construction schedule, requiring all parks to be completed in a timely manner, shall be approved by the Director of Planning and Building. 78. All local parks shall be designed and constructed consistent with the provisions of the Chula Vista Landscape Manual and related Planning and Building Department specifications and policies. 4O 79. The applicant shall enter into a Chula Vista standard three party agreement with the City of Chula Vista and design consultant(s), for the design of all aspects of the neighborhood and community parks in accordance with the Master Plan whereby the Planning and Building Director selects the design consultant(s), to be funded by the applicant. The cost for the consultant(s) shall be established and said amount deposited into an account prior to any work being initiated by the consultant. The agreement shall include, but not be limited to, master planning, design development phase, construction document phase and construction supervision phase for the park sites. The construction documents shall reflect the then current requirements of the City's Code/Landscape Manual requirements. 80. The Applicant shall receive surplus park credit to the extent the combined park credit for neighborhood parks, pedestrian parks, and the community park exceeds the 3 acres per 1,000 residents standard. This surplus park credit may be utilized by the Applicant to satisfy local park requirements in future SPAs. 81. The Applicant and the City shall mutually agree on a PAD fee reimbursement schedule in coordination with the adopted construction schedule. Milestones will be established for partial reimbursement during the construction process. The City may withhold up to 20% of the park construction funds until the park has been completed and accepted. Reimbursement of PAD fees shall include the interest accrued by the City on said PAD fees minus the City's cost of processing and administering this reimbursement program. 82. Grant in fee ail designated public park lands at such time as is necessary to implement the requirements of the PLDO and the PFFP. 83. Pedestrian Parks (also known as mini-parks): Pedestrian parks less than five acres, as identified in the SPA One Plan, shall be maintained by a funding entity other than the City's General Fund. Pedestrian parks shall receive a minimum of 25% and a maximum of 50% park credit, as determined by the Director of Planning and Building pursuant to the City wide small park credit criteria which shall be approved by the City Council. Parks located within guarded areas shall not receive park credit. 84. Neighborhood Parks: a. In addition to those PAD fees required by Condition No. 76, the Applicant shall pay PAD fees based on a formula of 2 acres per 1,000 residents for the first 500 dwelling units within SPA One. In the City's sole discretion, PAD fees may be required for units in excess of the first 500 dwelling units within SPA One. b. Prior to the approval of the first final map which creates residential lots ("B" Map), the applicant shall enter into a supplemental agreement where the applicant agrees to construct the first neighborhood park in SPA One, in a location determined by the Director of Planning and Building, no later than issuance of the building permit for the 500th dwelling unit within SPA One. The agreement shall also provide the following: (1) Developer shall commence construction of the first neighborhood park in SPA One, identified as Park P-l, at the location set forth in SPA One Plan and as shown on the Village One "A" Map No. 13592 thereof as lot "F", no later than issuance of the building permit for the 500th dwelling unit for the Project. The level of amenities required in said construction of the first neighborhood park shall be determined by the Director of Planning and Building in conjunction with the park master planning effort required by the City of Chula Vista Landscape Manual. Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, the developer shall complete construction of the entire P-1 neighborhood park as identified in SPA One Plan within eight (8) months after commencing construction of said park. For purposes of this paragraph, "complete construction" shall mean that the construction of the park has been completed and accepted by the City as being in compliance with the Park Master Plan, but prior to the City's required mandatory maintenance period. (2) Developer agrees to commence construction of the second neighborhood park in SPA One, identified as P-2, at the location set forth in the SPA One Plan and as shown on said Village One "A" Map as lot "R". Such construction shall commence upon the earlier of: a) issuance of the building permit for the 2033th dwelling unit for SPA One, or b) if the Project is determined by the City to be in deficit in constructed neighborhood parks based upon 2 acres/I,000 residents. Such construction shall be completed within eight (8) months after commencing construction of said park. For purposes of this paragraph, "complete construction" shall mean that the construction of the park has been completed and accepted by the City as being in compliance with the Park Master Plan, but prior to the City's required mandatory maintenance period. This is not intended to supersede any of the City's maintenance guarantee requirements. The Developer and City agree to negotiate in good faith a park agreement concerning Developer's neighborhood and community park obligations for Villages 1 and 5 of SPA One. (3) At no time following completion of construction of the first phase of the first neighborhood park shall there be a deficit in "constructed neighborhood park" based upon 2 acres/i,000 residents. Applicant agrees that the City may withhold the issuance of building permits should said deficit occur. For purposes of this condition, the term "constructed neighborhood park" shall mean that construction of the park has been completed and accepted by the Director of Planning and Building as being in compliance with the Park Master Plan, but prior to the mandatory 9-12 month maintenance period. This condition is not intended to supersede any of the City's maintenance guarantee requirements. (4) The Applicant shall receive reimbursement of PAD fees, proportionate to what has been constructed, should they deliver a turn-key park which has been constructed in accordance with the Parks Master Plan subject to approval by the Director of Planning and Building. c. The applicant shall grant to the City, at the "A" Map stage, an irrevocable offer of dedication for all public neighborhood parks shown on the Tentative Map. 85. Community Parks: a. Prior to the approval of each final "B" Map the Applicant shall comply with the PLDO for the Community Park based upon a formula of 1 acre per 1, 000 residents, until such time as a turn-key facility has been constructed by the applicant and accepted by the Director of Planning and Building. Said tutu-key facility is subject to the reimbursement mechanism set forth below. b. The first Otay Ranch Community Park, to satisfy SPA One demand, shall be located in Village 2 as identified in the GDP. c. Notwithstanding that the community park requirement (1 acre/I,000 residents) shall be satisfied through the payment of PAD fees, the Applicant shall commence construction of the first phase of the Community Park prior to issuance of the building permit for the 2,650th dwelling unit within SPA One. The first phase of construction shall include, but not be limited to, improvements such as a graded site with utilities provided to the property line and an all weather access road acceptable to the Fire Department. d. The Applicant shall commence construction of the second phase of the Community Park prior to issuance of the building permit for the 3,000th dwelling unit within SPA One. Second phase improvements shall include recreational amenities as identified in the Park Master Plan. e. The Community Park shall be ready for acceptance by the Director of Planning and Building for maintenance prior to issuance of the building permit for the 3,900th dwelling unit within SPA One. f. If the Director of Planning and Building determines that it is not feasible for the Applicant to commence construction of the first phase improvements of the 43 community park prior to issuance of the building permit for the 2,650th unit within SPA One, then the Director of Planning and Building shall have the option to utilize the PAD fees for said improvements, or to construct another park facility, east of the 1-805 Freeway within an acceptable service radius of SPA One, as set forth in the GDP. g. The Applicant shall provide a maintenance period of 9-12 months in accordance with the City of Chula Vista Planning and Building Department policy. h. The Applicant shall receive reimbursement of PAD fees, proportionate to what has been constructed, excluding the cost of construction of the all weather access road, for the community park should they deliver a turn-key facility to the City in accordance with the Community Park Master Plan, subject to the approval of the Director of Planning and Building. 86. Trails/Open Space: The applicant shall construct trails as follows: a. The Regional Trail shall be located on the north side of Poggi Canyon (Olympic Parkway) for the entire length of Olympic Parkway in Village One, and shall be designed to incorporate the Olympic Parkway Landscape Master Plan by Estrada Land Planning, Inc., as approved by the the City and as amended from time to time including the "tree planting nodes" as specified in the Olympic Parkway Landscape Master Plan. Specific locations shall be subject to the approval of the Director of Planning and Building. The Regional Trail shall meander away from the curb as much as possible avoiding the "tree planting nodes" If retaining walls are necessary, they should be kept to a minimum and/or if a grading solution can be found, retaining walls will not be used to gain additional space for the street corridor. The retaining walls are to be located and detailed on the Grading Plans for Olympic Parkway and/or the Poggi Canyon Drainage Channel, and approved by the Director of Plaiming and Building. Slopes gradients may be increased to the maximum permitted in the grading ordinance in limited locations to accomodate the "tree planting nodes" and maintenance access ways. Landform grading policies shall be observed. If a combination of low retaining walls and modified landform grading cannot accomodate "tree planting nodes" and maintenance access areas, the top of slope shall be adjusted as necessary. Prior to the installation of the regional trail, install a fence along those portions of the proposed maintenance access roads of the Poggi Canyon Channel, which are proposed to be incorporated into the Regional Trail System. The fence shall be erected only at those locations where its installation will not interfere with the normal channel maintenance. The specific locations where the fence will be allowed and the fence details shall be as determined by the City Engineer and Director of Planning and Building. b. All trails shall be constructed concurrent with the approved Phase Seven rough grading, and connect to adjoining existing and/or proposed trails in neighboring development projects, as determined by the Director of Planning and Building. c. The maximum gradient for non-ADA compliant connector trails shall be 10%. Steeper grades of up to 12% for short runs of 50 feet may be permitted subject to the approval by the Director of Planning and Building. d. The graded section upon which the connecting trails are constructed shall be 10 feet in width. Six feet shall be provided for the trail bed, with a 2 foot graded shoulder on either side. e. Applicant shall install appropriate signage indicating location of trail connections, handicap access, and bikeway locations to the Regional Trail, and shall be approved by the Director of Planning and Building prior to the approval of the first final "B" map for Phase Seven (Purple Phase). Signage shall be installed upon the request of the Director of Planning and Building. f. Prior to the installation of the regional trail, install a fence along those portions of the proposed maintenance access roads of the Poggi Canyon Channel, which are proposed to be incorporated into the Regional Trail System. The fence shall be erected only at those locations where its installation will not interfere with the normal channel maintenance. The specific locations where the fence will be allowed and the fence details shall be as determined by the City Engineer and Director of Planning and Building. 87. Community Gardens: a. Community Gardens shall be consistent with the guidelines in the SPA One Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Master Plan, including creation of the Community Garden Committee and their responsibilities. b. Water lines shall be stubbed from the nearest open space water meter to the site(s) in order to facilitate development of the Community Gardens. c. Community Garden sites shall be consistent with those identified on the tentative map. d. Maintenance of Community Gardens shall be funded by an Open Space Maintenance District, Homeowner's Association or other funding mechanism approved by the Director of Planning and Building and the City Engineer. e. Community Gardens shall not receive park credit. OPEN SPACE/ASSESSMENTS 88. Prior to the approval of the first final Map, the developer shall: a. Submit and obtain approval of an updated Open Space Maintenance Responsibilities Map from the Director of Planning and Building. b. Submit evidence acceptable to the City Engineer and the Director of Planning and Building of the formation of a Master Homeowner's Association (MHOA), or another financial mechanism acceptable to the City Manager, which includes all the properties within the approved tentative map. The MHOA shall be responsible for the maintenance of all improvements not specifically maintained by the Community Facilities District 97-1 (CFD 97-1). The MHOA shall be structured to allow annexation of future tentative map areas in the event the City Engineer and Director of Planning and Building require such annexation of future tentative map areas. The MHOA formation documents shall be approved by the City Attorney. 89. Grade a level, clear area at least three feet wide (face of wall to top of slope), along the length of any wall abutting an open space district lot, as measured from face-of-wall to beginning of slope, said area as approved by the City Engineer and the Director of Plarming and Building. 90. Ensure that all buyers of lots adjoining open space lots containing walls maintained by the open space district sign a statement, when purchasing their homes, stipulating that they are aware that the walls are on City property and that they shall not modify or supplement the wall or encroach onto City property. These restrictions shall also be incorporated in the CC&R's for each lot. 91. Agree to not protest formation or inclusion in a maintenance district or zone for the maintenance of landscaped medians and scenic corridors along streets within and adjacent to the subject subdivision. 92. Grant in fee to the City on the first final map for the project, all open space lots shown on the tentative map and execute and record a deed for each of the lots to be maintained by the City through the open space district. 46 93. Fund the revision of the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee (PFDIF) Program, which shall be prepared by the City, as directed by the City Manager or his designee, and approved by the City Council prior to approval of the first final "B" Map. The developer shall receive 100% credits towards future PFDIF fees for funding this update. Provide a deposit of $20,000 to begin this process. All cost of revising the PFDIF shall be borne by the developer. 94. Prior to issuance of any grading permit which includes Landscaping and Irrigation (L&I) improvements to be installed in an open space lot to be maintained by the open space district, the developer shall place a cash deposit with the City which will guarantee the maintenance of the L&I improvements, prior to City acceptance of said improvements, in the event the improvements are not maintained to City standards as determined by the City Engineer and the Director of Planning and Building. The amount of the deposit shall be equivalent to the estimated cost of maintaining the open space lots to City standards for a period of six months as determined by the City Engineer. Any unused portion of said deposit could be incorporated into the open space district's reserve at such time as the maintenance of the open space lot is assumed by the open space district. WATER 95. Provide to the City a letter from Otay Municipal Water District indicating that the assessments/bonded indebtedness for all parcels dedicated or granted in fee to the City have been paid or that no assessments exist on the parcel(s). 96. Present verification to the City Engineer in the form of a letter from Otay Water District that the subdivision will be provided adequate water service and long term water storage facilities. EASEMENTS 97. Grant to the City a 10' wide easement for general utility purposes along public street frontage of all open space lots offered for dedication to the City unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. Ensure to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Building that sufficient room is available for street tree planting when locating utilities within this easement. 98. Indicate on the appropriate "B" Map a reservation of easements to the future Homeowners' Association for private storm drain and within open space lots as directed by the City Engineer. Obtain, prior to approval of any final "B" Map, all off-site right-of-way necessary for the installation of the required improvements for that subdivision thereto. The developer shall also provide easements for all on-site and off-site public drainage facilities, sewers, maintenance roads, and any other public facilities necessary to provide service to the subject subdivision. 99. Notify the City at least 60 days prior to consideration of the final map by City if off-site right-of-way cannot be obtained as required by the Conditions of approval. (Only off-site right- of-way or easements affected by Section 66462.5 of the Subdivision Map Act are covered by this condition.) After said notification, the developer shall: a. Pay the full cost of acquiring off-site right-of-way or easements required by the Conditions of Approval of the tentative map. b. Deposit with the City the estimated cost of acquiring said right-of-way or easements. Said estimate to be approved by the City Engineer. c. Have all easements and/or right-of-way documents and plats prepared and appraisals complete which are necessary to commence condemnation proceedings as determined by the City Attorney. d. Request that the City use its powers of Eminent Domain to acquire right-of-way, easements or licenses needed for off-site improvements or work related to the final map. The developers shall pay all costs, both direct and indirect incurred in said acquisition. The requirements of a, b, and c above shall be accomplished prior to the approval of the appropriate Final Map. 100. Grant easements to subsequent owners pursuant to Section 18.20.150 of the City Code on any final map that proposes private utilities or drainage facilities crossing property lines as directed by the City Engineer. 101. Grant to City on the appropriate final "B" Map two foot access easements along the rear and side property line of lots adjoining walls to be maintained by the open space district. The locations of these easements shall be as required by the Director of Planning and Building and the City Engineer to provide adequate access for maintenance of said walls. 102. Storm drain easements shall be private unless the storm drain systems therein are public. 103. Where a private storm drain easement will parallel a public sewer easement, the easements shall be delineated separately on the final map and on the grading and improvement plans. If any portion of the easements will overlap one another, the City shall have a superior right to the common portion of the easements. AGREEMENTS/FINANCIAL 48 104. Enter into a supplemental agreement with the City, prior to approval of each final "B" Map, where the developer agrees to the following: a. That the City may withhold building permits for the subject subdivision if any one of the following occur: (1) Regional development threshold limits set by the adopted East Chula Vista Transportation Phasing Plan have been reached. (2) Traffic volumes, levels of service, public utilities and/or services exceed the threshold standards in the then effective Growth Management Ordinance. (3) The applicant 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 Public Facilities Financing Plan (PFFP) for Otay Ranch SPA One if the required facilities, as identified in the PFFP or as amended by the Annual Monitoring Program, have not been completed. c. 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 approval by its Planning Commission, City Council or any approval by its agents, officers, or employees with regard to this subdivision provided the City promptly notifies the subdivider of any claim, action or proceeding and on the further condition that the City fully cooperates in the defense. d. Hold the City harmless from any liability for erosion, siltation or increase flow of drainage resulting from this project. e. Ensure that all franchised cable television companies ("Cable Company") are permitted equal opportunity to place conduit and provide cable television service to each lot on public streets within the subdivision. Restrict access to the conduit to only those franchised cable television companies who are, and remain in compliance with, all of the terms and conditions of the franchise and which are in further compliance with all other rules, regulations, ordinances and procedures regulating and affecting the operation of cable television companies as same may have been, or may from time to time be issued by the City of Chula Vista. f. Include in the Articles of Incorporation or Charter for the Homeowners' 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 determination and allow the Developer reasonable time to cure said breach. 105. Enter into an supplemental agreement with the City prior to approval of the first final "B" Map, where the developer agrees to the following: a. Participate, on a fair share basis, in any deficiency plan or financial program adopted by SANDAG to comply with the Congestion Management Program (CMP). b. To not protest the formation of any future regional impact fee program or facilities benefit district to finance the construction of correctional facilities. SCHOOLS 106. The Applicant 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 all weather access road shall also be acceptable to the Fire Department. This schedule is subject to modification by the School District as based on District facility needs. 107. The Applicant shall deliver to the School District, a graded elementary school site including utilities provided to the site and an all weather access road acceptable to the District, located within Village One, prior to issuance of the 500th residential building permit (150 students) within SPA One. The all weather access road shall also be acceptable to the Fire Department. This schedule is subject to modification by the School district as based on District facility needs. 108. The Applicant shall deliver to the School District, a graded elementary school site including utilities provided to the site and an all weather access road acceptable to the District, located within Village Five, prior to issuance of the 2,500th residential building permit (750 students) within SPA One. The all weather access road shall also be acceptable to the Fire Department. This schedule is subject to modification by the School District as based on District facility needs. 109. The applicant shall deliver to the School District, a graded elementary school site including utilities provided to the site and an all weather access road acceptable to the District, 50 located west of Paseo Ranchero, prior to issuance of the 4,500th residential building permit (1,350 students) within SPA One. The all weather access road shall also be acceptable to the Fire Department. This schedule is subject to modification by the School District as based on District facility needs. MISCELLANEOUS 110. Include in the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&R's) provisions assuring maintenance of all streets, driveways, drainage and sewage systems which are private. The City of Chula Vista shall be named as party to said Declaration authorizing the City to enforce the terms and conditions of the Declaration in the same manner as any owner within the subdivision. The CC&R's shall also include language which states that any proposal by the HOA for dedication or conveyance for public purposes of land used for private streets will require prior written approval of 100% of all the Homeowners' Association members. 111. Submit copies of Final Maps, grading and improvement plans in a digital format such as (DXF) graphic file prior to approval of each Final Map. Provide computer aided Design (CAD) copy of all Final Maps based on accurate coordinate geometry calculations and submit the information in accordance with the City Guidelines for Digital Submittal in duplicate on media acceptable to the City Engineer prior to the approval of each Final Map. 112. Tie the boundary of the subdivision to the California System -Zone VI (1983). 113. The Applicant shall secure approval of a Master Precise Plan for the Village One Core Areas, prior to or concurrent with submitting any development proposals for commercial, multi- family and Community Purpose Facility areas within the Village One Core. 114. Pursuant to the provisions of the Growth Management Ordinance (Section 19.09 of the CVMC) and the Otay Ranch General Development Plan (GDP), the Applicant shall complete the following: (1) Fund the preparation of an annual report monitoring the development of the community of Otay Ranch. The annual monitoring report will analyze the supply of, and demand for, public facilities and services governed by the threshold standards. An annual review shall commence following the first fiscal year in which residential occupancy occurs and is to be completed during the second quarter of the following fiscal year. The annual report shall adhere to those guidelines noted on page 353, Section D of the GDP/SRP; and (2) Prepare a five year development phasing forecast identifying targeted submittal dates for future discretionary applications (SPAs and tentative maps), projected construction dates, corresponding public facility needs per the adopted threshold standards, and identifying financing options for necessary facilities. 115. The Developer shall be responsible for retaining a project manager to coordinate the processing of discretionary permit applications originating from the private sector and submitted to the City of Chula Vista. The project manager shall establish a formal submittal package required of each developer to ensure a high standard of design and to ensure consistency with standards and policies identified in the adopted SPA Plan. The project manager shall have a well rounded educational background and experience, including but not limited to land use planning and architecture. 116. The applicant shall submit copies of any proposed CC&R's for review and approval by the Director of Plaiming and Building and the City Engineer prior to approval of each final "B" Map. 117. The CPF-2 site located within Village One, shall be considered a floating designation and shall be located in Neighborhood R-15. A schematic project design for this site will be submitted, reviewed and approved by the Director of Planning and Building concurrently with the Precise Plan for this area. 118. If developer desires to do certain work on the property after approval of the tentative map but prior to recordation of the applicable final "B" Map, they may do so by obtaining the required approvals and permits from the City. The permits can be approved or denied by the City in accordance with the City's Municipal Code, regulations and policies. Said permits do not constitute a guarantee that subsequent submittals (i.e., final "B" Map and improvement plans) will be approved. All work performed by the developer prior to approval of the applicable "B" Map shall be at developer's own risk. Prior to permit issuance, the developer shall acknowledge in writing that subsequent submittals (i.e., final "B" Map and improvement plans) may require extensive changes, at developers cost, to work done under such early permit. Prior to the issuance of a permit, the developer shall post a bond or other security acceptable to the City in an amount determined by the City to guarantee the rehabilitation of the land if the applicable final "B" Map does not record. 119. Slopes in excess of 2 feet above the adjacent curb elevation of residential streets shall be landscaped in accordance with the City of Chula Vista landscape manual and approved by the Director of Planning and Building. The slope areas shall be within open space lots that shall be maintained by a Homeowners Association. This slope landscaping/open space lot requirement shall apply to the front and side yard areas of individual residential units, including the return portion of comer lots as well. The open space lot boundary shall extend to a logical break in maintenance responsibility such as a driveway, a utility pad or other physical demarcation. PHASING 120. If the applicant modifies the SPA One approved phasing plan, the applicant shall submit to the City a revised phasing plan for review and approval prior to approval of the first final "B" Map. The PFFP shall be revised where necessary to reflect the revised phasing plan. s2 121. If phasing is proposed within an individual map or through multiple final maps, the developer shall submit and obtain approval for a development phasing plan by the City Engineer and Director of Planning and Building prior to approval of any final map. Improvements, facilities and dedications to be provided with each phase or unit of development shall be as determined by the City Engineer and Director of Planning and Building. The City reserves the right to require said improvements, facilities and/or dedications as necessary to provide adequate circulation and to meet the requirements of police and fire departments. The City Engineer and Director of Planning and Building may, at their discretion, modify the sequence of improvement construction should conditions change to warrant such a revision. 122. The Public Facilities Finance Plan or revisions thereto shall be adhered to for the SPA and tentative map with improvements installed in accordance with said plan or as required to meet threshold standards adopted by the City of Chula Vista. 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 III). 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. Compliance with the City of Chula Vista 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 such development. In addition, the sequence in which improvements are constructed shall correspond to any future Eastern Chula Vista Transportation Phasing Plan or amendment to the Growth Management Program and Ordinance adopted by the City. The City Engineer may modify the sequence of improvement construction should conditions change to warrant such a revision. Concurrent with the approval of the first final map approved after the PFFP for the EastLake III GDP Area, the Applicant shall update, at the Applicant's expense and subject to a Reimbursement Agreement, the SPA One 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, which shall become a condition for all subsequent SPA One entitlements, including tentative and final maps. CODE REQUIREMENTS 123. Comply with all applicable sections of the Chuta Vista Municipal Code. Preparation of the Final Map and all plans shall he in accordance with the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act and the City of Chula Vista Subdivision Ordinance and Subdivision Manual. 124. Underground all utilities within the subdivision in accordance with Municipal Code requirements. 125. Pay the following fees in accordance with the City Code and Council Policy: 53 a. The Transportation and Public Facilities Development Impact Fees. b. Signal Participation Fees. c. All applicable sewer fees, including but not limited to sewer 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. g. Telegraph Canyon Basin Drainage DIF. h. Reimbursement District for Telegraph Canyon Road Phase 2 Undergrounding. i. Otay Ranch Reserve Fund fee. j. Pedestrian Bridges Development Impact Fee Pay the amount of said fees in effect at the time of issuance of building permits. 126. 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. 127. 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. t28. Comply with Council Policy No. 570-03 if pump stations for sewer purposes are proposed. 129. Comply with Council Policy No. 522-02 regarding maintenance of natural channels within open spaces. 130. The applicant shall comply with all aspects of the City of Chula Vista Landscape Manual. 131. All proposed development shall be consistent with the Otay Ranch SPA One Planned Community District Regulations. 54 132. The Applicant shall 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). The applicant acknowledges 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 (particularly 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 amendments to the Growth Management Ordinance. 133. Upon submittal of building plans for small lot single family (5,000 square feet or less as defined in the City of Chula Vista Design Manual) residemial development, plans shall clearly indicate that 750 square feet of private open space will be provided within the subdivision. 134. Development of the subdivision shall comply with all applicable regulations established by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) as set forth in the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (N.P.D.E.S.) permit requirements for urban runoff and storm water discharge and any regulations adopted by the City of Chula Vista pursuant to the N.P.D.E.S. regulations or requirements. Further, the applicant shall file notice of intent with the State Water Resources Control Board to obtain coverage under the N.P.D.E.S. 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. GUARDED AREAS 135. The following locations as proposed by the applicant are authorized for guarded entrances: Santa Alicia Drive and Santa Rita in Village One, Phase Seven. 136. Guarded entrances shall not have physical barriers. Guarded entrances shall be staffed from dusk until dawn, unless the MHOA or the applicant determines it is economically impractical. Physical barriers shall be prohibited at the entrances to guarded areas unless specifically approved by City Council. 137. All streets within guarded areas shall be designated as private. Design of said streets shall meet the City standards for public streets unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. Private street cross sections shall conform to those shown on the Tentative Map. 138. All private streets within Final "B" Maps shall be included in separate lots. The applicant shall provide a certificate granting to the City a public utility easement over the entire private street lots on the appropriate Final "B" Map. All private streets shall be owned as an equal and undivided interest by each subsequent property within the subdivision. 139. Guarded entrances shall: a. Require approval by the City Engineer and the Director of Planning and Building. b. Provide sufficient room on the private roadway to queue without interrupting traffic on public streets. c. Provide a turn around. The size and location of said turn around shall be approved by the City Engineer. d. Provide a clearly delineated border between public and private streets through the use of distinctive pavements. e. Provide a dedicated parking space for the gate attendant to be shown on appropriate grading and/or improvement plans. f. Be equipped with a video camera to record entering and exiting vehicles. 140. The CC&R's shall prohibit "speed bumps" on private streets. The CC&R's shall also include language which states that any proposal by the HOA to allow "speed bumps" in the future shall require prior written approval of 100% of all the Homeowner's Association members. 141. Establish Homeowners Associations (HOA) to provide for the maintenance of private storm drains, private open space lots, slope areas, landscape and irrigation and walls within each subdivision prior to the approval of the associated Final "B" Maps and include such requirements in the CC&R's. 142. Prior to approval of any "B" Map proposing private streets, the applicant shall initiate and complete the process enabling the City to enforce the California Vehicle Code on said private streets. 143. The MHOA shall be responsible for the maintenance and operation of all facilities within the common areas and streets behind the guarded entrance and such responsibility shall be included in the CC&R's. The facilities to be maintained include, but are not limited to, pavements, sidewalks, street trees, street lights including energy, street sweeping, private drainage facilities and landscaping of private common areas. The only facilities to be maintained by the City are mainline sewers and public concrete drainage facilities (i.e., pipes and catch basins). 144. Future property owners shall be notified during escrow, by a document to be initialed by the owners, and approved by the City Engineer and Director of Planning and Building, of the maintenance responsibilities of the MHOA and their estimated annual cost. 145. The applicant shall comply with all previous Agreements as they pertain to the tentative map, including but not limited to: Maintenance Agreements, Financing Agreements, and the Supplemental Subdivision Improvement Agreement for previously approved Village One "A" Map (Map thereof No. 13592, Resolution No. 19044) and subsequent "B" Map Agreements thereto. SCHEDULE "1" COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item -~ Meeting Date 5/2/00 ITEM TITLE: A) Resolution Conditionally approving Final Map of Chula Vista Tract No. 00-02, EastLake Business Center II, Phase I, accepting on behalf of the City of Chula Vista the public easements and on behalf of the public the street easements, all as granted on said map within said subdivision, and approving the Subdivision Improvement Agreement for the completion of improvements required by said subdivision and authorizing the Mayor to execute said agreement B) Resolution Approving Supplemental Subdivision Improvement Agreement for Chula Vista Tract No.00-02, EastLake Business Center II, Phase I, requiring The EastLake Company to comply with certain unfulfilled conditions of Resolution 19666 and authorizing the Mayor to execute said agreement SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public Works ~Tfr~' REVIEWED BY: City Manager ~f~/%~"Y (4/Sths Vote: Yes_NoX._~_) On November 16, 1999, by Resolution 19666 (Attachment 1), the City Council approved the Tentative Subdivision Map for Chula Vista Tract No. 00-02, EastLake Business Center II. Said tentative map was approved based on certain conditions in which The EastLake Company (Developer) agreed to comply with and which were established by said Resolution. The Final Map, Subdivision Improvement Agreement and Supplemental Subdivision Improvement Agreement for the first phase of development (EastLake Business Center II) are now before Council for consideration and approval. RECOMMENDATION: That Council adopt the resolutions: (A) conditionally approving the Final Map, and Subdivision Improvement Agreement; and (B) approving the Supplemental Subdivision Improvement Agreement. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: On November 16, 1999, the City Council voted 4-0-1 (Moot absent) to approve the Tentative Subdivision Map [or EastLake Business Center II, Chula Vista Tract No. 00-02. Page 2, Item '~J Meeting Date 5/2/00 DISCUSSION: General The project site is irregular in shape and represents some of the western area of the EastLake Business Center II subdivision. The site is limited to the north, south, and east by the undeveloped areas of the EastLake Business Center II subdivision and to the west by the EastLake Business Center I subdivision. A plat of the subdivision is presented in Attachment 2. Access to the site is provided via Lane Avenue and the easterly extension of Fenton Street. In future phases of the Business Center, Fenton Street will be extended easterly and to the south to provide an alternative access to and from the site with a connection to Otay Lakes Road. The entire EastLake Business Center II Subdivision is anticipated to have four (4) Final Maps or development phases. The first phase of development is referred to as EastLake Business Center II, Phase lA (referred to collectively herein as the "Project"). The western area of the EastLake Business Center II represents the first phase of development contained within the Final Map now before Council for approval. The Final Map for the west phase consists of two (2) buildable lots, one (1) open space lot, and (1) remainder parcel. Easements and Public Right-of-Way The Final Map for the subdivision has been reviewed by the Department of Public Works and found to be in substantial conformance with the approved Tentative Map. Approval of the Final Map constitutes acceptance by the City of all sewer, drainage, general utility, tree planting, sidewalk and maintenance, access, sight visibility, temporary sewer and tree planting and maintenance easements, all as shown on said map within said subdivision. Approval of the map also constitutes acceptance, on behalf of the public, of Fenton Street (from the western subdivision boundary) to a point east of Harold Place. Business Owner's Association In compliance with Condition Nos. 47 and 51 and other tentative map conditions of approval of Resolution 19666, the Developer has agreed to utilize the maintenance program established by the Business Owner's Association for EastLake Business Center I to maintain the areas delineated by the EastLake Business Center II Project. In order to accomplish this, the Developer will annex the entire EastLake Business Center II with the EastLake Business Center I, and adopt the CC&R's and Business Owner's Association maintenance program from EastLake Business Center I. The Business Owner's Association shall provide for the maintenance of, but not limited to, slope areas, future Fenton Street medians and parkways, and other areas designated by Resolution 19666. In addition, the Developer has agreed to submit and obtain the City's approval of the Declaration of Codes, Covenants and Restrictions (CC&R's), which exist for the EastLake Business Center I, for the EastLake Business Center II Project within 60-days of the date of Council approval of the Final Map now before Council. Page 3, Item -~ Meeting Date 5/2/00 Irrevocable Offers of Dedication At this time, the City is acknowledging the Irrevocable Offer of a Dedication of Fee Interest (IOD) in Lots A, for open space. The open space lot will be maintained by the future EastLake Business Center II Business Owner's Association. It should be noted, however, that under Section 7050 of the Government Code of the State of California, the aforementioned offers of dedication remain open and subject to future acceptance by the City. Required Infrastructure Condition No. 2 (Facility Nos. 2 and 3) of Resolution 19666 established the requirements of the Developer to agree to construct and guarantee construction for specific on-site and off-site infrastructure improvements prior to approval of the Final Map which is now before Council. The infrastructure required by said conditions primarily included: 1.) all on-site and off-site improvements, including underground improvements, and traffic signal standards with luminaires, and 2.) improvements for the construction of an off-site cul-de-sac at the easterly terminus of Boswell Road. The obligation of the Developer to construct the on-site and off-site infrastructure improvements, as detailed in the subject conditions, has been met through the execution of a Subdivision Improvement Agreement and a Supplemental Subdivision Improvement Agreement, respectively. Construction securities for the material and labor and faithful performance of all the required street improvements was posted by the Developer from a sufficient surety, whose sufficiency was approved by the City, and in the amounts approved by the City. Satisfied Conditions and Agreements The Developer has satisfied Resolution 19666 Tentative Map Condition Nos. 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 1 I, 13, 14, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 33, 34a, 37, 38, 41, 42, 43, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 56, 60, 63, 64, and 75, as they pertain to this Final Map before Council, through the design, grading and improvement plans, the bonding of work, the payment of all applicable fees, easements, agreements, and other conditions of project approval. The Developer has executed a Supplemental Subdivision Improvement Agreement in order to satisfy or partially satisfy Resolution 19666 Tentative Map Conditions A, B, C, D, 2 (Facility Nos. 2,3), 8, 9, 10, 12, 16, 20, 23, 24, 34b, 34c, 44, 57, 58, 59, 62, 66, 67, 69, 70, 72, 73, 76, 77, 78, 79, 81, and 82, as they pertain to this Final Map before Council. The Developer's Disclosure Statement is attached as Attachment 3. Any Tentative Map Conditions of Resolution 19666 numerically not accounted for from the aforelisted did not apply to the EastLake Business Center II Phase lA of development. Said missing conditions apply specifically to the future phases of development and will be accounted for at the time of approval of its associated Final Map. In order to guarantee the subdivision monumentation and benchmarks and the construction of all the required on-site public improvements for EastLake Business Center II, Phase iA, the Developer has executed a Subdivision Improvement Agreement. Page 4, Item ~'% Meeting Date 5/2/00 Approval of the Final Map is also contingent upon the recordation of the Parcel Map containing the subject subdivision and the submittal of an updated Title Report evidencing the same. Council may rescind approval of the Final Map should the City of Chula Vista not receive the updated Title Report and Parcel Map not be recorded by May 31, 2000. The Final Map shall be deemed approved and recordable upon fulfillment of all contingencies set forth herein. FISCAL IMPACT: All staff costs associated with processing of improvement plans and final map will be reimbursed from developer deposits. Attaclunents: Attachment l: Resolution 19666 (Tentative Map Conditions) Attachment 2: Chula Vista Tract No. 00-02, EastLake Business Center I1 Phase iA, Site/Vicinity Map Attaclunent 3: Developer's Disclosure Statement [FILE NO. 0600-80-EB001FI H:\HOME\ENGINEER\LANDDEV\CASFMEB1.JCM RESOLUTION NO. 19666 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (IS-00-03), CERTAIN FINDINGS OF FACT AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM; APPROVING AMENDMENT S TO THE EASTLAKE II GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN, EASTLAKE I SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA (SPA) PLAN, EASTLAKE I PUBLIC FACILITIES FINANCING PLAN, EASTLAKE I AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN, AND EASTLAKE I WATER CONSERVATION PLAN; ALSO APPROVINGNEW EASTLAKE I BUSINESS CENTER 11 DESIGN GUIDELINES AND TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR 108 ACRES NORTH OF OKAY LAKES ROAD BETWEEN HUNT PARKWAY AND LANE AVENUE 1. RECITALS A. Project Site WHEREAS, the area of land which is the subject of this Resolution is diagrammatically represented in attached Exhibits A and B l-B4, and hereto incorporated herein by this Resolution, and commonly known as Business Center II Supplemental SPA and EastLake Business Center II Tentative Map, Chula Vista Tract 00-02, and for the purpose of general description herein consists of 108 acres north of Otay Lakes Road between Hunte Parkway and Lane Avenue within the EastLake Planned Community; and B. Project; Application for Discretionary Approvals WHEREAS, on June 29, 1999, The EastLake Company (Owner) filed applications with the Planning Department of the City of Chula Vista requesting the following approvals: 1) amendments to the EastLake II General Development Plan (GDP), EastLake I Sectional Planning Area (SPA) plan, including tl-.e EastLake I Public Facilities Finance Plan, EastLake I Air Quality Improvement Plan, and EastLake I Water Conservation Plan (associated regulatory documents); 2) approval of Business Center II Design Guidelines and tentative subdivision map for 108 acres known as the EastLake Business Center II Chula Vista Tract 00-02 ("Project"); and WHEREAS, the proposed amendments to the EastLake II General Development Plan (GDP) consists of modifying the existing GDP boundaries, text and statistics to reflect the annexation of 108 acres of Research and Limited Manufacturing to the EastLake II GDP, without modifying the land use designated in the General Plan and EastLake III GDP; and Resolution 19666 Page 2 WHEREAS, the proposed amendments to the EastLake I Sectional Planning Area (SPA), EastLake I Public Facilities Finance Plan, EastLake I Air Quality Improvement Plan and Water Conservation Plan consist of changing the text, statistics, maps and exhibits of these documents to reflect the incorporation of 108 acres of Research and Limited Manufacturing into the EastLake I SPA (and associated regulatory documents) with the same land use designated in the General Plan and adopted EastLake III GDP. Also adopt new design guidelines for the Business Center I1 (EastLake I Business Center II Design Guidelines). WHEREAS, the proposed tentative subdivision map consists of subdividing 108 gross acres of Research and Limited Manufacturing into 16 industrial lots ranging in size from 3 to 9 acres; and C. Prior Discretionary Approvals WHEREAS, the subject property has been the subject matter ora prior EastLake III General Development Plan resulting in the current Research and Limited Manufacturing land use designations which was adopted by the City Council in 1989 (Resolution No. 15413); and D. Planning Commission Record of Application WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held an advertised public hearing on the Project on November 3, 1999, and voted to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council on a proposal to amend the EastLake II General Development Plan and EastLake I Sectional Planning Area (SPA) plan, including amendments to the EastLake I Public Facilities Financing Plan, EastLake I Air Quality Improvement Plan and EastLake I Water Conservation Plan. Also approving new EastLake Business Center II Design Guidelines and Tentative Subdivision Map for 108 acres known as EastLake Business Center II, Chula Vista Tract 00-02 and located on the north side of Otay Lakes Road between Hunte Parkway and Lane Avenue; and WHEREAS, The proceedings and all physical evidence introduced before the Planning Commission at the public hearing on this project held on November 3, 1999, and the minutes and resolution resulting therefrom, are hereby incorporated into the record of this proceeding; and E. City Council Record of Application WHEREAS, the City Clerk set the time and place for the hearing on the Project applications and notices of said hearings, together with its purposes given by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the City and its mailing to property owners within 500 feet of the exterior boundaries of the Project site at least ten days prior to the hearing. Resolution 19666 Page 3 NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council hereby find, determine and resolve as follows: II. PLANNING COMMISSION RECORD The proceedings and all evidence introduced before the Planning Commission at their public hearing on the Project held on November 3, 1999 and the minutes and resolutions resulting therefrom are hereby incorporated into the record of this proceeding. These documents, along with any documents submitted to the decision-makers, including documents specified in Public Resources Code Section 21167, subdivision(s), shall comprise the entire record of proceedings for any claim under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Resources Code 21000 et seq.). Ill. PREVIOUS FEIR AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION IS-00-03 REVIEWED AND CONSIDERED FINDINGS APPROVALS The City Council of the City of Chula Vista has previously reviewed, analyzed and considered Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) IS-00-03 and the environmental impacts therein identified for this Project, and the Findings of Fact (Exhibit "C') to this Resolution and the proposed mitigation measures identified therein, prior to approving the Project. Copies of said Exhibits are on file in the office of the City Clerk. IVo COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA The City Council does hereby find that the Mitigated Negative Declaration IS-00-03, the Findings of Fact and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program have been prepared in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista, and hereby approves the Mitigated Negative Declaration IS-00-03 in accordance with this Resolution. V. INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT OF CITY COUNCIL The City Council finds that the Mitigated Negative Declaration IS-00-03 reflects the independent judgment of the City Council of the City of Chula Vista. VI. CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT, MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM A. Adoption of Findings of Fact The City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby approve as its own, incorporates as if set forth in full herein, and make each and every one of the Findings contained in the Findings of Fact, Exhibit "C" of this Resolution, a copy of which is on file in the office of the City Clerk. Resolution 19666 Page 4 B. Certain Mitigation Measures Feasible and Adopted As more fully identified and set forth in Mitigated Negative Declaration IS-00-03 and in the Findings of Fact for this Project, which is Exhibit "C" to this Resolution, a copy of which is on file in the office of the City Clerk, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista hereby finds pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 that the Mitigation Measures described in the above referenced documents are feasible and will become binding upon the entity (such as the Project proponent or the City ) assigned thereby to implement same. C. Adoption of Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program As required by the Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, the City Council hereby adopts Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ("Program") set forth in Exhibit "C" of this Resolution, a copy of which is on file in the office of the City Clerk. The City Council hereby finds that the Program is designed to ensure that, during Project implementation, the permittee/ Project applicant and any other responsible parties implement the Project components and comply with the mitigation measures identified in the Findings of Fact and the Program. VII. GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY The City Council hereby finds and determines that the proposed amendments to the EastLake II General Development Plan, EastLake I Sectional Planning Area (SPA) plan and associated regulatory documents, approval of the new EastLake I Business Center II Design Guidelines and the proposed subdivision of 108 acres into 16 industrial lots and 10 open space lots are consistent with the Chula Vista General Plan and other adopted City policies. VIII. GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FINDINGS/APPROVAL A. THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AS DESCRIBED BY THE GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN IS 1N CONFORMITY WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE CHULA VISTA GENERAL PLAN. The proposed amendments to the EastLake II General Development Plan reflects the industrial land use and intensity of use and circulation system that are consistent with all elements of the Chula Vista General Plan. B. PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CAN BE INITIATED BY ESTABLISHMENT OF SPECIFIC USES OR SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLANS WITHIN TWO YEARS OF THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE PLANNED COMMUNITY ZONE. Resolution 19666 Page 5 The PC, Planned Community Zone was established for the subject site prior to the adoption of the existing EastLake III General Development plan in 1989. In addition, a Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan is proposed for the 108 acres. C. IN THE CASE OF PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, THAT SUCH DEVELOPMENT WILL CONSTITUTE A RESIDENTIAL ENVIRONMENT OF SUSTAINED DESIRABILITY AND STABILITY; AND THAT IT WILL BE IN HARMONY WITH OR PROVIDE COMPATIBLE VARIETY TO THE CHARACTER OF THE SURROUNDING AREA AND THAT THE SITES PROPOSED FOR PUBLIC FACILITIES SUCH AS SCHOOLS, PLAYGROUNDS AND PARKS, ARE ADEQUATE TO SERVE THE ANTICIPATED POPULATION AND APPEAR ACCEPTABLE TO THE PUBLIC AUTHORITIES HAVING JURISDICTION THEREOF. The project does not include residential land uses. IX. ADOPTION OF AMENDED GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN In light of the findings above, the amended EastLake II General Development Plan is hereby approved and adopted in the form presented to the City Council and on file in the office of the City Clerk. X. SPA FINDINGS/APPROVAL A. THE EASTLAKE I SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA (SPA) PLAN, AS AMENDED, IS IN CONFORMITY WITH THE EASTLAKE II GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND THE CHULA VISTA GENERAL PLAN. The proposed EastLake I SPA plan amendment, EastLake Business Center II Supplemental SPA Plan, reflect the land use, circulation systems, and public facilities that are consistent with the EastLake li General Development Plan and the Chula Vista General Plan. THE EASTLAKE 1 SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA (SPA) PLAN, AS AMENDED, WILL PROMOTE THE ORDERLY, SEQUENTIALIZED DEVELOPMENT OF THE INVOLVED SECTIONAL PLANNING AREAS. The EastLake I SPA plan amendment, EastLake Business Center II Supplemental Sectional Planning Area Plan, is consistent with the EastLake I Public Facilities Financing Plan, Air Quality Improvement Plan, Water Conservation Plan and will, therefore, promote the orderly seqnentialized development of the involved Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan areas. C. THE EASTLAKE I SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA (SPA) PLAN, AS Resolution 19666 Page 6 AMENDED, WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT ADJACENT LAND USE, RESIDENTIAL ENJOYMENT, CIRCULATION OR ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY. The land uses within the EastLake I Sectional Planning Area (SPA) plan, EastLake Business Center II Supplemental Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan, represent the same uses approved by the EastLake II General Development Plan, as amended, and will not adversely affect adjacent land use, residential enjoyment, circulation, or environmental quality. In addition, special design guidelines have been incorporated in the EastLake 1 Business Center II Design Guidelines to address industrial/residential interface along the north and east edge of the Business Center II. D. 1N THE CASE OF PROPOSED INDUSTRIAL AND RESEARCH USES, THAT SUCH DEVELOPMENT WILL BE APPROPRIATE IN AREA, LOCATION, AND OVER-ALL DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ARE SUCH AS TO CREATE A RESEARCH OR INDUSTRIAL ENVIRONMENT OF SUSTAINED DESIRABILITY AND STABILITY; AND, THAT SUCH DEVELOPMENT WILL MEET PERFORMANCE STANDARDS ESTABLISHED BY THIS TITLE. The amendments involve a planned expansion of the EastLake I Business Center, which is the highest quality industrial park in the City of Chula Vista. The expansion has been anticipated by the Chuta Vista General Plan and the EastLake II General Development Plan for over 10 years. Thus, the proposed project represents an appropriate and previously anticipated expansion of an industrial business park with high design and development standards reflective of sustained desirability and stability. Development regulations for this development have been designed to meet the City of Chula Vista Performance Standards prescribed in chapters 19.66 and 19.68 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code. E. IN THE CASE OF INSTITUTIONAL, RECREATIONAL, AND OTHER SIMILAR NONRESIDENTIAL USES, THAT SUCH DEVELOPMENT WILL BE APPROPRIATE IN AREA, LOCATION AND OVER-ALL PLANNING TO THE PURPOSE PROPOSES, AND THAT SURROUNDING AREAS ARE PROTECTED FROM ANY ADVERSE EFFECTS FROM SUCH DEVELOPMENT The project does not include institutional, recreational and other similar non- residential uses. F. THE STREET AND THOROUGHFARES PROPOSED ARE SUITABLE AND ADEQUATE TO CARRY THE ANTICIPATED TRAFFIC THEREON. The amendments do not involve amendments to the planned circulation system depicted on the General Plan Circulation Element and therefore, the circulation Resolution 19666 Page 7 system will be improved in accordance with the General Plan and suitable for the proposed development. G. ANY PROPOSED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT CAN BE JUSTIFIED ECONOMICALLY AT THE LOCATIONS PROPOSED AND W1LL PROVIDE ADEQUATE COMMERCIAL FACILITIES OF THE TYPES NEEDED AT SUCH PROPOSED LOCATIONS The proposed project does not involve any commercial uses. H. THE AREA SURROUNDING SA1D DEVELOPMENT CAN BE PLANNED AND ZONED 1N COORDINATION AND SUBSTANTIAL COMPATIBILITY WITH SAID DEVELOPMENT. The proposed project does not involve any change in planned land use, merely an advance of the timing of development, therefore, said development can be planned and zoned in coordination and substantial compatibility with surrounding development. XI. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that in light of the findings above, City Council of the City of Chula Vista hereby approve the amendments to the EastLake I Sectional Planning Area (SPA) plan and associated regulatory documents (Business Center Supplemental SPA plan), and the new EastLake I Business Center I1 Design Guidelines subject to the conditions set forth below: XII. SPA PLAN CONI)IT1ONS OF APPROVAL A. Implement all environmental mitigation measures identified in IS-00-03, the Mitigated Negative Declaration, CEQA findings (Exhibit C) and Mitigation Monitoring Program (Exhibit D) for the Project. B. Install all public facilities in accordance with the PFFP or as required to meet the Growth Management Threshold Standards adopted by the City. The City Engineer may modify the sequence of improvement construction should conditions change to warrant such a revision. C. Approval of the EastLake I SPA amendments, Business Center II Supplemental Sectional Planning Area (SPA) plan does not constitute approval of the final lot configuration and street designs shown within the SPA plan. Modifications may be made by staff, the Planning Commission or City Council during the tentative subdivision map process. D. Prior to approval of the first Final Map, submit the necessary planning application to modify the EastLake IIl General Development plan text, maps and statistics to reflect the annexation of 108 acres of Research and Limited Manufacturing land use, as Resolution 19666 Page 8 adopted in this Resolution, to the EastLake I1 GDP and detachment from EastLake III GDP. E. Prior to approval of the first final map, revise the EastLake II GDP, EastLake I SPA documents, as deemed appropriate by City staff, deleting strike-out, underline and references to previous documents. After final revisions, submit to the Planning Department 20 final prints in plastic binders. F. Prior to approval of the first final map, enter into an agreement with the City agreeing to modify the EastLake I Business Center Il Supplemental Water Conservation Plan as necessary to incorporate all new water conservation policies adopted by City Council subsequent to approval of this SPA plan. G. A comprehensive fencing plan indicating design, color, materials, height and location of all perimeter and interior fences shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Planning and Building, and incorporated in the EastLake I Business Center Community Design Guidelines prior to approval of the first final map. Include language in the Business Center II Design Guidelines requiring that loading and unloading (roll-up doors) on lots adjacent to the north property line no be visible from the residential neighborhood iJmnediately adjacent to the north. XIII. TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FINDINGS/APPROVAL A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66473.5 of the State Subdivision Map Act, the City Council finds that the Tentative Subdivision Map, as conditioned herein for EastLake I-Business Center II, Chula Vista Tract No.00-02, is in conformance with the EastLake II General Development Plan, as amended, and the elements of the City of Chula Vista General Plan, based on the following: 1. Land Use The EastLake l-Business Center II Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan designates the 108 acres as Research and Limited Manufacturing. The tentative map, as conditioned, is in compliance with the City's General Plan, the EastLake II General Development Plan and the EastLake I-Business Center II Supplemental SPA Plan. Thus, the Project as conditioned, is in substantial compliance with the EastLake II GDP and EastLake I SPA. 2. Circulation. All on-site and off-site public streets required to serve the subdivision will be constructed or D1F fees paid by the developer in accordance with the EastLake I Business Center I1 Supplemental Public Facilities Financing Plan. Resolution 19666 Page 9 The public streets within the Project will be designed per City design standards and/or requirements. The westerly adjoining street system was designed to handle the anticipated flow of traffic from this and other area projects. 3. Housing The subdivision does not include residential housing. 4. Conservation The Mitigated Negative Declaration, tS-00-03 addressed the goals and policies of the Conservation Element of the General Plan and found the development of this site to be consistent with these goals and policies. 5. Parks and Recreation, Open Space There are no park dedications required for industrial subdivisions. The site is not designated for open space use by the Chula Vista General Plan. 6. Seismic Safety The proposed subdivision is in conformance with the goals and objectives of the Seismic Element of the General Plan. There are no known active faults underlying the project site. 7. Safety The Fire Department and other emergency service agencies have reviewed the proposed subdivision for conformance with City safety policies and have determined that the subdivision meets the City Threshold Standard for emergency service. 8. Noise Noise mitigation measures included in the Mitigated Negative Declaration IS- 00-03 adequately address the noise policy of the General Plan. 9. Scenic Highway The project site is located on a designated scenic road by the Chula Vista General Plan and will incorporate a landscaped open space buffer between proposed development areas and the roadway to be consistent with the General Plan. Resolution 19666 Page 10 10. Bicycle Routes Otay Lakes Road contains a bicycle lane across the frontage of the subdivision and therefore, the subdivision is consistent with the Bicycle Element of the General Plan. 11. Public Buildings A. No public buildings are proposed on the project site. B. Pursuant to Section 66412.3 of the Subdivision Map Act, the City Council certifies that it has considered the effect of this approval on the regional housing needs of the region and has balanced those needs against the public service needs of the residents of the City and the available fiscal and environmental resources. C. The configuration, orientation and topography of the site partially allows for the optimum siting of lots for passive or natural heating and cooling opportunities as required by Governmental Code Section 66473.1. D. The site is physically suited for industrial development and the proposed project conforms to all standards established by the City for such projects. E. The conditions herein imposed on the grant of the permit or other entitlement herein contained is approximately proportional to both, the nature and extent to the impact created by the proposed development. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that in light of the findings above, the City Council does hereby approve the Tentative Subdivision Map, Chula Vista Tract 00-02 contingent upon approval of the EastLake II GDP and EastLake I Sectional Planning Area Plan amendments and Ordinance amending the EastLake II Planned Community District Regulations being adopted and taking effect, and subject to the general and specific conditions set forth below. XIV. TENTATIVE MAP CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Prior to approval of'the first Final Map, unless otherwise indicated, the Developer, or their successors in interest shall: GENERAL/PRELIMINARY A. Project Site is Improved with Project Resolution 19666 Page 11 Improve the Project Site with the Project as described in Tentative Subdivision Map, Chula Vista Tract 00-02 and IS-00-03, except as modified by this Resolution. B. Implement Mitigation Measures Implement, or cause the implementation of all mitigation measures pertaining to the Project identified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration IS-00-03. Any such measures not satisfied by a specific condition of this Resolution or by the project design shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Building. Mitigation Measures shall be monitored via the Mitigation Monitoring Program approved in conjunction with MND IS-00-03. Modification of the sequence of mitigation shall be at the discretion of the Director of Planning and Building should changes in the circumstances warrant such revision. C. Implement previously adopted conditions of approval pertinent to project Comply, remain in compliance and implement, the terms, conditions and provisions, as are applicable to the property which is the subject matter of this Tentative Map of: 1) The EastLake Il General Development Plan (GDP); 2) EastLake I Business Center Il Supplemental Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan; 3) EastLake II Planned Community District Regulations; 4) EastLake I Business Center II Design Guidelines; 5) EastLake Business Center I1 Supplemental Public Facilities Financing Plan; 6) EastLake I Business Center II Supplemental Water Conservation Plan; 7) EastLake I Business Center II Supplemental Air Quality Improvement Plan, all approved by the Council on November 16, 1999, Resolution No. 19666 ("Plans"). As an alternative, the Developer shall enter into an agreement with the City, providing the City with such security (including recordation of covenants running with the land) and implementation procedures as the City may require. Also assuring that, after approval of the Final Map, the developer will continue to comply, remain in compliance, and implement such Plans. The Developer shall also agree to waive any claim that the adoption of a final Water Conservation Plan or Air Quality Plan constitutes an improper subsequent imposition of the condition. D. Implement Public Facilities Financing Plan lnstall public facilities in accordance with the EastLake I Business Center I1 Supplemental Public Facilities Financing Plan as amended or as required by the City Engineer to meet threshold standards adopted by the City of Chula Vista. The City Engineer and Planning and Building Director may, at their discretion, modify the sequence of improvement construction should conditions change to warrant such a revision. Resolution 19666 Page 12 E. Contingency of Project Approval Approval of the Tentative Map is contingent upon amendments to the EastLake I General Development Plan, EastLake I Sectional Planning Area Plan and EastLake II Planned Community District Regulations taking effect (PCM-00-02) F. Design Approval Develop the lots in accordance with the EastLake II Planned Community District Regulations and EastLake I Business Center II Design Guidelines. All industrial lots shall be submitted for site plan and architectural review and approval under the City's Design Review process prior to submittal for building permits. STREETS, RIGHT-OF-WAY AND PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS 1. Provide security in accordance with Chapter 18.16 o£ the Municipal Code and dedicate, and construct ~ull street improvements for all public streets shown on the Tentative Map within the subdivision boundary or off-site in accordance with Chula Vista Design Standards, Chula Vista Street Standards, the Chula Vista Subdivision Manual, and these conditions unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. Said improvements shall include, but not be limited to, asphalt concrete pavement, base, concrete curb, gutter and sidewalk, sewer, reclaimed water and water utilities, drainage facilities, street lights, traffic signals, signs, fire hydrants and transitions to existing improvements in the manner required by the City Engineer and other improvements as conditions herein. (£ngineering) 2. Construct or enter into an agreement to guarantee the construction of all street improvements as required by the PFFP, as may be amended from time to time. The City Engineer and/or Director o£ Planning and Building may, at their discretion, modify the sequence, schedule, alignment, design, improvements and construction of facilities should conditions change to warrant such a revision. The required street improvements and improvement installation timing are as follows: Facility 1 Install all-way stop at the intersection of' Lane Avenue and Fenton Street prior to approval of the first grading plan. (Engineering) Facility 2 Guarantee the installation, agree to install and install all on site street improvements, including underground improvements, traffic signal standards with luminaries, as determined by the City Engineer, for the intersection of Lane Avenue/ Fenton Street fi.om the westerly subdivision boundary to Street A prior to approval of the corresponding final map. Resolution 19666 Page 13 Facility 3 Construct per City Design Standards or guarantee the construction, agree to construct and construct a cul-de-sac, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, at the easterly terminus of Boswell Road prior to approval of the first Final Map. Facility 4 Install a fully activated traffic signal, including interconnect wiring and pull rope as determined by the City Engineer, at the intersection of Fenton Street and Otay Lakes Road prior to approval of the Final Map containing such intersection. Facility 5 Construct per City Design Standards or guarantee the construction, agree to construct and construct the median modification at the intersection of Fenton Street/Otay Lakes Road prior to approval of the Final Map containing such intersection. (Engineering) 3. Limit development of the Project in accordance with the following scenarios: Scenario I: No development (issuance of building permits) beyond a combined total of 42 gross acres may occur until Olympic Parkway from Brandywine Avenue to Paseo Ranchero is completed. Scenario II: No development (issuance of building permits) beyond a combined total of 59 gross acres may occur until Olympic Parkway from 1-805 Freeway to Wueste Road is completed, or SR- 125 constructed. 4. Construct, concurrent with rough grading, erosion and sediment control work, permanent landscaping, and irrigation system for all open space lots. 5. Design all street cross-sections to conform to the cross-sections shown on the Tentative Map, unless other~vise conditioned or approved herein. (Engineering) 6. Submit to and obtain approval by the City Engineer of striping plans for all collector or higher classification streets simultaneously with the associated improvement plans. (Engineering) 7. Design all vertical and horizontal curves and intersection sight distances to conform to the Caltrans Highway Design Manual. All streets which intersect other streets at or near horizontal or vertical curves must meet intersection design sight distance requirements in accordance with City standards. Sight visibility easements shall be granted as necessary to comply with the requirements in the Caltrans Highway Design Manual. Lighted sag vertical curves will be permitted, with the approval of the City Engineer, at intersections per AASHTO standards. (Engineering) Resolution 19666 Page 14 8. Provide additional on site traffic control devices as required by the City Engineer. (Engineering) 9. Install all street trees in accordance with Section 18.28.10 of the Chun Vista Municipal Code and the following requirements: a) All street trees shall be planted in parkways, street tree easements or as otherwise approved by the Director of Planning and Building. b) Street trees, which have been selected from the revised list of appropriate tree species described in the EastLake Business Center II Design Plan, shall be approved by the Director of Planning and Building and Director of Public Works. c) Provide root control methods per the requirements of the Director of Planning and Building, and provide a deep watering irrigation system for the trees. d) A street tree improvement plan shall be submitted for approval by the Director of Planning and Building and the City Engineer prior to or concurrent with the second submittal of street improvement plans within the subdivision. e) Approval of the street tree improvement plans shall constitute final approval of the selection of street trees for the street parkways. (Engineering) 10. The developer shall construct sidewalks and construct pedestrian ramps on all walkways to meet Americans with Disabilities Act standards and as approved by the City Engineer. 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 by Federal law, City ADA standards may be considered vested, as determined by Federal regulations, only after construction has commenced. (Engineering) 11. Submit, prior to the issuance of any rough grading permit for the Project, a study showing that all curb returns for any intersections in excess of 4% located within the permit boundaries, comply with all Americans with Disabilities Act standards at the front and back of sidewalks. (Engineering) 12. Do not install privately owned water, reclaimed water, or other utilities across public street, including sleeves for future construction of privately owned facilities. The City Engineer may waive this requirement if the developer enters into an agreement with the City agreeing to the following terms: a) Obtain an encroachment permit for the installation of the private facilities within the public right-of-way. Resolution 19666 Page 15 b) Maintain membership in an advance notice service such as the Underground Service Alert (USA) Dig Alert Service. c) Locate and mark any private facilities owned by the developer whenever work is performed in the area. d) Provide shutoff devices to the satisfaction of the City Engineer at those locations where private facilities traverse public streets. The terms of this agreement shall be binding upon the successors and assigns of the developer. (Engineering) 13. Submit and obtain preliminary approval for proposed street names from the Director of Planning and Building and the City Engineer. No two intersections shall have the same name. Street name suffixes shall be "Place". (Engineering) GRADING AND DRAINAGE GRADING AND DRAINAGE 14. Designate as private all storm drain systems that collect water from private property on grading and drainage, and/or improvement plans to the point of connection with a public system, or to the point at which storm water that is collected from public street right-of-way, public park or open space areas is first introduced into the system. Downstream, from that point, the storm drain system shall be public. An encroachment permit shall be processed and approved by the City for private storm drains within the public right-of-way or within CF.D maintained Open Space lots. (Engineerittg) 15. Provide runoff detention basins or other facilities approved by the City Engineer to reduce the quantity ofrunofffrom the development to an amount equal to or less than the present 100-year frequency runoff and demonstrate the adequacy of existing facilities to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. (Engineering) 16. Comply with all the provisions of the National Pollutant Discharge Elinfination System (NPDES) and the Clean Water Program during and at~er all phases of the development process, including but not limited to: mass grading, rough grading, construction of street and landscaping improvements, and construction of dwelling units. (Engineering) 17. Submit with grading and drainage and/or improvement plans, as applicable, hydrologic and hydraulic studies and calculations, including dry lane calculations for all public streets. Calculations shall also be provided to demonstrate the adequacy of downstream drainage structures, pipes and inlets. (Engineering) Resolution 19666 Page 16 18. Design storm drain to conform to the adopted Subdivision Manual and Grading Ordinance as may be amended from time to time. (Engineering) 19. Design drainage to prevent diversion of drainage flows between tributary areas. In addition, Lots 1-12 shall drain to Telegraph Canyon drainage basin and Lots 13-16 to Salt Creek drainage basin. (Engineering) 20. Design, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, all storm drains, and other drainage facilities to include Best Management Practices to minimize non-point source pollution. (Engineeri,g) 21. Design and construct the inclination of each cut or fill surface resulting in a slope to not be steeper than 2:l(two horizontal to one vertical) except for minor slopes as herein defined. A minor slope may be constructed no steeper than one and one-half horizontal to one vertical (1.5:1) contingent upon: a) Submission of reports by both a soils engineer and a certified engineering geologist containing the results of surface and subsurface exploration and analysis. These results should be sufficient for the soils engineer and engineering geologist to certify that in their professional opinion, the underlying bedrock and soil supporting the slope have strength characteristics sufficient to provide a stable slope and will not pose a danger to persons or property, and that the minor slopes have been designed for proper stability considering, both geological and soil properties. b) The installation of a City approved special slope planting program and irrigation system. c) A Minor Slope is defined as a slope four (4) feet or less in vertical dimension in either cut or fill, between individual lots and not parallel to any roadway. (Engineering) 22. Locate lot lines at the top of slopes except as approved by the City Engineer. Lots shall be so graded as to drain to the street or an approved drainage system. Drainage shall not be permitted to flow over slopes or onto adjacent property. (Engineering) 23. Submit in conjunction with the submittal of the first Request for Issuance of Building Permit form (]?WE 106A) for the project, a list that includes all of the lots within the project and indicates the geologic condition(s) that will underlie the structures to be built on each of the lots (i.e. fill, cut, or a transition between the two geologic conditions). The subject list is to be completed, signed and stamped by the Engineer- of-Work and the Soils Engineer. (Engineering) Resolution 19666 Page 17 24. Comply with all applicable regulations established by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) as set forth in the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (N.P.D.E.S.) permit requirements for urban runoff and storm water discharge and any regulations adopted by the City of Chula Vista pursuant to the NP.D.E.S. regulations or requirements. Further, the applicant shall file notice of intent with the State Water Resources Control Board to obtain coverage under the NP.D.E S. 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. (Engineer#~g) 25. Provide energy dissipators at all storm drain outlets as required by the City Engineer to maintain non-erosive flow velocities. (Engineering) 26. Install public storm drains as close to perpendicular slope contours as possible but in no case greater than 15 degrees from perpendicular to the contours. Install storm drain clean-outs such that they are not located on slopes or in inaccessible areas for maintenance equipment. (Engineering) 27. Brow ditches that cross over slopes greater than 10 feet in height and steeper than 3:1 gradient shall not be allowed. Drainage shall be collected in an inlet and carried via underground storm drain to the bottom of the slope or a drain inlet connected to an underground storm drain. (lz)tgmeering) 28. Design storm drain such that no storm drain pipes run parallel and along slopes unless otherwise approved by City Engineer. (Pipes are run underground) (Engineering) 29. Provide a graded access (12 feet minimum width) and access easemeut as required by the City Engineer to all public storm drain inlet structures, including any permanent detention/desiltation basin outlet structures. (E,gineering) 30. Provide an improved access as determined by the City Engineer to each public drainage structure located within private open space lots. (Engineering) 31. Designate all drainage facilities draining private property to the point of connection with public facilities as private. (Et~gltteering) 32. Request that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEIMA) revise the effective Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRSd) and Flood Insurance Study (FIS) report for the area influenced by the project and provide all required information and documents needed by FEMA to process this request. (Engineering) Resolution 19666 Page 18 33. Provide a 12-foot-wide, 6-inch-thick concrete access road to the bottom of any proposed detention basins. This access shall have a maximum slope of 8%, and a heavy broom finish on the ramp or as directed by the City Engineer. (Engineering) 34. Prepare, submit and obtain approval by the City Engineer, Director of Planning and Building for the following plans prior to issuance of mass grading plans: a) Erosion and sedimentation control plan prior to approval of grading plans. b) Detailed landscape and irrigation plans, including water management guidelines in accordance with the Chula Vista Landscape Manual. c) Comprehensive Landscape Master Plan for the Project. (Engineering) SEWER 35. Sewer system shall be designed such that no diversion is allowed. 36. Sewer diversion from Salt Creek Sewer Basin to Telegraph Canyon Sewer Basin may be considered and condition 35 above deemed satisfied by the City Engineer if all of the following items are resolved to the satisfaction of the City Engineer: a) Conduct a sewer stndy as determined by the City Engineer, of the entire length of the affected sewer line (Telegraph Canyon Gravity Sewer Line) to demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, that there is adequate capacity in that basin. b) Pay for all upgrade costs beyond those costs already identified in the Telegraph Canyon Sewer Study by Willdan Associates, dated 1992. c) Pay fair share of the appropriate Development Impact Fee(s), as determined by the City Engineer. (E~g,teering) d) Based on the sewer study and as deemed necessary by the City Engineer, upgrade, all sewer line segments identified in said study, if such segment exceeds City design criteria for acceptable sewer peak flows. e) Developer is entitled, at the discretion of the City Engineer, to DIF cash or credit reimbursement for the upgrade of sewer line segments identified in the sewer study and constructed by the Developer and accepted by the City. (Engineering) 37. Locate all sewer access points (manholes) at the centerline of streets or cul-de-sacs or at the center ora travel lane unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer and Director of Public Works. (Engineering) Resolution 19666 Page 19 38. Provide an access road with a minimum width of 12 feet :to all sanitary sewer access points using such construction material as approved by the Director of Public Works. The roadway shall be designed for an H-20 wheel load or other loading as approved by the City Engineer. Sewer lines shall be installed as close to perpendicular to the slope contours as possible but in no case greater than 15 degrees from perpendicular to the contours. (Engineering) 39. Grant on the Final Map a 20 feet minimum sewer and access easement for any sewer lines located between individual lots unless otherwise directed by the City Engineer. All other easements shall meet City standards for required width. (Engineering) 40. Install parallel sewer lines for sewer lines greater than 15 feet in depth if lateral lines are to be connected to these lines unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. For sewer lines greater than 20' in depth, C900 PVC shall be used from manhole to manhole. (Engineering) 41. Design and construct sewer access points such that they are not located on slopes or in areas inaccessible for maintenance equipment. (Engineering) 42. Provide sewer manholes at all changes of alignment of grade. Sewers serving 10 or less equivalent dwelling units shall have a minimum grade of 1%. (Engineering) 43. Design and construct all sewers ending in a cul-de-sac with a manhole placed at the center of the cul-de-sac, unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. (Engineering) OPEN SPACE/ASSESSMENTS/CC&R'S 44. Submit, prior to the approval of the first Final Map, evidence, acceptable to the City Engineer and the Director of Planning and Building, of the formation of a Business Center Owner's Association (BCOA), or annexation of this project to the existing EastLake I Business Center Owners Association, or another financial mechanism acceptable to the City Manager. The BCOA formulation documents shall be approved by the City Attorney. CC&R's for the Project shall be submitted to the Planning and Building Department for review and approval prior to approval of the first final map, and shall include: a) Maintenance of all facilities located within open space lots by the Business Center Owner's Association (BCOA) shall include, but not be limited to: walls, fences, water fountains, lighting structures, paths, trails, access roads, drainage structures and landscaping. Each open space lot shall also be broken down by the number of acres. Resolution 19666 Page 20 b) Include language in the CC&R's establishing the BCOA responsibility to maintain medians and parkways along Boswell Road, Fenton Street, Street A, Street B, Otay Lakes Road. c) Provisions which clearly indicate the responsibility, if any, of the individual owners to water and maintain irrigation and planting within the parkways. The CC&R's shall also indicate that the BCOA shall have both the authority and the obligation to enforce said maintenance. d) Name the City of Chula Vista as a party to the CC&R's, with the authority, but not the obligation, to enforce the terms and conditions of the CC&R's in the same manner as any owner within the business center. e) Include language in the CC&R's for the project specifying that individual owners may not modify the parkway planting. f) Before any revisions to provisions of the CC&R's that may particularly affect the City can become effective, said revisions shall be approved by the City. The BCOA shall not seek approval from the City of said revisions without the prior consent of 100 percent of the holders of first mortgages or property owners within the BCOA g) The BCOA shall indemnify and hold the City harmless from any claims, demands, causes of action liability or loss related to or arising from the maintenance activities of the BCOA. h) The BCOA shall not seek to be released by the City from the maintenance obligations described herein without the prior consent of the City and 100 percent of the holders of first mortgages or property owners within the BCOA. i) The BCOA is required to procure and maintain a policy of comprehensive general liability insurance written on a per-occurrence basis in an amount not less than one million dollars combined single limit. The policy shall be acceptable to the City and name the City as additionally insured. j) The CC&R s shall 'ncorporate restrictions for each lot adjoining open space lots containing walls maintained by the open space district to ensure that the property owners know that the walls may not be modified or supplemented nor may they encroach on City property. k) The CC&R's shall include provisions assuring maintenance of all streets, driveways, drainage and sewage systems that are private. 1) The CC&R's shall include provisions assuring BCOA membership in an advance notice such as the USA Dig Alert Service in perpetuity. Resolution 19666 Page 21 m) Include provisions in the CC&R's assuring the maintenance of the required perimeter wall along the north property line of lots 2, 3, 12 and 13, and east property line of lots 13, 14, 15, 16. n) Indicate in the CC&R's that the BCOA is responsible for the maintenance of those landscaping improvements that are not to be included in Open Space Districts, if any. The City Engineer and the Director of Planning and Building may require that some of those improvements shall be maintained by the other financial mechanism. (Engineering) 45. Pay all costs associated with apportionment of assessments (A.D. 90-3) for all City assessment districts as a result of subdivision of lands within the boundary prior to approval of each Final Map. Submit an apportionment form and provide a deposit as determined by and to the City to cover costs. (Engineering) 46. Submit all Special Tax and Assessment disclosure forms for each lot or EDU for the approval of the City Engineer. (Engineering) 47. Enter into an agreement to grant and maintain easements as necessary for landscaping maintained by a homeowner's Association within City right-of-way or such other areas required by the City prior to approval of each final map. (Engineering) 48. Locate lot lines at the top of all slopes. Slope areas located below lot lines shall be open-spaced lots to be maintained by the BCOA or other approved maintenance to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and Director of Planning and Building. Acreage shall be shown for each open-space lot. (Engineering) WATER 49. Provide to the City a letter from Otay Municipal Water District indicating that the assessments/bonded indebtedness for all parcels dedicated or granted in fee to the City has been paid or that no assessments exist on the parcel(s). (Engineering) 50. Present verification to the City Engineer in the form of a letter from Otay Water District that the subdivision will be provided adequate water service and long term water storage facilities, including fire protection requirements. (Engineering) EASEMENTS 51. lndicate on each Final Map a reservation of easements to the future Homeowners Association for private storm drain, if any, within open space lots as directed by the City Engineer. (Ettgineering) 52. Acquire and then grant to the City all off-site rights-of-way necessary for the installation of required street improvements for the affected phase prior to approval of the corresponding Final Map. (E,gineering) Resolution 19666 Page 22 53. Notify the City at least 60 days prior to consideration of the final map by City if any off-site right-of-way cannot be obtained as required by the Conditions of approval. (Only off-site right-of-way or easements affected by Section 66462.5 of the Subdivision Map Act are covered by this condition.) After said notification, the developer shall: a) Pay the full cost of acquiring off-site right-of-way and/or easements required by the Conditions of Approval of the Tentative Map. b) Deposit with the City the estimated cost of acquiring said right-of-way and/or easements. Said estimate to be approved by the City Engineer. c) Have all easements and/or right-of-way documents and plats prepared and appraisals complete which are necessary to commence condemnation proceedings as determined by the City Attorney. d) Request that the City use its powers of Eminent Domain to acquire right-of- way, easements or licenses needed for off-site improvements or work related to the Final Map. The developers shall pay all costs, both direct and indirect incurred in said acquisition. The requirements of 53a, 53b, and 53c shall be accomplished prior to the approval of the Final Map. (Engineering) 54. Where a private storm drain easement will parallel a public sewer easement, the easements shall be delineated separately on the Final Map and on the Grading and Improvement plans. If any portion of the easements will overlap one another, the City shall have a superior right to the common portion of the easements. (Engineering) 55. Prior to approval of each Final Map, the City Engineer may require either the removal or the subordination of any easement that may unreasonably interfere with the full and complete exercise of any required public easement or right-of-way. (Engineering) 56. Provide easements to the City of Chula Vista for all on-site and off-site public drainage facilities, sewers, maintenance roads, private detention basins and any other private and public facilities necessary to the City to provide service to the subject subdivision. (Engineering) AGREEMENTS/FINANCIAL 57. Enter into a supplemental agreement with the City, prior to approval of each Final Map, where the developer agrees to the following: Resolution 19666 Page 23 a) That the City may withhold building permits for the subject subdivision if any one of the following occur: i) Regional development threshold limits set by the adopted East Chula Vista Transportation Phasing Plan have been reached. ii) Traffic volumes, levels of service, public utilities and/or services exceed the threshold standards in the then effective Growth Management Ordinance. iii) The required public facilities, as identified in the Public Facilities Finance Plan as amended or otherwise conditioned, have not been completed or constructed to satisfaction of the city. The Developer may propose changes in the timing and sequencing of development and the construction of improvements affected. In such case, the PFFP may be amended as approved by the City Planning and Building director and City Engineer. b) That the City may withhold building permits for any of the phases of development identified in the Public Facility Finance Plan (PFFP) for EastLake Business Center Il if the required facilities, as identified in the PFFP, or as may be amended from time to time, have not been completed. c) 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 approval by its Planning Commission, City Council or any approval by its agents, officers, or employees with regard to this subdivision provided the City promptly notifies the subdivider of any claim, action or proceeding and on the further condition that the City fully cooperates in the defense. d) Hold the City harmless from any liability for erosion, siltation or increase flow of drainage resulting from this project. e) Ensure that all franchised cable television companies ("Cable Company") are permitted equal opportunity to place conduit and provide cable television service to each lot within the project area. Developer agrees that the City of Chula Vista may grant access to cable television companies franchised by the City of Chula Vista to place conduit within the City's easement situated within the Project. Developer shall restrict access to the condtfit to only those franchised cable television companies who are, and remain in compliance with, all of the terms and conditions of the franchise and which are in further compliance with all other rules, regulations, ordinances and procedures regulating and affecting the operation of cable television companies as same may have been, or may from time to time be issued by the City of Chula Vista. Resolution 19666 Page 24 f) 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 determination and allow the Developer reasonable time to cure said breach. (Planning/Engineering) 58. Enter into a supplemental agreement with the City prior to approval of each Final Map, where the developer agrees not protest the formation of any future regional impact fee program or facilities benefit district to finance the construction of regional facilities. (Engineering) 59. Enter into an agreement with the City agreeing to modify the EastLake I Business Center II Supplemental Water Conservation Plan as necessary to incorporate all new water conservation policies adopted by City Council after approval of this SPA. (Planning) FIRE 60. Provide fire hydrants at location shown in the tentative map to the satisfaction of the City of Chula Vista Fire Marshal. (]:¥re) 61. Provide the Initial Cycle of fire management/brush clearance within lots adjacent to natural open space areas subject to approval by the Fire Marshall and Director of Planning and Building. (Fire) 62. Install and make operable fire hydrants or equivalent fire protection to the satisfaction of the City Fire Marshal, and 20' fire access roads prior to delivery of combustible building materials. (Fire) MISCELLANEOUS 63. Submit a copy of each subdivision in a digital DX.F. file format as required by the City Engineer, prior to approval of each Final Map or as requested by the City Engineer. (Engineering) 64. Tie the boundary of the subdivision to the California System-Zone VI (1983). (Engineering) 65. If developer desires to do certain work on the property after approval of the Tentative Map, but prior to recordation of the applicable Final Map, they may do so by obtaining the required approvals and permits from the City. The permits can be approved or denied by the City in accordance with the City's Municipal Code, regulations and policies. Said permits do not constitute a guarantee that subsequent submittal (i.e., Final Map and Improvement Plans) will be approved. All work performed by the developer prior to approval of the Final Map shall be at the developers own risk. Prior to permit issuance, the developer shall acknowledge in Resolution 19666 Page 25 writing that subsequent submittal (i.e., Final Map and Improvement Plans) may require extensive changes, at developers cost, to work done under such early permit. Prior to the issuance of a permit, the developer shall post a bond or other security acceptable to the City in an amount determined by the City to guarantee the rehabilitation of the land if the applicable Final Map does not record. (Engineering) 66. Agree to provide noise study prior to issuance of the first building permit for each Lot to identify noise impacts generated by industrial uses and determine the necessary mitigation measures to insure that the allowable noise levels as prescribed in the Performance Standards of the Chula Vista Municipal Code are not exceeded. The developer shall implement all mitigation measures recommended in the noise study to reduce noise impacts to the surrounding residential neighborhoods. (Planning/ Engineering) 67. Agree to participate in a regional or sub-regional multi-species coastal sage scrub conservation plan prior to approval of the first Final Map. (Planning) 68. In the event of a filing of a Final Map which requires over sizing (in accordance with the restrictions of state law and City ordinances) of the improvements necessary to serve other properties, said Final Map shall be required to install all necessary improvements to serve the project plus the necessary over sizing of facilities required to serve such other properties. The developer may seek repayment from other property owners through a reimbursement district. (Engineering) 69. Contract with the City's current street sweeping franchisee, or other server approved by the Director of Public Works to provide street sweeping for each phase of development on a frequency and level of service comparable to that provided for similar areas of the City. The developer shall cause street sweeping to commence immediately after the final lot, in each phase, is occupied and shall continue sweeping until such time that the City has accepted the street or 60 days after completion of all punch list items, whichever is shorter. (Conservation Coordinator) 70. Provid. e the Ci!y Conservation Coordinator with a copy of the memo requesting street sweeping serv~ce~ The memo shall include a map of areas to be swept and the date the sweeping will begin. (Conservation Coordinator) 71. Incorporate an open space lot with minimum with of 10 ft. along the north property line of lots 3, 12 and 13. (E~<dineering/Plcn,ting) 71 a. Install landscape and irrigation system on all open space lots adjacent to the northerly adjacent residential area immediately after grading. CODE REOUIREMENTS Resolution 19666 Page 26 72. Underground all utilities within the subdivision in accordance with Municipal Code requirements.(Engineering) 73. 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. (Engineering) 74. Submit the necessary Planning Application and processing fee to modify the EastLake III General Development plan text, maps and statistics to reflect the detachment of 108 acres of Research and Limited Manufacturing land use, as adopted in this Resolution prior to approval of the first Final Map in the Business Center II. (Planning) 75. Revise the EastLake II GDP, EastLake I SPA documents, as deemed appropriate by City staff, deleting strike underline and references to previous documents. Afl. er final revisions submit to the Planning Department 20 final prints in plastic binders prior to issuance of the first building permit for the Project. (Planning) 76. A comprehensive fencing plan indicating design, color, materials, height and location of all perimeter and interior fences shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Planning and Building, and incorporated in the EastLake I Business Center Community Design Guidelines prior to approval of the first final map. (Planning) 77. Comply with all applicable sections of the Chula Vista Municipal Code. Preparation of the Final Map and all plans shall be in accordance with the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act and the City of Chula Vista Subdivision Ordinance and Subdivision Manual. Compliance with the City of Chula Vista threshold standards, based on actual development patterns and updated forecasts in reliance on changing entitlement and market conditions, shall govern EastLake Business Center II development patterns and the facility improvement requirements to serve such development. In addition, the sequence in which improvements are constructed shall correspond to any future Eastern Chula Vista Transportation Phasing Plan or amendment to the Growth Management Program and Ordinance adopted by the City. The City Engineer may modify the sequence of improvement construction should conditions change to warrant such a revision. (Engineering) 78. Pay all applicable fees in accordance with the City Code and Council Policy, including, but not limited to, the following: a) The Transportation and Public Facilities Development Impact Fees. b) Signal Pa~icipation Fees. c) All applicable sewer fees, including but not limited to sewer connection fees. d) Interim SR-125 impact fee. e) Telegraph Canyon (Gravity Flow) Sewer Basin DIF. f) Salt Creek Sewer Basin DIF as may be adopted by the City in the future. Resolution 19666 Page 27 g) Telegraph Canyon Basin Drainage DIF. h) Salt Creek Basin Drainage D1F. i) Telegraph Canyon Sewer Pumped Flow DIF. Pay the amount of said fees in effect at the time of issuance of building permits. (Engineering) 79. 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 the disclosure form for approval by the City Engineer prior to Final Map approval. (Engineering) 80. Comply with Council Policy No. 522-02 regarding maintenance of natural channels within open spaces. (Engineering) 81. Comply with all aspects of the City of Chula Vista Landscape Manual. (Engineering) 82. The Applicant shall 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). (Engineering) KV. CONSEQUENCE OF FAILURE OF CONDITIONS If any of the foregoing conditions fail to occur, or if they are, by their terms, to be implemented and maintained over time, and any of such conditions fail to be so implemented and maintained according to their terms, the City shall have the right to revoke or modify all approvals herein granted, deny or further condition issuance of future building permits, deny, revoke or further condition all certificates of occupancy issued under the authority of approvals herein granted, instituted and prosecute, litigate or compel their compliance or seek damages for their violations. No vested rights are gained by Developer or successor in interest by the City approval of this Resolution. KVL INVALIDITY; AUTOMATIC REVOCATION It is the intention of the City Council that its adoption of this Resolution is dependent upon enforceability of each and every term, provision and condition herein stated; and that in the event that any one of more terms, provisions or conditions are determined by the court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or unenforceable, if the City so determines in its sole discretion, this resolution shall be deemed to be revoked and no further in force or in effect. XVII. NOTICE OF DETERMINATION That the Environmental Review Coordinator of the City of Chula Vista is directed after City Council approval of this Project to ensure that a Notice of Determination is filed with the County Clerk of the County of San Diego. These Documents, along with any documents submitted to the Resolution 19666 Page 28 decision-makers, including documents specified in the Public Resources Code Section 21167.6, Subdivision(s), shall comprise the entire record of the proceedings for any claims under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") (Pub. Resources Code 21000 et seq.). Presented by Approved as to form by Planning and Building Director ~ily Attorney Resolution 19666 Page 29 PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista, California, this 16th day of November, 1999, by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers: Davis, Padilla, Salas and Horton NAYS: Councilmembers: None ABSENT: Councilmembers: Moot Shirley Horton~Vlayor ATTEST: Susan Bigelow, City C~erk 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. 19666 was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council at a regular meeting of the Chula Vista City Council held on the 16~h day of November, 1999. Executed this 16'~' day of November, 1999. Susan Bigelow, City Clerk 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 EASTLAKE BUSINESS CENTER II FINAL MAP (LOTS 1 AND 2) CHULA VISTA TRACT NO. 00-03 (Conditions A, B, C, D, 2, 8, 9, 10, 12, 16, 20, 23, 24, 34b, 34c, 44, 57, 58, 59, 62, 66, 67, 69, 70, 72, 73, 76, 77, 78, 79, 81, and 82 of Resolution 19666 for this Project) This Supplemental Subdivision Improvement Agreement ("Agreement") is made this day of ,2000, by and between THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, C'-"~'lTf-ornia ("city" or "Grantee" for recording purposes only) and THE EASTLAKE COMPANY, LLC, A CALIFORNIA 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 referred to as EastLake Business Center II, Chula Vista Tract No. 00-03. For purposes of this Agreement the term "Project" shall mean "Property". B. Developer is the owner of the Property. C. Developer has applied for and the City has approved a Tentative Subdivision Map commonly referred to as Chula Vista Tract No. 00-03, EASTLAKE BUSINESS CENTER II, ("Tentative Subdivision Map") for the subdivision of the Property. D. The City has adopted Resolution 19666 ("Resolution") 3ursuant to which it has approved the Tentative Subdivision Map subject to certain conditions as more particularly described in the Resolution. E. 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. NOW, THEREFORE, in exchange for the mutual covenants, terms and conditions herein contained, the parties agree as set forth below. 1. Agreement Applicable to Subsequent Owners. 1.1 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 until released by the mutual consent of the parties. 1.2 Agreement Runs with the Land. The burden of the covenants contained in this Agreement ("Burden") is for the benefit of the Properly 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 exercise 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 or any other beneficiaries of this agreement and the covenants may be entitled. a. Developer Release on Guest Builder Assignments. If Developer assigns any portion of the Project, Developer may have the right to obtain a release of any of Developer's obligations under this Agreement, provided Developer obtains the prior written consent of the City to such release. Such assignment 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, 2 assumes the obligations of the Developer under this Agreement, and demonstrates, to the reasonable 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. b. 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 and such partial release will not, in the opinion of the City, jeopardize the likelihood that the remainder of the Burden will not be completed. c. Implement Mitigation Measures. Developer shall diligently implement, or cause the implementation of all mitigation measures pertaining to the Project identified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration Report for EastLake Business Center II, and Addendum. Any such measures not satisfied by a specific condition or by the project design shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Building. Mitigation Measures shall be monitored via the Mitigation Monitoring Program approved in conjunction with the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Addendum. Modification of the sequence of mitigation shall be at the discretion of the Director of Planning and Building should changes in the circumstances warrant such revision. d. Implement Previously Adopted Conditions of Approval Pertinent to Project. Unless otherwise conditioned, comply, remain in compliance and implement, the terms, conditions and provisions, as are applicable to the property which is the subject matter of this Agreement, of 1) Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS-00-03); 2) Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; 3) The EastLake II General Development Plan with amendments (GDP); 4) EastLake I Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan; 5) EastLake I Business Center II Design Guidelines; 6) EastLake I Public Facilities Financing Plan; 7) EastLake Business Center II Water Conservation Plan; 8) EastLake I Air Quality Improvement Plan; 9) EastLake Business Center II Sub-Area Water Master Plan; and 10) EastLake I Water Conservation Plan; all approved by the Council on November 16, 1999, Resolution No. 19666 ("Plans"), prior to approval of the corresponding Final Map. e. Implement the Public Facilities Financing Plan. Developer shall install public facilities in accordance with the EastLake I Public Facilities Financing Plan as amended or as required by the City Engineer to meet threshold standards adopted by the City of Chula Vista. The City Engineer and Planning and Building Director may, at their discretion, modify the sequence of improvement construction should conditions change to warrant such a revision. 2. Condition A of GENERAL/PRELIMINARY Section of Resolution 19666 (Project Site Improvement). In satisfaction of Condition A of Resolution 19666, the Developer agrees to improve the project site with the Project as described in the Tentative Subdivision Map, Chula Vista Tract 00-02 and IS-00-03, except as modified by Resolution 19666. 3. Condition B of GENERAL/PRELIMINARY Section of Resolution 19666 (Mitigation Measures). In satisfaction of Condition B of Resolution 19666, the Developer agrees to implement, or cause the implementation of all mitigation measures pertaining to the Project identified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration IS-00-03. Developer acknowledges and agrees that any such measures not satisfied by a specific condition of this Resolution or by the project design shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Building and that mitigation measures shall be monitored via the Mitigation Monitoring Program approved in conjunction with MND IS-00-03. Should the Developer request a modification of the sequence of mitigation, such modification shall be at the discretion of the Director of Planning and Building should changes in the circumstances warrant such revision. 4. Condition C of GENERAL/PRELIMINARY Section of Resolution 19666 (Mitigation Measures). In satisfaction of Condition C of Resolution 19666, the Developer agrees to comply, remain in compliance and implement, the terms, conditions, and provisions, as are applicable to the property which is the subject matter of this Tentative Map of: 1) Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS-00-03); 2) Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; 3) The EastLake II General Development Plan with amendments (GDP); 4) EastLake I Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan; 5) EastLake I Business Center II Design Guidelines; 6) EastLake I Public Facilities Financing Plan; 7) EastLake Business Center II Water Conservation Plan; 8) EastLake I Air Quality Improvement Plan; 9) EastLake Business Center II Sub-Area Water Master Plan; and 10) EastLake I Water Conservation Plan, all approved by the Council on November 16, 1999, Resolution No. 19666 ("Plans"). Developer hereby waives any claim that the adoption of a final Water Conservation Plan or Air Quality Plan constitutes an improper subsequent imposition of this condition. 5. Condition D of GENERAL/PRELIMINARY Section of Resolution 19666 (PFFP). In satisfaction of Condition D of Resolution 19666, the Developer agrees to install public facilities in accordance with the EastLake I Business Center II Supplemental Public Facilities Financing Plan as amended or as required by the City Engineer to meet threshold standards adopted by the City of Chula Vista. Upon request of 4 Developer, the City Engineer and Director of Planning and Building may, at their discretion, modify the sequence of improvement construction should conditions change to warrant such a revision. 6. Condition No. 2 of Resolution '19666 (Street Improvements). In partial satisfaction of Condition No. 2 of Resolution 19666, Developer shall construct and secure the full street improvements or remaining street improvements as referenced herein and as shown on Exhibit "B". Developer acknowledges and agrees that the City Engineer and Director of Planning and Building may, at their discretion, modify the sequence, schedule, alignment and design of improvement construction should conditions change to warrant such a revision. Developer further agrees to the following: a. Improvement Work. Developer agrees to construct the street improvements and land development work in and adjoining said subdivision as referenced herein and as set forth on Exhibit "B" ("Street 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 therefor, all in strict conformity and in accordance with the City of Chula Vista Drawing Nos. referenced herein and by this reference are incorporated herein and made a part hereof. Developer shall complete construction of the Street Improvements in accordance with the completion dates designated hereinafter in this Agreement. It is expressly understood and agreed to by Developer that, in the performance of construction of said Street Improve- ments, 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 has furnished to the City of Chula Vista, and agrees to maintain until City acceptance of the Street Improvements referenced herein, approved improvement securities from a sufficient surety, whose sufficiency has been approved by the City in the sums as set forth on Exhibit "C", which securities guarantee the faithful performance in connection with the installa- tion of the Street Improvements as shown on Exhibit "B" and as referenced herein. ii. Developer has furnished to the City of Chula Vista, and agrees to maintain until City acceptance of the work referenced herein, approved improvement securities from a sufficient 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 as shown on Exhibit "B" and as referenced herein. iii. Developer acknowledges and agrees that if the Street Improvements as shown on Exhibit "B" and as referenced herein are not completed within the time agreed herein, the sums provided by said improve- ment securities may be used by City for the completion of the Street Improvements and improvements referenced herein in accordance with the approved plans and specifications for such Street Improvements, or at the option of the City, for those improvements as referenced herein and 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 improve- ment securities. 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 officers, 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, 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 Developer, its agents or employees, or indemnitee, related to the construction ofthe Street Improvements. Developer 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 Developer, its agents or employees, or indemnitee, related to the construction of the Street Improvements; the approved 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 the construction of said 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 the construction and maintenance of the Street Improvements and the drainage systems. The approval of plans for the Street Improvements and related 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 the construction of the Street Improvements 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. g. Condition No. 2 of Resolution 19666 (Facility No. 2). In partial satisfaction of Condition No. 2 of Resolution 19666, the Developer agrees, pursuant to the Subdivision Improvement Agreement executed contemporaneously herewith, to install all on-site and off-site improvements, including underground improvements, traffic signal standards with luminaries, for the intersection of Lane Avenue/Fenton Street from the westerly subdivision boundary to Street A prior to approval of the first final map of Phase lB of the Project per Exhibit "B" hereto. h. Condition No. 2 of Resolution 19666 (Facility No. 3). In partial satisfaction of Condition No. 2 of Resolution 19666, the Developer agrees to construct a cul-de-sac, as approved by the City Engineer, at the easterly terminus of Boswell Road prior to approval of the first final map of Phase lB of the Project per Exhibit "B" hereto. 7. Condition No. 8 of Resolution 19666 (Traffic Control Devices). In satisfaction of Condition No. 8 of Resolution 19666, the Developer agrees to provide additional on-site traffic control devices as required by the City Engineer. 8. Condition No. 9 of Resolution 19666 (Street Trees). In satisfaction of Condition No. 9 of Resolution 19666, the Developer agrees to install all street trees in accordance with Section 18.28.10 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code and the following requirements: a) Prior to City acceptance of the corresponding streets, all street trees shall be planted in parkways, street tree easements or as otherwise approved by the Director of Planning and Building. b) Street trees, which have been selected from the revised list of appropriate tree species described in the EastLake Business Center II Design Plan, shall be approved by the Director of Planning and Building and Director of Public Works. c) Root control methods shall be provided per the requirements of the Director of Planning and Building, and provide a deep watering irrigation system for the trees. 9. Condition No. 10 of Resolution 19666 (ADA Standards). In satisfaction of Condition No. 10 of Resolution 19666, the Developer agrees to construct sidewalks and pedestrian ramps on all walkways to meet Americans with Disabilities Act standards and as approved by the City Engineer. 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. Developer acknowledges and agrees that unless otherwise required by Federal law, City ADA standards may be considered vested, as determined by Federal regulations, only after construction has commenced. 10. Condition No. 12 of Resolution 19666 (Private Utilities Across Public Streets). In partial satisfaction of Condition No. 12 of Resolution 19666, the Developer agrees to not install privately owned water, reclaimed water, or other utilities across public streets, including sleeves for future construction of privately owned facilities unless the Developer enters into an agreement with the City as approved by the City Engineer and City Attorney. 11. Condition No. 23 of Resolution 19666 (CutJFill Lots). In satisfaction of Condition No. 23 of Resolution 19666, the Developer agrees to submit in conjunction with the submittal of the first Request for Issuance of Building Permit form (PWE 106A) for the Project, a list that includes all of the lots within the Project and indicates the geologic condition(s) that will underlie the structures to be built on each of the lots (i.e. fill, cut, or a transition between the two geologic conditions). The subject list is to be completed, signed and stamped by the Engineer-of-Work and the Soils Engineer for the Project. 12. Condition Nos. 16, 20, and 24 of Resolution 19666 (Discharge Regulations). In satisfaction of Condition Nos. 16, 20, and 24 of Resolution 19666, the Developer agrees to comply with all applicable regulations established by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) as set forth in the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (N.P.D.E.S.) permit requirements for urban runoff and storm water discharge, the Clean Water Program during and after all phases of the development process, including but not limited to: mass grading, rough grading, construction of street and landscaping improvements, and construction of dwelling units, and any regulations adopted by the City of Chula Vista pursuant to the N.P.D.E.S. regulations or requirements. Further, the applicant shall file notice of intent with the State Water Resoumes Control Board to obtain coverage under the N.P.D.E.S. 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. 13. Condition No. 34(b) and (c) of Resolution 19666 (Grading Plan Submittal Requirements). In satisfaction of Condition No. 34(b) and (c) of Resolution 19666, the Developer agrees to prepare, submit and obtain approval by the City Engineer and Director of Planning and Building the following plans prior to issuance of mass grading plans for the Project: detailed landscape and irrigation plans, including water management guidelines in accordance with the Chula Vista Landscape Manual; and comprehensive Landscape Master Plan for the Project. 14. Condition No. 44 of Resolution 19666 (BCOA). In satisfaction of Condition No. 44 of Resolution 19666, the Developer agrees to submit, within 60 days of City Council approval of the first Final Map, evidence, acceptable to the City Engineer and the Director of Planning and Building, of the formation of a Business Center Owner's Association (BCOA), or annexation of this project to the existing EastLake I Business Center Owners Association, or another financial mechanism acceptable to the City Manager. The BCOA formulation documents shall be approved by the City Attorney. Developer further agrees that CC&R's for the Project shall be submitted to the City Planning and Building Department for review and approval within 60 days of City Council approval of the first final map, and shall include: a) Maintenance of all facilities located within open space lots by the Business Center Owner's Association (BCOA) shall include, but not be limited to: walls, fences, water fountains, lighting structures, paths, trails, access roads, drainage structures and landscaping. Each open space lot shall also be broken down by the number of acres. b) Include language in the CC&R's establishing the BCOA responsibility to maintain medians and parkways along Boswell Road, Fenton Street, Harold Place, Street B, Otay Lakes Road. c) Provisions which clearly indicate the responsibility, if any, of the individual owners to water and maintain irrigation and planting within the parkways. The CC&R's shall also indicate that the BCOA shall have both the authority and the obligation to enforce said maintenance. d) Name the City of Chula Vista as a party to the CC&R's, with the authority, but not the obligation, to enforce the terms and conditions of the CC&R's in the same manner as any owner within the business center. ]0 e) Include language in the CC&R's for the project specifying that individual owners may not modify the parkway planting. f) Before any revisions to provisions of the CC&R's that may particularly affect the City can become effective, said revisions shall be approved by the City. The BCOA shall not seek approval from the City of said revisions without the prior consent of 100 percent of the holders of first mortgages or property owners within the BCOA. g) The BCOA shall indemnify and hold the City harmless from any claims, demands, causes of action liability or loss related to or arising from the maintenance activities of the BCOA. h) The BCOA shall not seek to be released by the City from the maintenance obligations described herein without the prior consent of the City and 100 percent of the holders of first mortgages or property owners within the BCOA. i) The BCOA is required to procure and maintain a policy of comprehensive general liability insurance written on a per-occurrence basis in an amount not less than one million dollars combined single limit. The policy shall be acceptable to the City and name the City as additionally insured. j) The CC&R's shall incorporate restrictions for each lot adjoining open space lots containing walls maintained by the open space district to ensure that the property owners know that the walls may not be modified or supplemented nor may they encroach on City property. k) The CC&R's shall include provisions assuring maintenance of all streets, driveways, drainage and sewage systems that are private. I) The CC&R's shall include provisions assuring BCOA membership in an advance notice such as the USA Dig Alert Service in perpetuity. m) Include provisions in the CC&R's assuring the maintenance of the required perimeter wall along the north property line of lots 2, 3, 12 and 13, and east property line of lots 13, 14, 15, 16. n) Indicate in the CC&R's that the BCOA is responsible for the maintenance of those landscaping improvements that are not to be included in Open Space Districts, if any. The City Engineer and the Director of Planning and Building may require that some of those improvements shall be maintained by the other financial mechanism. 15. Condition No. 57 of Resolution 19666 (Agreements). In satisfaction of Condition No. 57 of Resolution 19666, Developer agrees: a) That the City may withhold building permits for the subject subdivision if any one of the following occur: i) Regional development threshold limits set by the adopted East Chula Vista Transportation Phasing Plan have been reached. ii) Traffic volumes, levels of service, public utilities and/or services exceed the threshold standards in the then effective Growth Management Ordinance. iii) The required public facilities, as identified in the Public Facilities Finance Plan as amended or otherwise conditioned, have not been completed or constructed to satisfaction of the city. The Developer may propose changes in the timing and sequencing of development and the construction of improvements affected. In such case, the PFFP may be amended as approved by the City Planning and Building director and City Engineer. b) That the City may withhold building permits for any of the phases of development identified in the Public Facility Finance Plan (PFFP) for EastLake Business Center II if the required facilities, as identified in the PFFP, or as may be amended from time to time, have not been completed. c) To 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 approval by its Planning Commission, City Council or any approval by its agents, officers, or employees with regard to this subdivision provided the City promptly notifies the subdivider of any claim, action or proceeding and on the further condition that the City fully cooperates in the defense. ]2 d) To hold the City harmless from any liability for erosion, siltation or increase flow of drainage resulting from this project. e) To ensure that all franchised cable television companies ("Cable Company") are permitted equal opportunity to place conduit and provide cable television service to each lot within the project area. Developer agrees that the City of Chula Vista may grant access to cable television companies franchised by the City of Chula Vista to place conduit within the City's easement situated within the Project. Developer shall restrict access to the conduit to only those franchised cable television companies who are, and remain in compliance with, all of the terms and conditions of the franchise and which are in further compliance with all other rules, regulations, ordinances and procedures regulating and affecting the operation of cable television companies as same may have been, or may from time to time be issued by the City of Chula Vista. f) 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 determination and allow the Developer reasonable time to cure said breach. '16. Condition No. 58 of Resolution No. 19666 (Agreements). In satisfaction of Condition No. 58 of Resolution 19666, the Developer agrees to not protest the formation of any future regional impact fee program or facilities benefit district to finance the construction of regional facilities. 17. Condition No. 59 of Resolution 19666 (Agreements). In satisfaction of Condition No. 59 of Resolution 19666, the Developer agrees to modify the EastLake I Business Center II Supplemental Water Conservation Plan as necessary to incorporate all new water conservation policies adopted by City Council after approval of the EastLake Business Center II SPA. '18. Condition No. 62 of Resolution 19666 (Fire Requirements). In satisfaction of Condition No. 62 of Resolution 19666, the Developer agrees to install and make operable fire hydrants or equivalent fire protection, and 20' fire access roads prior to delivery of combustible building materials to the satisfaction of the City Fire Marshal. 19. Condition No. 66 of Resolution 19666 (Noise Study). In satisfaction of Condition No. 66 of Resolution 19666, the Developer agrees to provide to the City a noise study prior to issuance of the first building permit for each Lot to identify noise impacts generated by industrial uses and determine the necessary mitigation measures to insure that the allowable noise levels as prescribed in the Performance Standards of the Chula Vista Municipal Code are not exceeded. The developer shall implement all mitigation measures recommended in the noise study to reduce noise impacts to the surrounding residential neighborhoods. 20. Condition No. 67 of Resolution 19666 (Conservation Plan). In satisfaction of Condition No. 67 of Resolution 19666, the Developer agrees to participate in a regional or sub-regional multi-species coastal sage scrub conservation plan. 21. Condition No. 69 and 70 of Resolution 19666 (Street Sweeping). In satisfaction of Condition No. 69 and 70 of Resolution 19666, the Developer agrees to contract with the City's current street sweeping franchisee, or other server approved by the Director of Public Works to provide street sweeping for each phase of development on a frequency and level of service comparable to that provided for similar areas of the City. The developer shall cause street sweeping to commence immediately after the final lot, in each phase, is occupied and shall continue sweeping until such time that the City has accepted the street or 60 days after completion of all punch list items, whichever is shorter. In addition, the Developer agrees to provide the City Conservation Coordinator with a copy of the memo requesting street sweeping service, which shall include a map of areas to be swept and the date the sweeping will begin. 22. Condition No. 72 of Resolution 19666 (Undergrounding of Utilities). In satisfaction of Condition No. 72 of Resolution 19666, the Developer agrees to underground all utilities within the subdivision in accordance with Municipal Code requirements. 23. Condition No. 73 of Resolution 19666 (Clean Water Act). In satisfaction of Condition No. 73 of Resolution 19666, the 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. 24. Condition No. 76 of Resolution No.19666 (Fencing Plan). In satisfaction of Condition No. 76 of Resolution 19666, the Developer agrees, prior to issuance of the first building permit for the Project, to complete a comprehensive fencing plan ]4 indicating design, color, materials, height and location of all perimeter and interior fences, which shall be submitted for review and Developer shall obtain approval by the Director of Planning and Building, and incorporated in the EastLake I Business Center Community Design Guidelines. 25. Condition No. 77 of Resolution 19666 (Chula Vista Municipal Code). In satisfaction of Condition No. 77 of Resolution 19666, the Developer agrees to comply with all applicable sections of the Chula Vista Municipal Code. Preparation of the Final Map and all plans by Developer shall be in accordance with the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act and the City of Chula Vista Subdivision Ordinance and Subdivision Manual. Developer acknowledges and agrees that compliance with the City of Chula Vista threshold standards, based on actual development patterns and updated forecasts in reliance on changing entitlement and market conditions, shall govern EastLake Business Center II development patterns and the facility improvement requirements to serve such development. In addition, Developer agrees that the sequence in which improvements are constructed shall correspond to any future Eastern Chula Vista Transportation Phasing Plan or amendment to the Growth Management Program and Ordinance adopted by the City. Upon request of Developer, the City Engineer may modify the sequence of improvement construction should conditions change to warrant such a revision. 26. Condition No. 78 of Resolution 19666 (Fees). In satisfaction of Condition No. 78 of Resolution 19666, the Developer agrees to pay all applicable fees in accordance with the City Code and Council Policy, including, but not limited to, the following: a) The Transportation and Public Facilities Development Impact Fees. b) Signal Participation Fees. c) All applicable sewer fees, including but not limited to sewer connection fees. d) Interim SR-125 impact fee. e) Telegraph Canyon (Gravity Flow) Sewer Basin DIF. f) Salt Creek Sewer Basin DIF. g) Telegraph Canyon Basin Drainage DIF. h) Salt Creek Basin Drainage DIF as may be adopted by the City in the future. i) Telegraph Canyon Sewer Pumped Flow DIF. In addition, the Developer agrees to pay the amount of said fees in effect at the time of issuance of building permits. ]5 27. Condition No. 79 of Resolution 19666 (Notices). In satisfaction of Condition No. 79 of Resolution 19666, the 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. Developer agrees to submit the disclosure form for approval by the City Engineer prior to Final Map approval. 28. Condition No. 81 of Resolution 19666 (CV Landscape Manual). In satisfaction of Condition No. 81 of Resolution 19666, the Developer agrees to comply with all aspects of the City of Chula Vista Landscape Manual. 29. Condition No. 82 of Resolution 19666 (Compliance). In satisfaction of Condition No. 82 of Resolution 19666, the 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 which 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). 30. Satisfaction of Conditions. City agrees that the execution of this Agreement constitutes satisfaction or partial satisfaction of Developer's obligation for this Project of Conditions A, B, C, D, 2, 8, 9, 10, 12, 16, 20, 23, 24, 34b, 34c, 44, 57, 58, 59, 62, 66, 67, 69, 70, 72, 73, 76, 77, 78, 79, 81, and 82 of Resolution 19666. 31. Unfulfilled Conditions. Developer hereby agrees, unless otherwise conditioned, that Developer shall comply with all unfulfilled conditions of approval of the EastLake Business Center II Chula Vista Tract No. 00-03 Tentative Map (adopted by Resolution 19666)and shall remain in compliance with and implement the terms, conditions and provisions of the Resolution. 32. Recording. This Agreement, or an abstract hereof prepared by either or both parties, may be recorded by either party. 33. Assignability. Upon request of the Developer, 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. 34. Building Permits. Developer understands and agrees 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. 17 35. 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. CITY OF CHULA VISTA 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 Attn: Director of Public Works Developer: The EastLake Company, LLC 900 Lane Avenue, Suite 100 Chula Vista, CA 91914 Attn: William T. Ostrem Guy Asaro 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. 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; Exhibits. Any recitals set forth above and exhibits referenced herein 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. (NEXT PAGE IS SIGNATURE PAGE) SIGNATURE PAGE TO SUPPLEMENTAL SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT EASTLAKE BUSINESS CENTER II CHULA VISTA TRACT NO. 00-03 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed the day and year first hereinabove set forth. THE CITYOFCHULAVISTA THE EASTLAKE COMPANY, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY By: By: Mayor of the City of Chula Vista William T. Ostrem Its: President By: ATTEST Guy Asaro L;~ty L;lerl~ Its: Vice President Approved as to form by L;ity Attorney (Attach Notary Acknowledgment) 20 EXHIBIT "A" THE LAND REFERRED TO HEREIN IS SITUATED IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: CHULA VISTA TRACT NO. 00-02, EASTLAKE BUSINESS CENTER II, BEING A SUBDIVISION OF A PORTION OF PARCEL 1 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 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, , AS FILE NO. OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. H:\HQME\ENGINEER\LANDDEV~SSlALEV.JCM 2! EXHIBIT "B" STREET IMPROVEMENTS *City of Chula Improvement Limits/Location Vista Completion Comments Date Drawing Nos. All on-site and off-site Intersection of Lane improvements, Avenue and Fenton **99-1696 Prior to approval of Referenced as including underground the First Final Map improvements, and Street from the through Facility No. 2 in westerly subdivision 99-1701 of Phase lB of the Resolution 19666 traffic signal standards boundary to Street A Project with luminaries *'99-1696 Prior to approval of Referenced as Cul-de-Sac Easterly Terminus of the First Final Map Boswell Road through of Phase lB of the Facility No. 3 in 99-1701 Resolution 19666 Project *The improvements are to be performed in accordance with the applicable sheets of the referenced Drawing Nos. **The referenced plans (Drawing Nos.) have been submitted for review and approval but they have not yet been approved as of the date of this Agreement and therefor may be subject to modification by the City Engineer. EXHIBIT "C" SUMMARY OF SECURITIES Improvement Limits Approved Security Status Amount All on-site and off-site Intersection of Lane improvements, including Avenue and Fenton Bonds Received and Approved underground Street from the westerly *FP: $ Pursuant to Subdivision improvements, and *M & L: $ Improvement Agreement subdivision boundary Executed Herewith traffic signal standards to Street A with luminaries Bonds Received and Approved Cul-de-Sac Easterly Terminus of Included in Approved Pursuant to Subdivision Boswell Road Security Amount Above Improvement Agreement Executed Herewith FP = Security Amount for Faithful Performance M & L = Security Amount for Material and Labor *The posted security amount reflects an added 50% contingency to the total estimated improvement costs since the improvement plans have been submitted for review and approval but they have not yet been approved as of the date of this agreement by the City Engineer. The posted security amount includes bonding for on-site and off-site improvements which are included in the Subdivision Improvement Agreement. H:LHOME~ENGINEER\LANDDEVXEB S SEXC. JCM RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA CONDITIONALLY APPROVING FINAL MAP OF CHULA VISTA TRACT NO. 00-02, EASTLAKE BUSINESS CENTER II, ACCEPTING ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA THE PUBLIC EASEMENTS AND ON BEHALF OF THE PUBLIC THE STREET EASEMENTS, ALL AS GRANTED ON SAID MAP WITHIN SAID SUBDIVISION, AND APPROVING THE SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT FOR THE COMPLETION OF IMPROVEMENTS REQUIRED BY SAID SUBDIVISION AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT 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 No. 00-02 EASTLAKE BUSINESS CENTER II, and more particularly described as follows: Being a subdivision of Parcel 1 of Parcel Map No. (to be recorded), all 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, (date) as File No. (to be recorded), all of official records. Area: 32.123 acres No. of Lots: 3 Numbered Lots: 2 Lettered Lots: 1 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 conditionally approved and accepted upon receipt by the City of Chula Vista of all improvement securities described in the Subdivision Improvement Agreement. Approval of the Final Map is also contingent upon the recordation of the Parcel Map containing the subject subdivision and the submittal of an updated Title Report evidencing the same. Council may rescind approval of the Final Map should the City of Chula Vista not receive the updated Title Report and Parcel Map not be recorded by May 31, 2000. The Final Map shall be deemed approved and recordable upon fulfillment of all contingencies set forth herein. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that said Council hereby accepts on behalf of the public the public streets, to-wit: Harold Place and portion of Fenton Street and said streets are hereby declared to be public streets and dedicated to the public use. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a deed granting an irrevocable offer of fee interest in Lot A is hereby presently rejected, but the Council reserves the right, pursuant to Section 7050 of the California Government Code, to accept said irrevocable offer at some future time. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that said Council hereby accepts on behalf of the City of Chula Vista, with the rights of ingress and egress, the 5.50 foot Street Tree Planting and Maintenance Easement, the 10 foot General Utility Easement, the 20 foot Sidewalk, Tree Planting and Maintenance Easement, and the 20 foot Storm Drain Easement. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk of the City of Chula Vista 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 said public streets are accepted on behalf of the public as heretofore stated and that those certain easements with the right of ingress and egress for the construction and maintenance street tree planting, sidewalk, sewer and drainage facilities, and other public utilities, as granted thereon and shown on said map within said subdivision is accepted on behalf of the City of Chula Vista as hereinabove stated. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk is hereby directed to transmit said map to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of the County of San Diego only upon the acceptance by the City of Chula Vista and its City Attorney of the improvement securities described in the Subdivision Improvement Agreement. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that that certain Subdivision Improvement Agreement dated the day of 2000, 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 agreement for and on behalf of the City of Chula Vista. Presented by Approved as to form by John P. Lippitt John ~aheny Director of Public Works City Attorney H~ ~Home ~At t orney~Re so~ELBUS I I 2 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING SUPPLEMENTAL SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT FOR CHULA VISTA TRACT NO. 00-02, EASTLAKE BUSINESS CENTER II, REQUIRING THE EASTLAKE COMPANY TO COMPLY WITH CERTAIN UNFULFILLED CONDITIONS OF RESOLUTION NO. 19666 AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT WHEREAS, the developers of EastLake Business Center II have executed a Supplemental Subdivision Improvement agreement (SSIA) in order to satisfy Conditions of Resolution No. 19666 for Chula vista Tract No. 00-02. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby approve the Supplemental Subdivision Improvement Agreement for Chula Vista Tract No. 00-02, EastLake Business Center II, a copy of which is 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 and directed to execute said Agreement for and on behalf of the City of Chula Vista. Presented by Approved as to form by John P. Lippitt Jo~ht~. Kaheny Director of Public Works City Attorney Recording Requested 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. 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 THE EASTLAKE COMPANY, LLC, 900 Lane Avenue, Suite 100, 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 EastLake Business Center II, Phase 1, 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 R~corder 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. 19666, approved on the 16th day of November, 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. 99-1696 through 99-1701, 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 Seventy-Four Thousand Eight Hundred Dollars and No Cents ($1,074,800.00). 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 Thirty-Seven Thousand Four Hundred Dollars and No Cents ($537,400.00) 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 Thirty-Seven Thousand Four Hundred Dollars and No Cents ($537,400.00) 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 c~ity 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 Twelve Thousand Five Hundred Dollars and No Cents ($12,500.00) 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 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 further understood and agreed that Subdivider shall guarantee all public improvements fo~ 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. 4 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 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 a~versely 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) SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT EASTLAKE BUSINESS CENTER II, PHASE I IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this agreement to be executed the day and year first hereinabove set forth. T~E CITY OF C~A VISTA T~E~/~AST~A×~eO~'V~-~, ~C Mayor of the City of Chula s~de.t Vista ATTEST ~sgW6. V~ePresident City Clerk Approved as to form by City Attorney (Attach Notary Acknowledgment) 6 CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT No. State of C4 County of ~ [~ ~ to be the person(s) whose name(s)~are subscribed to the within instrument and ac- knowledged to me that ~/they executed the same in ~/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by ~/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the ~ '~1~¢~ "~ person(s) acted, executed the instrument. U~I .~DIEGO~UN~ 9 WITNESS my hand and official seal. ~" A~ORNEY-IN-FACT ~ TRUSTEE(S) NUMBER OF PAGES ~ GUARDIA~CONSERVATOR ~ O~ER: DATE OF DOCUMENT SIGNER IS REPRESE~ING: SIGNER(S) OTHER THAN NAMED ABOVE ©1993 NATIONAL NOTARY ASSOCIATION · 8236emmet Ave., P.O. Box 7184 · Canoga Park, CA 91309-7184 LIST OF EXHIBITS Exhibit "A" Improvement Security - Faithful Performance Form: Bond Amount: $537,400 Exhibit "B" Improvement Security - Material and Labor: Form: Bond Amount: $537,400 Exhibit "C" Improvement Security - Monuments: Form: Bond Amount: $12,500 Securities approved as to form and amount by City Attorney Improvement Completion Date: Two (2) years from date of City Council approval of the Subdivision Improvement Agreement 7 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. ueveloper Above Space for Recorder's Use SUPPLEMENTAL SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT FOR EASTLAKE BUSINESS CENTER II FINAL MAP (LOTS 1 AND 2) CHULA VISTA TRACT NO. 00-02 (Conditions A, B, C, D, 2, 8, 9, 10, 12, 16, 20, 23, 24, 34b, 34c, 44, 57, 58, 59, 62, 66, 67, 69, 70, 72, 73, 76, 77, 78, 79, 81, and 82 of Resolution 19666 for this Project) This Supplemental Subdivision Improvement Agreement ("Agreement") is made this day of ,2000, by and between THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, C-~'TiTernia ("(.;Ity" or "Grantee" for recording purposes only) and THE EASTLAKE COMPANY, LLC, A CALIFORNIA 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 referred to as EastLake Business Center II, Chula Vista Tract No. 00-02. For purposes of this Agreement the term "Project" shall mean "Property". B. Developer is the owner of the Property. C. Developer has applied for and the City has approved a Tentative Subdivision Map commonly referred to as Chula Vista Tract No. 00-03, EASTLAKE BUSINESS CENTER II, ("Tentative Subdivision Map") for the subdivision of the Property. D. The City has adopted Resolution 19666 ("Resolution") pursuant to which it has approved the Tentative Subdivision Map subject to certain conditions as more particularly described in the Resolution. E. 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. NOW, THEREFORE, in exchange for the mutual covenants, terms and conditions herein contained, the parties agree as set forth below. 1. Agreement Applicable to Subsequent Owners. 1.1 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 until released by the mutual consent of the parties. 1.2 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 exercise 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 or any other beneficiaries of this agreement and the covenants may be entitled. a. Developer Release on Guest Builder Assignments. If Developer assigns any portion of the Project, Developer may have the right to obtain a release of any of Developer's obligations under this Agreement, provided Developer obtains the prior written consent of the City to such release. Such assignment 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 reasonable 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. b. 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 and such partial release will not, in the opinion of the City, jeopardize the likelihood that the remainder of the Burden will not be completed. c. Implement Mitigation Measures, Developer shall diligently implement, or cause the implementation of all mitigation measures pertaining to the Project identified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration Report for EastLake Business Center II, and Addendum. Any such measures not satisfied by a specific condition or by the project design shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Building. Mitigation Measures shall be monitored via the Mitigation Monitoring Program approved in conjunction with the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Addendum. Modification of the sequence of mitigation shall be at the discretion of the Director of Planning and Building should changes in the circumstances warrant such revision. d. Implement Previously Adopted Conditions of Approval Pertinent to Project. Unless otherwise conditioned, comply, remain in compliance and implement, the terms, conditions and provisions, as are applicable to the property which is the subject matter of this Agreement, of 1) Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS-00-03); 2) Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; 3) The EastLake II General Development Plan with amendments (GDP); 4) EastLake I Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan; 5) EastLake I Business Center II Design Guidelines; 6) EastLake I Public Facilities Financing Plan; 7) EastLake Business Center II Water Conservation Plan; 8) EastLake I Air Quality Improvement Plan; 9) EastLake Business Center II Sub-Area Water Master Plan; and 10) EastLake I Water Conservation Plan; all approved by the Council on November 16, 1999, Resolution No. 19666 ("Plans"), prior to approval of the corresponding Final Map. e. Implement the Public Facilities Financing Plan. Developer shall install public facilities in accordance with the EastLake I Public Facilities Financing Plan as amended or as required by the City Engineer to meet threshold standards adopted by the City of Chula Vista. The City Engineer and Planning and Building Director may, at their discretion, modify the sequence of improvement construction should conditions change to warrant such a revision. 2. Condition A of GENERAL/PRELIMINARY Section of Resolution 19666 (Project Site Improvement). In satisfaction of Condition A of Resolution 19666, the Developer agrees to improve the project site with the Project as described in the Tentative Subdivision Map, Chula Vista Tract 00-02 and IS-00-03, except as modified by Resolution 19666. 3. Condition B of GENERAL/PRELIMINARY Section of Resolution 19666 (Mitigation Measures). In satisfaction of Condition B of Resolution 19666, the Developer agrees to implement, or cause the implementation of all mitigation measures pertaining to the Project identified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration IS-00-03. Developer acknowledges and agrees that any such measures not satisfied by a specific condition of this Resolution or by the project design shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Building and that mitigation measures shall be monitored via the Mitigation Monitoring Program approved in conjunction with MND IS-00-03. Should the Developer request a modification of the sequence of mitigation, such modification shall be at the discretion of the Director of Planning and Building should changes in the circumstances warrant such revision. 4. Condition C of GENERAL/PRELIMINARY Section of Resolution 19666 (Mitigation Measures). In satisfaction of Condition C of Resolution 19666, the Developer agrees to comply, remain in compliance and implement, the terms, conditions, and provisions, as are applicable to the property which is the subject matter of this Tentative Map of: 1) Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS-00-03); 2) Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; 3) The EastLake II General Development Plan (GDP); 4) EastLake I Business Center II Supplemental Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan; 5) EastLake II Planned Community District Regulations; 6) EastLake I Business Center II Design Guidelines; 7) EastLake I Business Center II Supplemental Public Facilities Financing Plan; 8) EastLake I Business Center II Water Conservation Plan; 9) EastLake I Business Center II Air Quality Improvement Plan; and 10) EastLake Business Center II Sub-Area Water Master Plan, all approved by the Council on November 16, 1999, Resolution No. 19666 ("Plans"). Developer hereby waives any claim that the adoption of a final Water Conservation ' Plan or Air Quality Plan constitutes an improper subsequent imposition of this condition. 5. Condition D of GENERAL/PRELIMINARY Section of Resolution 19666 (PFFP). In satisfaction of Condition D of Resolution 19666, the Developer agrees to install public facilities in accordance with the EastLake I Business Center II Supplemental Public Facilities Financing Plan as amended or as required by the City Engineer to 4 meet threshold standards adopted by the City of Chula Vista. The City Engineer and Director of Planning and Building may, at their discretion, modify the sequence of improvement construction should conditions change to warrant such a revision. 6. Condition No. 2 of Resolution 19666 (Street Improvements). In partial satisfaction of Condition No. 2 of Resolution 19666, Developer shall construct and secure the full street improvements or remaining street improvements as referenced herein and as shown on Exhibit "B". Developer acknowledges and agrees that the City Engineer and Director of Planning and Building may, at their discretion, modify the sequence, schedule, alignment and design of improvement construction should conditions change to warrant such a revision. Developer further agrees to the following: a. Improvement Work. Developer agrees to construct the street improvements and land development work in and adjoining said subdivision as referenced herein and as set forth on Exhibit "B" ("Street 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 therefor, all in strict conformity and in accordance with the City of Chula Vista Drawing Nos. referenced herein and by this reference are incorporated herein and made a part hereof. Developer shall complete construction of the Street Improvements in accordance with the completion dates designated hereinafter in this Agreement. It is expressly understood and agreed to by Developer that, in the performance of construction of said Street Improve- ments, 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 has furnished to the City of Chula Vista, and agrees to maintain until City acceptance of the Street Improvements referenced herein, approved improvement securities from a sufficient surety, whose sufficiency has been approved by the City in the sums as set forth on Exhibit "C", which securities guarantee the faithful performance in connection with the installa- tion of the Street Improvements as shown on Exhibit "B" and as referenced herein. ii. Developer has furnished to the City of Chula Vista, and agrees to maintain until City acceptance of the work referenced herein, approved improvement securities from a sufficient 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 as shown on Exhibit "B" and as referenced herein. iii. Developer acknowledges and agrees that if the Street Improvements as shown on Exhibit "B" and as referenced herein are not completed within the time agreed herein, the sums provided by said improve- ment securities may be used by City for the completion of the Street Improvements and improvements referenced herein in accordance with the approved plans and specifications for such Street Improvements, or at the option of the City, for those improvements as referenced herein and 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 improve- ment securities. 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 officers, 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, 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 Developer, its agents or employees, or indemnitee, related to the construction of the Street Improvements. Developer 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 Developer, its agents or employees, or indemnitee, related to the construction of the Street Improvements; the approved 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 the construction of said 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 the construction and maintenance of the Street Improvements and the drainage systems. The approval of plans for the Street Improvements and related 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 the construction of the Street Improvements and related improvements. The provisions of this paragraph shall become effective upon the execution of this Agreement and shall remain in full fome and effect for ten (10) years following the acceptance by the City of the Street Improvements. 7 g. Condition No. 2 of Resolution 19666 (Facility No. 2). In partial satisfaction of Condition No. 2 of Resolution 19666, the Developer agrees, pursuant to the Subdivision Improvement Agreement executed contemporaneously herewith, to install all on-site and off-site improvements, including underground improvements, traffic signal standards with luminaries, for the intersection of Lane Avenue/Fenton Street from the westerly subdivision boundary to Street A prior to approval of the first final map of Phase 1B of the Project per Exhibit "B" hereto. h. Condition No. 2 of Resolution 19666 (Facility No. 3). In partial satisfaction of Condition No. 2 of Resolution 19666, the Developer agrees to construct a cul-de-sac, as approved by the City Engineer, at the easterly terminus of Boswell Road prior to approval of the first final map of Phase lB of the Project per Exhibit "B" hereto. 7. Condition No. 8 of Resolution 19666 (Traffic Control Devices). In satisfaction of Condition No. 8 of Resolution 19666, the Developer agrees to provide additional on-site traffic control devices as required by and upon the request of the City Engineer. 8. Condition No. 9 of Resolution 19666 (Street Trees). In partial satisfaction of Condition No. 9 of Resolution 19666, the Developer agrees to install all street trees in accordance with Section 18.28.10 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code and the following requirements: a) Prior to City acceptance of the corresponding streets, all street trees shall be planted in parkways, street tree easements or as otherwise approved by the Director of Planning and Building. b) Street trees, which have been selected from the revised list of appropriate tree species described in the EastLake Business Center II Design Plan, shall be approved by the Director of Planning and Building and Director of Public Works. c) Root control methods shall be provided per the requirements of the Director of Planning and Building, and provide a deep watering irrigation system for the trees. 9. Condition No. 10 of Resolution 19666 (ADA Standards). In satisfaction of Condition No. 10 of Resolution 19666, the Developer agrees to construct sidewalks 8 and pedestrian ramps on all walkways to meet Americans with Disabilities Act standards and as approved by the City Engineer. 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. Developer acknowledges and agrees that unless otherwise required by Federal law, City ADA standards may be considered vested, as determined by Federal regulations, only after construction has commenced. 10. Condition No. 12 of Resolution 19666 (Private Utilities Across Public Streets). In partial satisfaction of Condition No. 12 of Resolution 19666, the Developer agrees to not install privately owned water, reclaimed water, or other utilities across public streets, including sleeves for future construction of privately owned facilities unless the Developer enters into an agreement with the City as approved by the City Engineer and City Attorney. 11. Condition No. 23 of Resolution 19666 (Cut/Fill Lots). In satisfaction of Condition No. 23 of Resolution 19666, the Developer agrees to submit in conjunction with the submittal of the first Request for Issuance of Building Permit form (PWE 106A) for the Project, a list that includes all of the lots within the Project and indicates the geologic condition(s) that will underlie the structures to be built on each of the lots (i.e. fill, cut, or a transition between the two geologic conditions). The subject list is to be completed, signed and stamped by the Engineer-of-Work and the Soils Engineer for the Project. 12. Condition Nos. 16, 20, and 24 of Resolution 19666 (Discharge Regulations). In satisfaction of Condition Nos. 16, 20, and 24 of Resolution 19666, the Developer agrees to comply with all applicable regulations established by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) as set forth in the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (N.P.D.E.S.) permit requirements for urban runoffand storm water discharge, the Clean Water Program during and after all phases of the development process, including but not limited to: mass grading, rough grading, construction of street and landscaping improvements, and construction of dwelling units, and any regulations adopted by the City of Chula Vista pursuant to the N.P.D.E.S. regulations or requirements. Further, the applicant shall file notice of intent with the State Water Resources Control Board to obtain coverage under the N.P.D.E.S. 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 9 measures and shall identify funding mechanisms for post construction control measures. In addition, all storm drains, and other drainage facilities shall be designed, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, to include Best Management Practices to minimize non-point source pollution. 13. Condition No. 34(b) and (c) of Resolution 19666 (Grading Plan Submittal Requirements). In satisfaction of Condition No. 34(b) and (c) of Resolution 19666, the Developer agrees to prepare, submit and obtain approval by the City Engineer and Director of Planning and Building the following plans prior to issuance of mass grading plans for the Project: detailed landscape and irrigation plans, including water management guidelines in accordance with the Chula Vista Landscape Manual; and comprehensive Landscape Master Plan for the Project. 14. Condition No. 44 of Resolution 19666 (BCOA). In satisfaction of Condition No. 44 of Resolution 19666, the Developer agrees to submit, within 60 days of City Council approval of the first Final Map, evidence, acceptable to the City Engineer and the Director of Planning and Building, of the formation of a Business Center Owner's Association (BCOA), or annexation of this project to the existing EastLake I Business Center Owners Association, or another financial mechanism acceptable to the City Manager. The BCOA formulation documents shall be approved by the City Attorney. Developer further agrees that CC&R's for the Project shall be submitted to the City Planning and Building Department for review and approval within 60 days of City Council approval of the first final map, and shall include: a) Maintenance of all facilities located within open space lots by the Business Center Owner's Association (BCOA) shall include, but not be limited to: walls, fences, water fountains, lighting structures, paths, trails, access roads, drainage structures and landscaping. Each open space lot shall also be broken down by the number of acres. b) Include language in the CC&R's establishing the BCOA responsibility to ' maintain medians and parkways along Boswell Road, Fenton Street, Harold Place, Street B, Otay Lakes Road. c) Provisions which clearly indicate the responsibility, if any, of the individual owners to water and maintain irrigation and planting within the parkways. The CC&R's shall also indicate that the BCOA shall have both the authority and the obligation to enforce said maintenance. ]0 d) Name the City of Chula Vista as a party to the CC&R's, with the authority, but not the obligation, to enforce the terms and conditions of the CC&R's in the same manner as any owner within the business center. e) Include language in the CC&R's for the project specifying that individual owners may not modify the parkway planting. f) Before any revisions to provisions of the CC&R's that may particularly affect the City can become effective, said revisions shall be approved by the City. The BCOA shall not seek approval from the City of said revisions without the prior consent of 100 percent of the holders of first mortgages or property owners within the BCOA. g) The BCOA shall indemnify and hold the City harmless from any claims, demands, causes of action liability or loss related to or arising from the maintenance activities of the BCOA. h) The BCOA shall not seek to be released by the City from the maintenance obligations described herein without the prior consent of the City and 100 percent of the holders of first mortgages or property owners within the BCOA. i) The BCOA is required to procure and maintain a policy of comprehensive general liability insurance written on a per-occurrence basis in an amount not less than one million dollars combined single limit. The policy shall be acceptable to the City and name the City as additionally insured. j) The CC&R's shall incorporate restrictions for each lot adjoining open space lots containing walls maintained by the open space district to ensure that the property owners know that the walls may not be modified or supplemented nor may they encroach on City property. k) The CC&R's shall include provisions assuring maintenance of all streets, driveways, drainage and sewage systems that are private. I) The CC&R's shall include provisions assuring BCOA membership in an advance notice such as the USA Dig Alert Service in perpetuity. m) Include provisions in the CC&R's assuring the maintenance of the required perimeter wall along the north property line of lots 2, 3, 12 and 13, and east 11 property line of lots 13, 14, 15, 16. n) Indicate in the CC&R's that the BCOA is responsible for the maintenance of those landscaping improvements that are not to be included in Open Space Districts, if any. The City Engineer and the Director of Planning and Building may require that some of those improvements shall be maintained by the other financial mechanism. 15. Condition No. 57 of Resolution 19666 (Agreements). In satisfaction of Condition No. 57 of Resolution 19666, Developer agrees: a) That the City may withhold building permits for the subject subdivision if any one of the following occur: i) Regional development threshold limits set by the adopted East Chula Vista Transportation Phasing Plan have been reached. ii) Traffic volumes, levels of service, public utilities and/or services exceed the threshold standards in the then effective Growth Management Ordinance. iii) The required public facilities, as identified in the Public Facilities Finance Plan as amended or otherwise conditioned, have not been completed or constructed to satisfaction of the city. The Developer may propose changes in the timing and sequencing of development and the construction of improvements affected. In such case, the PFFP may be amended as approved by the City Planning and Building director and City Engineer. b) That the City may withhold building permits for any of the phases of development identified in the Public Facility Finance Plan (PFFP) for EastLake Business Center II if the required facilities, as identified in the PFFP, or as may be amended from time to time, have not been completed. c) To 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 approval by its Planning Commission, City Council or any approval by its agents, officers, or employees with regard to this subdivision provided the City promptly notifies the subdivider of any claim, 12 action or proceeding and on the further condition that the City fully cooperates in the defense. d) To hold the City harmless from any liability for erosion, siltation or increase flow of drainage resulting from this project. e) To ensure that all franchised cable television companies ("Cable Company") are permitted equal opportunity to place conduit and provide cable television service to each lot withir~the project area. Developer agrees that the City of Chula Vista may grant access to cable television companies franchised by the City of Chula Vista to place conduit within the City's easement situated within the Project. Developer shall restrict access to the conduit to only those franchised cable television companies who are, and remain in compliance with, all of the terms and conditions of the franchise and which are in further compliance with all other rules, regulations, ordinances and procedures regulating and affecting the operation of cable television companies as same may have been, or may from time to time be issued by the City of Chula Vista. f) 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 determination and allow the Developer reasonable time to cure said breach. 16. Condition No. 58 of Resolution No. 19666 (Agreements). In satisfaction of Condition No. 58 of Resolution 19666, the Developer agrees to not protest the formation of any future regional impact fee program or facilities benefit district to finance the construction of regional facilities. 17. Condition No. 59 of Resolution 19666 (Agreements). In satisfaction of Condition No. 59 of Resolution 19666, the Developer agrees to modify the EastLake I Business Center II Supplemental Water Conservation Plan as necessary to incorporate all new water conservation policies adopted by City Council after approval of the EastLake Business Center II SPA. 18. Condition No. 62 of Resolution 19666 (Fire Requirements). In satisfaction of Condition No. 62 of Resolution 19666, the Developer agrees to install and make operable fire hydrants or equivalent fire protection, and 20' fire access roads prior to delivery of combustible building materials to the satisfaction of the City Fire Marshal. 19. Condition No. 66 of Resolution 19666 (Noise Study). In satisfaction of Condition No. 66 of Resolution 19666, the Developer agrees to provide to the City a noise study prior to issuance of the first building permit for each Lot to identify noise impacts generated by industrial uses and determine the necessary mitigation measures to insure that the allowable noise levels as prescribed in the Performance Standards of the Chula Vista Municipal Code are not exceeded. The developer shall implement all mitigation measures recommended in the noise study to reduce noise impacts to the surrounding residential neighborhoods. 20. Condition No. 67 of Resolution 19666 (Conservation Plan). In satisfaction of Condition No. 67 of Resolution 19666, the Developer agrees to participate in a regional or sub-regional multi-species coastal sage scrub conservation plan. 21. Condition No. 69 and 70 of Resolution 19666 (Street Sweeping). In satisfaction of Condition No. 69 and 70 of Resolution 19666, the Developer agrees to contract with the City's current street sweeping franchisee, or other server approved by the Director of Public Works to provide street sweeping for each phase of development on a frequency and level of service comparable to that provided for similar areas of the City. The developer shall cause street sweeping to commence immediately after the final lot, in each phase, is occupied and shall continue sweeping until such time that the City has accepted the street or 60 days after completion of all punch list items, whichever is shorter. In addition, the Developer agrees to provide the City Conservation Coordinator with a copy of the memo requesting street sweeping service, which shall include a map of areas to be swept and the date the sweeping will begin. 22. Condition No. 72 of Resolution 19666 (Undergrounding of Utilities). In satisfaction of Condition No. 72 of Resolution 19666, the Developer agrees to underground all utilities within the subdivision in accordance with Municipal Code requirements. 23. Condition No. 73 of Resolution 19666 (Clean Water Act). In satisfaction of Condition No. 73 of Resolution 19666, the Developer agrees to comply with all relevant Federal, State, and Local regulations, including the Clean Water Act. The ]4 developer shall be responsible for providing all required testing and documentation to demonstrate said compliance as required by the City Engineer. 24. Condition No. 76 of Resolution No.19666 (Fencing Plan). In satisfaction of Condition No. 76 of Resolution 19666, the Developer agrees, prior to issuance of the first building permit for the Project, to complete a comprehensive fencing plan indicating design, color, materials, height and location of all perimeter and interior fences, which shall be submitted for review and Developer shall obtain approval by the Director of Planning and Building, and incorporated in the EastLake I Business Center Community Design Guidelines. 25. Condition No. 77 of Resolution 19666 (Chula Vista Municipal Code). In satisfaction of Condition No. 77 of Resolution 19666, the Developer agrees to comply with all applicable sections of the Chula Vista Municipal Code. Preparation of the Final Map and all plans by Developer shall be in accordance with the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act and the City of Chula Vista Subdivision Ordinance and Subdivision Manual. Developer acknowledges and agrees that compliance with the City of Chula Vista threshold standards, based on actual development patterns and updated forecasts in reliance on changing entitlement and market conditions, shall govern EastLake Business Center II development patterns and the facility improvement requirements to serve such development. In addition, Developer agrees that the sequence in which improvements are constructed shall correspond to any future Eastern Chula Vista Transportation Phasing Plan or amendment to the Growth Management Program and Ordinance adopted by the City. Upon request of Developer, the City Engineer may modify the sequence of improvement construction should conditions change to warrant such a revision. 26. Condition No. 78 of Resolution 19666 (Fees). In satisfaction of Condition No. 78 of Resolution 19666, the Developer agrees to pay all applicable fees in accordance with the City Municipal Code and Council Policy, including, but not limited to, the following: a) The Transportation and Public Facilities Development Impact Fees. ' b) Signal Participation Fees. c) All applicable sewer fees, including but not limited to sewer connection fees. d) Interim SR-125 impact fee. e) Telegraph Canyon (Gravity Flow) Sewer Basin DIF. f) Salt Creek Sewer Basin DIF. g) Telegraph Canyon Basin Drainage DIF. h) Salt Creek Basin Drainage DIF as may be adopted by the City in the future. / i) Telegraph Canyon Sewer Pumped Flow DIF. In addition, the Developer agrees to pay the amount of said fees in effect at the time of issuance of building permits. 27. Condition No. 79 of Resolution 19666 (Notices). In satisfaction of Condition No. 79 of Resolution 19666, the 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. Developer agrees to submit the disclosure form for approval by the City Engineer prior to Final Map approval. 28. Condition No. 81 of Resolution 19666 (CV Landscape Manual). In satisfaction of Condition No. 81 of Resolution 19666, the Developer agrees to comply with all aspects of the City of Chula Vista Landscape Manual. 29. Condition No. 82 of Resolution 19666 (Compliance). In satisfaction of Condition No. 82 of Resolution 19666, the 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 which 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). 30. Satisfaction of Conditions. City agrees that the execution of this Agreement constitutes satisfaction or partial satisfaction of Developer's obligation for this Project of Conditions A, B, C, D, 2, 8, 9, 10, 12, 16, 20, 23, 24, 34b, 34c, 44, 57, 58, 59, 62, 66, 67, 69, 70, 72, 73, 76, 77, 78, 79, 81, and 82 of Resolution 19666. 31. Unfulfilled Conditions. Developer hereby agrees, unless otherwise conditioned, that Developer shall comply with all unfulfilled conditions of approval of the EastLake Business Center II Chula Vista Tract No. 00-02 Tentative Map (adopted by Resolution 19666) and shall remain in compliance with and implement the terms, conditions and provisions of the Resolution. 32. Recording. This Agreement, or an abstract hereof prepared by either or both parties, may be recorded by either party. 33. Assignability. Upon request of the Developer, 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. 34. Building Permits. Developer understands and agrees 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. ]? 35. 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. CITY OF CHULA VISTA 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 Attn: Director of Public Works Developer: The EastLake Company, LLC 900 Lane Avenue, Suite 100 Chula Vista, CA 91914 Attn: William T. Ostrem Guy Asaro 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. 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. ]8 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; Exhibits. Any recitals set forth above and exhibits referenced herein 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. (NEXT PAGE IS SIGNATURE PAGE) SIGNATURE PAGE TO SUPPLEMENTAL SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT EASTLAKE BUSINESS CENTER II CHULA VISTA TRACT NO. 00-02 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed the day and year first hereinabove set forth. THE CITY OF CHULAVISTA THE EASTLAKE COMPANY, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPAq? By:. By: //· William T. Ostre/m Mayor of the City of Chula Vista F.~.?")~ 1 ~ -~ Its: President By: ATTEST Guy ~sa/~ U~ty UlerK Its: Vice President Approved as to form by (Attach Notary Acknowledgment) 20 CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT State of County of ~^ On A-~ z0, 2.000 before me, ~ ~.~, CATE NAME, TI~E OF O~R - E~, "JANE DO~TARY PUBLIC" perso. ,, appe red NAME(B) OF SiGNER(B) ~rsonally known to me - OR - ~ ~tc mc ~ the bas~s cf s~tlsf~c~ to be the person(s) whose name(s) ~are subscribed to the within instrument and ac- knowledged to me that ~/they executed the same in ~r/their authorized capacity(les), and that by h~their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the i~-~I~V~AC~8~ '~ person(s) acted, executed the instrument. ~. %~l~/ ~ ~mmi~.~gNW~... WITNESS my hand and official seal. ~ ~B~y 12, ~ S~GNAT~E OF NOTAR~ OPTIONAL Though the data below is not required by law, it may prove valuable to pemons relying on the document and could prevent fraudulent ma~achment of this form. CAPACI~ C~IMEB BY SIGNER DESCRIPTION 0F A~ACHEB DOCUMENT ~ INDIVIDUAL ~ CORPO~TE OFFICER T~(S) TITLE OR ~PE OF DOCUMENT ~ PARTNER(S) ~ LIMITED ~ GENE~L ~ ~ORNEY-IN-FACT NUMBER OF PAGES ~ TRUSTEE(S) ~ GUARDIA~CONSERVATOR ~ OTHER: DATE OF DOCUMENT SIGNER IS REPRESE~NG: N~E ~ PER~{S) ~ E~(IES) SIGNER(S) OTHER THAN NAMED ABOVE ©1993 NATIONAL NOTARY ASSOCIATION · 8236 Rernmet ve., P.O, -. /'? ~v,. Box 7184. Canoga Park, CA 91309-7184 ; EXHIBIT "A" THE LAND REFERRED TO HEREIN IS SITUATED IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: CHULA VISTA TRACT NO. 00-02, EASTLAKE BUSINESS CENTER II, BEING A SUBDIVISION OF A PORTION OF PARCEL 1 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 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, ., AS FILE NO. OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. H:\H~OM E\EN GIN E E R\LAN DDEV~SSIALEV. JCM .2] EXHIBIT "B" STREET IMPROVEMENTS EASTLAKE BUSINESS CENTER II *City of Chula Improvement Limits/Location Vista Completion Date Comments Drawing Nos. All on-site and off-site Intersection of Lane improvements, Avenue and Fenton '~'99-1696 Prior to approval of Referenced as including underground the First Final Map improvements, and Street from the through of Phase lB of the Facility No. 2 in westerly subdivision 99-1701 Resolution 19666 traffic signal standards boundary to Street A Project with luminaries ~'99-1696 Prior to approval of Referenced as Cul-de-Sac Easterly Terminus of the First Final Map Boswell Road through of Phase lB of the Facility No. 3 in 99-1701 Resolution 19666 Project *The improvements are to be performed in accordance with the applicable sheets of the referenced Drawing Nos. **The referenced plans (Drawing Nos.) have been submitted for review and approval but they have not yet been approved as of the date of this Agreement and therefor may be subject to modification by the City Engineer. EXHIBIT "C" SUMMARY OF SECURITIES EASTLAKE BUSINESS CENTER II Improvement Limits Approved Security Amount Status All on-site and off-site Intersection of Lane improvements, including Avenue and Fenton Bonds Received and Approved underground Street from the westerly *FP: $537,400 Pursuant to Subdivision improvements, and *M & L: $537,400 Improvement Ag~eeraent traffic signal standards subdivision boundary Executed Herewith to Street A with luminaries Bonds Received and Approved Cul-de-Sac Easterly Terminus of Included in Approved Pursuant to Subdivision Boswell Road Security Amount Above Improvement Agreement Executed Herewith FP = Security Amount for Faithful Performance M & L = Security Amount for Material and Labor *The posted security amount reflects an added 50% contingency to the total estimated improvement costs since the improvement plans have been submii~ed for review and approval but they have not yet been approved as of the date of this agreement by the City Engineer. The posted security amount includes bonding for on-site and off-site improvements which are included in the Subdivision Improvement Agreement. H:hHOME\ENGINEER\LANDDEVSEBSSEXC.JCM COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item ~ Meeting Date 05/02/00 ITEM TITLE: Resolution Approving the exclusion of one telephone utility pole located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Palomar Street and Industrial Boulevard from Utility Undergrounding District No. 127. SUBMITTED BY: Director of Publi~/~,,/Work~./~//, REVIEWED BY: City Manager~,~ (4/5ths Vote: Yes__No X._X_) On December 17, 1996, the City Council held a public hearing and approved Resolution No. 18530 establishing Underground Utility District No. 127, along Palomar Street from I-5 to Industrial Boulevard. The purpose of the district is to require the utility companies to underground all overhead lines including other associated facilities, and to remove all existing wooden utility poles within the established boundaries of the district. Pacific Bell has subsequently requested one pole to be excluded from this district. This pole is on the southeast corner of Palomar Street and Industrial Boulevard. RECOMMENDATION: That Council adopt a resolution approving the exclusion of one telephone utility pole located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Palomar Street and Industrial Boulevard from Utility Undergrounding District No. 127. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable. DISCUSSION: On January 30, 2000, Pacific Bell Telephone Company made a request to the City to exclude one utility pole from the requirements of the utility undergrounding conversion within the district. This pole is located on the east side of Industrial Boulevard south of Palomar Street adjacent to the railroad right-of- way and street intersection. This pole is approximately fifteen (15) feet inside the southernmost boundary of the district and is on an unimproved section of Induslxial Boulevard (Exhibit "A"). PacBell contends that the utility pole in question, a dedicated (no electric facilities attached) telephone utility pole, is not subject to the same tariff rule as SDG&E. CPUC Rule 32A. 1 states that "Pacific Bell will underground its existing aerial facilities at the same time and to the same extent that the electric utilities underground." The same pole was moved to its present location at PacBell's expense when Palomar Street east of Industrial Boulevard was widened and improved a few years ago. The main purpose of creating the utility undergrounding district is to have the utility companies underground all overhead lines and other facilities. Under the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) guidelines, the electric utility company (San Diego Gas & Electric(SDG&E)) is required to underground all of its overhead electrical lines and other facilities, and to remove all existing wooden utility poles within the District. Also, since these utility poles are commonly shared with other utility companies (i.e., cable TV and telephone), the other utility companies are also required to do the same Page 2, Item Meeting Date 05/02/00 at their own expense. Palomar Street Undergrounding District No. 127 with its boundaries was established by City Council Resolution 18530 (Exhibit "B") on December 12, 1996. The telephone utility pole, which is shorter than a regular electric utility pole, is adjacent to a large tree and to the MTDB right-of-way where there is an abundance of overhead trolley wires, trolley crossing arms and traffic signal standards which will remain. Also, this pole, which is an "end"pole has a guy wire anchored to the ground at the north side. From this pole location, the telephone utility lines mn southerly and parallel to the east side of Industrial Boulevard. Due to the recent relocation of this pole and its relative location to the outer edge of the district boundary, PacBell feels that this pole should be excluded from the district. However, PacBell has shown a willingness to relocate this pole again but has indicated that all required undergrounding cost, estimated at $15,306.50, will be at the City's expense. Since staff costs associated with the undergrounding district project and this additional work are not reimbursable from the Rule 20A allocation funds, this expense would be borne by the City's General Fund. The underground conversion project will be constructed in conjunction with the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Project (ST922), which involves the widening and installation of street improvements along Palomar Street between 1-5 and Industrial Boulevard at a cost of $2.2 million. The street improvement project by the City is using TransNet and Surface Transportation Program (STP) funds. The undergrounding project by SDG&E is using Rule 20A allocation funds and will cost SDG&E approximately $126,150. Staff's recommendation is to approve the request to exclude the pole from the district because of the added utility pole relocation cost, its proximity to the edge of the district boundary and the fact that the CIP project will not include any improvements along the east side of Industrial Boulevard. Although there is no scheduled date at this time for the Industrial Boulevard improvements, this PacBell utility pole and other utility poles will be undergrounded when the missing street improvements are constructed. FISCAL IMPACT: The cost of the undergrounding project, which includes the removal of all poles within the district boundary, undergrounding all overhead facilities, and the reimbursements to property owners for their respective conversion projects, is estimated to be approximately $126,150. SDG&E's allocation funds (Rule 20-A) will cover the estimated cost of the undergrounding project. Attachment: Exhibit A - Underground Utility District Map Exhibit B - City Council Resolution 18530 File No: 0735-10-ST922 0810-20-AY096 H:\HOME\ENGINEER\ADVPLAN\UG 127PAL.RDJ EXHIBIT "B" RESOLUTION NO. 185~0 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ESTABLISHING UNDERGROUND UTILITY DISTRICT NO. 127 ALONG PALOMAR STREET FROM INTERSTATE 5 TO INDUSTRIAL BOULEVARD AND AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE OF UTILITY ALLOCATION FUNDS TO SUBSIDIZE PRIVATE SERVICE LATERAL CONVERSION WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 18484, a public hearing was called for 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, the 10th day of December, 1996, 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 Palomar Street from Interstate 5 to Industrial Boulevard 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 alt persons interested have been given an opportunity to be heard. NOW, 'FHEREFORE, BE iT F,_--SOLVED that the City Council of the City of Chute Vista hereby finds end 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. A%ached 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 ~s 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 Resolution 18530 Page 2 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. Palomar is a major east/west thoroughfare in the southern portion of Chula Vista and an entrance to the City. The undergrounding of existing overhead utilities will contribute to the creation of an aesthetically pleasing major street. 2. The subject section of Palomar Street is classified in the General Plan's Circulation Element as a six-lane major street. 3. Undefgrounding has been completed on Palomar Street east of Industrial Boulevard and there are no overhead wires over Interstate 5, thus making the proposed district a closing link between previously undergrounded sections. 4. The proposed widening and reconstruction of Palomar Street significantly increased the ranking of the subject street section in the City's adopted utility conversion program, thus making it a priority project. The project is proposed to be included in the City's CIP Program as project ST-922; Palomar Street- I-5 to Industrial Boulevard, with design to begin in FY 1998/99. The conversion project will take place in connection with the construction of street improvements, which will follow completion of design and acquisition of right-of-way. The street improvements will :include new street lights. BE JT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby authorize the use of approximateiy $126,150 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 ,~_~o1~. Lippitt .J~p/M. Kaheny Public Works Director ~J~ Attorney Resolution 18530 Page 3 EXHIBIT "A" ResOlution 18530 Page 4 PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED by the CiTy Council of the City of Chula Vista, California, this 17th day of December, 1996, by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers: Moot, Padilla, Rindone, Salas, and Horton NAYES: Councilmembers: None ABSENT: Councilmembers: None - ABSTAIN: Councilmembers: None ShirletHorton, Mayor ATTEST: Beverly A[ Authelet, City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) · COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO ) ss. CITY OF CHULA VISTA ) '. 1, Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk of the City of Chula Vista, California, do hereby certify that ~n~ foregoing Resolution No. 18530 was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council at a regular meeting of the Chula Vista City Council held on the 17th day of December, 1996. Executed this 17th day of December, 1996. Beverly A,/ Authelet, City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING THE EXCLUSION OF ONE TELEPHONE UTILITY POLE LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF PALOMAR STREET AND INDUSTRIAL BOULEVARD FROM UTILITY UNDERGROUNDING DISTRICT NO. 127 WHEREAS, on December 17, 1996, the City Council held a public hearing and approved Resolution No. 18530 establishing Underground Utility District No. 127, along Palomar Street from I-5 to Industrial Boulevard; and WHEREAS, the purpose of the district is to require the utility companies to underground all overhead lines including other associated facilities, and to remove all existing wooden utility poles within the established boundaries of the district; and WHEREAS, Pacific Bell has subsequently requested one pole located on the southeast corner of Palomar Street and Industrial Boulevard be excluded from this district; and WHEREAS, staff recommends approving the request to exclude the pole from the district for the following reasons: 1. Because of the added utility pole relocation cost and its proximity to the edge of the district boundary. 2. The CIP Project will not include any improvements along the east side of Industrial Boulevard. 3. Although there is no scheduled date at this time for the Industrial Boulevard improvements, this PacBell utility pole and other utility poles will be undergrounded when the missing street improvements are constructed. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby approve the exclusion of one telephone utility pole located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Palomar Street and Industrial Boulevard from Utility Undergrounding District No. 127. Presented by Approved as to form by John P. Lippitt, Director of Jo~ M. Kaheny~ City Attorney Public Works COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item ~ Meeting Date 5/02/00 ITEM TITLE: Resolution Amending the 1999/00 Budget to upgrade one position for the Public Works Department/Engineering Division previously approved by Council__ k~/~ SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public Wor REVIEWED BY: City Manager~ (4/5tbs Vote: Yes No X ) At the March 7, 2000 City Council meeting, Council adopted a resolution amending the current year's budget to add various positions to the Engineering Division of the Public Works Department. One of the positions that was added was an Administrative Office Specialist position for the new Project Management and Design section. However, the request should have been for a Senior Administrative Office Specialist position. RECOMMENDATION: That Council adopt the Resolution amending the 1999/00 Budget to upgrade one position for the Public Works Department/Engineering Division previously approved by Council. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable. DISCUSSION: At its March 7 meeting, Council approved expanding the duties and functions of the Design Section of the Engineering Divsion to include building project management. Council approved adding a Project Manager, an Engineering/Architectural Technician III, a Civil Engineer, an Assistant Engineer, and an Administrative Office Specialist, and to transfer the current Building Projects Supervisor from the Operations Division to Engineering. The function of this expanded section is to design plans and prepare bid specifications for all City-constructed infrastructure projects, bid all City construction projects, and work with City Administration on the design, project management, and construction, expansion, and renovation of all City-owned buildings. One support staff position was requested to handle the preparation of all contract documents and bid specifications, place the advertising for bids in the newspaper, process all bonds and insurance of the bidders and selected contractors, as well as other support duties. This work is currently handled by a Senior Administrative Office Specialist in Engineering Administration, and will be transferred to the Project Management and Design section. This position works directly with potential bidders and the selected contractors during the bid and contract award process. This position works independently and handles a significant volume and level of work. For this reason, the position should be at the level of Senior Administrative Office Specialist. It was an oversight on staff's part that this position was not set at this higher level in the earlier report to Council. FISCAL IMPACT: The difference in cost between the Administrative Office Specialist and the Senior Administrative Office Specialist is $3,360. H:\HOME\ENGADMIN\AI 13SAOS.WPD RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AMENDING THE 1999/00 BUDGET TO UPGPJkDE ONE POSITION FOR THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT/ENGINEERING DIVISION PREVIOUSLY APPROVED BY COUNCIL WHEREAS, at the March 7, 2000 City Council meeting, Council adopted a resolution amending the current year's budget to add various positions to the Engineering Division of the Public Works Department; and WHEREAS, one of the positions that was added was an Administrative office Specialist position for the new Project Management and Design section; and WHEREAS, the request should have been for a Senior Administrative Office Specialist position. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the City of Chula vista does hereby amend the 1999/00 budget to upgrade one position for the Public Works Department/Engineering Division from Administrative Office Specialist to Senior Administrative Office Specialist at an additional cost of $3,360. Presented by Approved as to form by Public Works H ~ ~home ~ at t orney~re so\pwbud, rev COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item Z Meeting Date 5/2/00 ITEM TITLE: Report on the Application for the formation of Community Facilities District No. 2000-1 (Sunbow II) Resolution Approving the initiation of proceedings to consider the formation of Community Facilities District for a portion of the Sunbow Development SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public Worksfln~/~ REVIEWED BY: City Manager (9 t< ~- (4/5ths Vote: Yes No X) In compliance with Council Policy, ACI Sunbow, LLC has submitted an Application for establishing Community Facilities District No. 2000-1 ("CD 2000-1") to fund the construction of certain improvements serving some of the Sunbow Ii properties in the amount of approximately $19.5 million. Staff has reviewed the Application and determined that the financial information provided is preliminary and general in nature and that a complete analysis on the financial feasibility of the project can not be made at this time. However, staff considers that adequate information and analysis will be generated during district formation for evaluating the developer's financial ability to bring the project to completion in compliance with City's criteria. Therefore, staff is recommending that Council accept the report and initiate the formal proceedings for the proposed CFI). Tonight, Council will consider adopting a resolution initiating proceedings for the formation of CFD 2000-1. If the Council adopts the resolution before them tonight, staff will bring forward items for the next meeting for the Council to consider retaining a team of six consultants for CFD 2000-1 and a companion Reimbursement Agreement requiring the developer to advance funds to the City for the payment of all initial consulting and administration costs and expenses related to the formation of CFD 2000-1. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that Council: 1) Accept the report on the Application for the formation of CD 2000-1; 2) Adopt the resolution initiating proceedings for the formation of a CFD 2000-1. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable. DISCUSSION: On March 14, 2000 Sunbow II, LLC submitted an application requesting that the City initiate proceedings for the formation of a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District to finance Sunbow I/'s share of the cost of street improvements and Public Facilities Development Impact Fee. Page 2, Item __ Meeting Date 5/2/00. The "Mello-Roos Act" allows for the creation of Community Facilities Districts and the issuance of bonds to provide for financing the construction and/or acquisition of public facilities needed for the development. In addition, a CFD may also finance a broad range of services, including fire, flood control maintenance, landscaping, library, open-space facilities, parks, parkways, recreational services and school facilities maintenance. Any public facility which the City may own, operate or contribute money to, and which has a useful life of five or more years, is eligible to be financed through a CFD. Debt services on the bonds are met through the imposition of a Special Tax (explicitly not ad valorem) on properties solely within the CFD. The special tax is collected with the property taxes. There is no direct cost to the City. All expenses related to the district administration (including levying and collecting the special taxes) are funded by the district. The ultimate security behind the bonds would be the properties located within the district, not the City's General Fund or its ability to tax property within its jurisdiction. Procedure for formation of CFD 2000-01 Following are the key actions that Council would perform during the proceedings for CFD 2000-01: 1. Approval of the report on the Application and initiation of proceedings for formation of the proposed CFD. These actions are the subject of this agenda item. 2. Approval of Resolution of Intention (ROI) to establish the CFD on May 16, 2000. 3. Public Hearing, voter's election, and levy of the special taxes on June 20, 2000. 4. Bond Sale during August 2000. Description of the proposed CFD 2000-01 Exhibit 1 presents the boundaries of the proposed CFD which includes parcels located within Sunbow II. Certain parcels (Phase 1) within Sunbow II are not proposed for inclusion in this district because these parcels are fully developed including all the related infrastructure. At build out, the district would contain a total of 595 Single Family Residences and 584 Multifamily Residences. It should be noted that no other public financing district has been formed by the City over the land within the proposed CFD. The developer is proposing CFD financing of the following improvements: · Telegraph Canyon Road · Medical Center Road/Brandywine · East Palomar Street - Phases IA, lB, IC & HA · Off-site Poggi Sewer · Olympic Parkway- West of Brandywine · Paseo Ladera · Medical Center Court · Public Facilites DIF Page 3, Item __ Meeting Date 5/2/00 The construction cost of these improvements is estimated at $19.5 million (including Public Facilities DIF of approximately $2 million), of which only approximately $8 million would be financed by CFD 2000-01. Other costs associated with the CFD are estimated at $2 million, for a total levy of approximately $10 million. Report on the Application for CFD 2000-01 In a previous action, Council adopted "The City Of Chula Vista Statement Of Goals And Policies Regarding The Establishment Of Community Facilities Districts" ("CFD Policy"). The CFD Policy provides guidelines for the use of CFD's for financing the construction or acquisition of public infrastructure or the provision of authorized public services to benefit and serve existing or new development in the City. Prior to Council initiating any formal proceedings for formation of the CFD, the developer is required to submit an "Application", which would include all the necessary information (business plan, percent of ownership requesting the CFD, etc.) demonstrating the applicant's financial ability to carry the project. The Application shall be reviewed by a committee composed of the City Manager, City Attorney, Director of Public Works, City Engineer, Planning Director, Finance Director and such additional persons as the City Manager deems necessary. Ayres Land Company, as manager of ACI Sunbow, LLC, submitted the Application on March 14, 2000 on file with the Department of Public Works/Engineering Division. The Review Committee met on April 7, 2000 to review the content of the Application and determine the applicant's financial ability to successfully construct the project and pay the special taxes during build out of the project. The committee concluded that: 1 ) the information provided is preliminary and general in nature, 2) the developer's business plan appears to be consistent with the current conditions of the real estate market, and 3) compliance with Council policy can not be confirmed until various documents such as appraisal, market absorption study, Special Tax Report, and Preliminary Official Statement am complete. These documents will be prepared during the district proceedings and brought to Council consideration prior to bond sale. The report with staff's findings and recommendation on the Application is presented in Exhibit 2. In essence, the Review Committee recommends that Council approve proceeding with the formation of the Community Facilities District. Extensive due diligence will be required as the district proceeds to ensure compliance with Council policy. Discussion of Key Policy Issues During the proceedings, several analyses will be performed to ensure that the proposed CFD conforms to the requirements of the Mello-Roos Act and Council Policy. Following is a brief discussion on how some key policy issues will be addressed during the proceedings: Page 4, Item __ Meeting Date 5/2/00 1. Proposed Improvements: Improvements to be financed are backbone streets and associated improvements (i.e., sewer, potable water, reclaimed water, landscaping, dry utilities) providing local or regional benefit. Staff considers that ali these improvements meet the requirements of the CFD Policy. The developer is also requesting the financing of facilities included in the Public Facilities DIF program (approximately $2 million). A final recommendation on the improvements to be financed by the proposed CFD will be taken to Council as part of the Resolution of Intention to form the district later this month. 2. Value to Lien Ratio: Council policy requires a minimum 4:1 value-to-lien ratio. A ratio of less than 4:1, but equal to or greater than 3:1, may be approved, in the sole discretion of Council, when it is determined that a ratio of less than 4:1 is financially prudent under the circumstances of a particular CFD. The appraisal and lien ratio analysis will be available for Council consideration prior to bond sale. If the final analysis shows that there are parcels which fail to meet the 4:1 ratio, the developer would be required to either provide cash or letters of credit to maintain the lien ratio within the City criteria, the principal amount of the bonds to be issued for CFD 2000-01 would be reduced to comply with City policy or would provide sufficient information to convince Council that a lesser lien ratio is prudent. 3. Maximum Tax: Council Policy establishes that the maximum annual CFD special taxes applicable to any newly developed residential property shall be no more than 1% of the sale price of the house. In addition, the aggregate of all annual taxes and assessments is limited to 2% of the sale price of the house. A preliminary calculation of the maximum tax, using estimated house prices, will be available for Council consideration at the Public Hearing. A final test will be performed at escrow closing using the actual sale price of the house. Council Policy requires that at or prior to each closing of escrow, the escrow company shall apply a "calculation formula" previously approved by the City Engineer to determ/ne the aggregate of regular County taxes, Mello-Roos taxes, and assessment installments. If the 2% limit is exceeded, the developer would be required to provide cash to buy down the lien to an amount sufficient to meet the 2% tax ceiling. Compliance with this procedure would ensure that the aggregate tax to be paid by the purchaser of the house meets the City's criteria. Finally, it should be mentioned that the use of CFD's for public financing, like many other financial decisions, involves a calculated risk and nothing can completely insulate the City from the possibility of future problems. Future owners of the property may express displeasure with paying the special tax, a downturn in the real estate market may cause delinquencies. Indeed, even the master Page 5, Item __ Meeting Date 5/2/00 developer may become delinquent if the project is no longer economically feasible. Nevertheless, staff believes that strict adherence to the CFD Policy together with extensive scrutiny by the financing team would minimize the occurrence and consequences of any potential problems. FISCAL IMPACT: The developer will pay all costs and will deposit money to fund initial consultant and City staff costs in accordance with the proposed Reimbursement Agreement. Such monies are eligible for reimbursement upon a successful sale of bonds. The City will receive the benefit of the full cost recovery for City staff (estimated at $40,000). Exhibits: 1. Benefit Area 2. Review Committee Report H:\HOM E\ENGIN EER\AGEN DA\S Bcfd-reviscd doc 4/26/00 9:54:40 AM E'XH IBi"!'.,._J_ ....... CITY OF CHULA VISTA COMMU~TY FACn~TmS I)ISTmCT GOAL AND POLICY REPORT APPLICATION OF ACI SUNBOW, LLC UNDERLYING PRINCIPALS OF POLICY 1. Protection of the public interest, 2. fairness in application of special taxes to current and future property owners, 3. full disclosure of special tax liens, 4. credit worthiness of special tax bonds, 5. protecting City's credit rating and financial position, applicants pay all costs associated with C.F.D. formation. FINDING OF PUBLIC INTEREST OR BENEFIT Policy Summary The City Council may authorize proceedings if the Council detemUnes that the pubhc improvements to be financed provide benefit to the community at large as well as benefit w/thin the C.F.D. Application The application states UnProvements to be financed are pnmarily streets and some sewer improvements. Specific tmProvements include Telegraph Canyon Road, Medical Center/BrandYWine, East Palomar Street and Olympic Parkway. Improvements to Telegraph Canyon Road, Medical Center/BrandYWine and East Palomar (Phase 19 are complete. The other unProvements have been started, but are not yet completed. AUTHORIZED PUBLIC FACILITIES Policy Summary Improvements must be public Unprovements which will be owned, operated or maintained by the City or other public agency. Improvements must serve a neighborhood area or greater. Application Improvements to be financed are prnnarily roadways that will be acquired by the City. These roadways have local and regional benefit. Some tmprovements will be acquired by Otay Water District. X52052 - Sunbow CFDkApplieation Docs\Goal hs~doc - 1 PRIORITIZATION OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS Policy Summary First priority of a C.F.D. established by the City is the provision of public amprovements benefiting the City. Second prionty is the provision of public improvements owned, operated or managed by other public agencies. Application Improvements proposed to be financed acquired by the City and Otay Water District. Some of the improvements are completed, but not yet acquired by the City or Otay Water District. AUTItORIZED PUBLIC SERVICES Policy Summary Public services proposed to be financed may generally include 1) parkways, medians and open space; 2) drainage and flood control and 3) other services authorized bythe C.F.D. Act and adopted bythe City. Application No services are proposed to be funded by this proposed C.F.D. INCIDENTAL COSTS Policy Summar~ Certain eligible incidental costs may be financed via special tax bonds. Those incidental costs must be directly related to improvements financed by proceeds of such special tax bonds and are subject to not to exceed percentage limitations. Application A breakdown of incidental costs is not included with the application. X:'~052 - Stmbow CFD h6~plicatitm Docs\Goal lisl.doc - 2 REQUIRED VALUE-TO-DEBT RATIO The required value to lien ratio must be at least 4:1. Application The value to lien ratio is not known and will not be know until completion of the appraisal and final determination of facilities to be financed. The application states the August 1996 acquisition price as approzamately $12 million. CRITERIA FOR APPRAISALS Policy Summary The City has specific requirements for appraisal content and objectives. Application The application does not address criteria for appraisals. The City's finance team will direct the appraiser and provide guidance on scope of work and methodology consistent with policy. It is anticipated using the same appraiser that worked for the City on the McMillin and Otay Ranch C.F D's. MAXIMUM AGGREGATE TAXES AND ASSESSMENTS Policy Summary The maXanum annual spe~ml tax installment applicable to any residential parcel shall not exceed one percent of the sales price. Total taxes shall not exceed two percent of mitiat sales price. The C.FD. policy provides a mechanism to buy down to 2% at ctosmg to meet the maximum tax policy. Application The application does not address this point. Determining the maramum aggregate tax is accomplished during development of the Rate and Method of Apporhonment and the bond sizing/debt service phase of due diligence. However, materials provided to the City separate from the application (see November 16, 1999 correspondence to City Manager and February 14, 2000 to Bond Counsel) indicate total overlapping taxes approximating 2.0% or slightly less. The February 14° letter also brings out a point related to overlapping tax that merits discussion. Due to agreements between the applicant and a merchant builder, the Special Tax level in Planning Areas 3 and 4 are limited to $150 per year. This limitation creates a disparity m Special Tax between these areas and other planning areas. The annual difference ranges from abont $850 to over $1,000. The special tax difference from Planning Areas 3 and 4 to other areas is approXtmately 1.65% to 2.0%. Factors to consider m viewing this difference m tax level is its defensibility m terms of the Rate and Method of Apportiomnent and owner reaction. X52052 - Sunbow CFDba4~plication Docs\Goal list.doc 3 SPECIAL TAX REQUIREMENTS Policy Summary The rote and method of appomonment shall adhere to specific requirements detailed within the policies. Application The City has selected and is hiring the Special Tax Consultant, who will be charged with preparing a rate and method ("RMA") consistent with City guidelines. The RMA used in the McMillin and Otay Ranch transaction will be the model for the RMA. The developers provided a dmf~ RMA on February 14~. TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF SPECIAL TAX BONDS Policy Summary All terms and conditions of any tax bends issued by the City shall be established by the City. Application Terms and condiftons of a bond sale have not yet been discussed and therefore are not yet determined. Terms of a bond sale will be determined during the bond phase by the City's finance team that mchides staff, financial advisor, bond counsel and other participants. DISCHARGE OF SPECIAL TAX OBLIGATION Policy Summary Special Tax obligations may be prepaid and discharged in whole or in part at anytime. Application The City's Special Tax Consultant will prepare a rate and method that contains prepayment provisions. X52052 - Sunbow CFDLa~pplication Docs\Goal list.doc . 4 PROPERTY OWNER DISCLOSURE Policy Summary Applicants are required to demonstrate that there will be full disclosure of special tax obligations to prospective purchasers of property. Application A form of disclosure was not provided with the application. Typically, disclosure forms are prepared by the merchant builders close to time of sale to end user. PREFORMATION COST DEPOSIT AND REIMBURSEMENTS Policy Summary All City and consultant costs recurred in application process and proceedings will be paid by applicant by advance deposit. Application The developer has agreed to provide a deposit for consultant and City costs. A breakdown of the required deposit will be provided to the developer. Deposited mounts are generally subject to reimbursement when/if a bond issue closes. SELECTION OF CONSULTANTS Policy Summary The City shah select and retain all consultants. Application The City intends to keep in place the financing and consulting team used on the Otay Ranch C.F.D. Staff anticipates taking consultants contract to Council at an upcoming meeting. LAND USE APPROVALS Policy Summar3, The City may issue bonds secured by special taxes when a) properties have received applicable discretionary land use approvals consistent with financing assumptions and b) applicable environmental review is complete. Application The application describes the status of land use approvals as follows: All parcels within the proposed C.F.D. have approved Specific Plans and Tentative Maps. Phases IB and lC have approved Final Maps. These include generally Villages 3, 4, 5, 6, 13 and 14. Villages 7, 8, 9, 10 and 12 are antacipated to have Final Map approval by the end of this month. APPLICATION PROCEDURE FOR DEVELOPMENT RELATED C.F.D.s Policy Summary Any application shall contain such information and be submitted in such form required by the City Manager. In addition each application must contain: 1. Proof of authorization ifthe applicant is not the owner. 2. Evidence that the applicant represents the owners of not less than 67%, by area, of property subject to proposed levy. 3. A business plan for the development of the property that reviews the financial feasibility of the C.F.D. and demonstrates the ability of the owner to pay special tax installments and any other taxes or assessments until full build out. The application, provided on February 11, 2000, included the following items: · Amended and Restated Operating Agreement for AC1 Sunbow, LLC · Biographies of Principals of Ayres Land Company · Business Plan · Improvements to be Financed · List of Environmental Studies and Reports · Financial Statements (Unaudited) for ACI Sunbow, LLC · Preliminary Title Report · 1999 Secured Property Tax Bills · Summary of Development Experience and Corporate Literature X¢2052 - Sunbow CFD~.ppticatio~ Docs\Goal list.doe . 6 The reformation provided is preliminary and general in nature. Extensive due diligence will be required for the preparation ora disclosure document and final City decision to proceed. The developer has not provided proof of title to not less than 67% of the property. The application states "100% consent.., by virtue of direct ownership and contractual consent of other landowners." The ability and willingness of the property owner to pay special taxes can not be determined at this time. Points to consider include payment history of developer with City and other jurisdictions, value of the property, and anticipated absorption. Page 6 of the applicataon describes a payment plan between the County and the developer for unpaid taxes that were delinquent prior to ACI Sunbow acquiring the property. Page 7 of the application describes a bankruptcy filing related to the property. The portion of the application entitled "Business Plan" is very limited. The submission is a sales brochure and a paragraph describing sales status. X:~2052 - Sunbow CFDLa,.pplicat ion Docs\Goal li~doc 7 MEMORANDUM Date: March 23, 2000 To: City of Chula Vista Community Facilities District Application Review Committee From: Tom Johnsen, Fieldman, Rolapp & Associates Re: Revised Application of ACI Sunbow, LLC (Ayres Land Company) for formation ora Community Facilities District On February 15, 2000, the Community Facilities District Application Review Committee (the "Committee') met to discuss an application by ACI Sunbow, LLC (the "Developer') for the formation of a C.F.D As an outcome of that meeting, the applicant has been asked to revise the applicataon to mitigate and/or alleviate Committee concerns about components of the application. The requested revisions include: 1. Deleting planning areas owned by the Kaufrnan & Board from the C.FD. - One of the terms of sale between the Developer and Kaufman & Broad was that the special tax for K & B parcels m Planning Areas 3 and 4 would not exceed $150 per parcel per year. The CFD. tax formula, however, would apply a special tax ranging from $800 to $1,000 per year to other nearby parcels. The request to drop Planning Areas 3 and 4 fi-om the C.F.D. is based on the Committee's concern about adjc/ming parcels within the same C.F.D. being taxed at s~gnificantly different rates. The Developer has agreed with the suggestion to drop P.A.'s 3 and 4 from the C.F.D. 2. Revising the facilities list to delete facilities of Otav Water District. - To simplify the formation process, the Developer has agreed not to include any facilities that will be acquired by Otay Water District. 3. Revising the facilities list so a nexus exists between improvements to be acquired and parcels subiect to a special tax. - At the February 15~meeting, the Committee's discussions focused on the disconnect between the applications list of the facilities to be acquired and the areas within the C.FD. that would have a special tax levied to pay for those facilities. The facilities proposed on the application were primarily on the west side of the C.F.D. but the preponderance of special tax would be levied on the east side of the C.F.D. This simahon was deemed to be inequitable and the Committee requested a revised list. Following a number of meetings and discussions there appears to be conceptual agreement between City staff and the Developer on a facilities list. A revised facilities list will be included in the amended application. C :~windows\TEMP\Memo 032100.doc City of Chula Vista CommunrCy Facilities District Application Review Commi~ee March 23, 2000 Page 2 of 3 The Developer is revising the application to reflect the revisions discussed above. The revised application will also reflect the Developer's desire to delete the multi-family planning areas from the CF.D. A revised apphcation is atmcipated to be received the week of March 279. I will make sure the change pages are distributed to each Committee member. It has been suggested to schedule a telephone conference call, in lieu of another ComnUttee meeting, to review the revised application. Please indicate your availability by completing and returning the attached list of proposed times for that conference call. It has also been proposed that the Resolution Initiating Proceedings be included on the City Council Agenda of April 18a and that the Resolution of Intention and various consultant contracts be on the City Council Agenda of April 259. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns. C:\wmdows,,TEMP qvlemo 032100.doc City of Chula Vista Community Facilities District Application Review Committee March 23, 2000 Page 3 of 3 Please indicate your availability below and fax back to Debbie Lefever in our office at 949-474-8773 Name: AM PM Monday April 3 [] [] Tuesday April 4 [] [] Thursday April 6 [] [] Friday April 7 [] C: windows TEMP\Memo 032100.doc MEMORANDUM Date: March 30, 2000 To: City of Chula Vista Community Facilities District Application Review Committee From: Tom Johnsan, Fieldman, Rolapp & Associates Re: Revised Application of ACI Sunbow, LLC (Ayres Land Company) Early this week change pages to the CFD application of ACI Sunbow were distributed. A conference call for the Committee to review the revised application has been scheduled as follows: Friday, April 7, 2000 At 3:00 p.m. To participate, please dial in 888-446-1 936 Call moderator will be Tom Johnsen A review of the application indicates that 1) the planning areas owned by Kaufman & Broad have been deleted, 2) facilities to be acquired by Otay Water District have also been deleted and 3) a revised facilities hst has also been provided. A comparison of the ongmal and revised applications also merits the following clarifications: 1. The original application states the sale of Villages 5 & 6 to Centex would close in March (see page 2). That closing is now expected on April 3, 2000. 2. The original application states the purchase price of the property was $12 million (page 3 of apphcation). The revised application repeats the $12 million purchase price. That purchase price refers to all the acreage purchased, not just acreage within the proposed CFD. On an acreage basis, the pro rata share of the cost of property to be included in the proposed CFD was approximately $2.9 million in August 1996. Please let me know if you have not received the revised appheation or if there are any questions. RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS TO CONSIDER THE FORMATION OF A COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT FOR A PORTION OF THE SUNBOW DEVELOPMENT WHEREAS, the CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, has been presented with and has received an application from ACI Sunbow, LLC (the "Applicant"), requesting that this City Council initiate proceedings pursuant to the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982, as amended (Government Code Section 53311 et seq.) (the "Act") to form a community facilities district preliminarily designated as Conununity Facilities District No. 2000-1 (the "District") for the purpose of financing all or a portion of the cost of the acquisition of certain public facilities; and WHEREAS, the Applicant has requested that the District encompass that territory within Villages 5 through 10 of Sunbow II; and WHEREAS, such application has, as required by the City of Chula Vista Statement of Goals and Policies Regarding the Establishment of Community Facilities District (the "Goals and Policies") previously adopted by this City Council, been reviewed by the community facilities district application review committee (the "Review Committee") designated in such Goals and Policies; and WHEREAS, based upon such review and pursuant to the Goals and Policies, the City Manager has recommended that this City Council accept the report of the Review Committee and authorize the initiation of proceedings to consider the formation of the District subject to subsequent compliance of the proposed District with the Goals and Policies, including without limitation, the financial feasibility of the proposed District and the development of the property within the District. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The above recitals are all true and correct. SECTION 2. This City Council hereby accepts the Review Coinmittee report. SECTION 3. This City Council hereby authorizes the initiation of proceedings to consider the formation of the District as requested by the Applicant subject to all requirements of the Act and the Goals and Policies. The decision of this City Council to form the District is an exercise of the legislative authority of this City Council. The adoption of this Resolution does not, therefore, obligate this City Council to exercise its legislative discretion in a particular manner. This Resolution does not in any way create a contractual, legal or equitable obligation of or commitment by this City Council to approve the formation of the District. This City Council expressly reserves the right to abandon the proceedings to consider the formation of the District for any reason at any time prior to the completion thereof. SECTION 4. This Resolution shall become effective upon its adoption. Presented by Approved as to form by John P. Lippitt John Kaheny Public Works Director City Attorney H: \home\attorney\reso\CFD001 .initiation 2 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT ITEM NO.: ~ MEETING DATE: 05/02/00 ITEM TITLE: PUBLIC HEARING: TO REVIEW THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) PROGRAM AND THE HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM WHICH INCLUDES CONSIDERATION OF FUNDING REQUESTS FOR PUBLIC SERVICES, COMMUNITY PROJECTS, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT, AND ADMINISTRATION AND PLANNING SUBMITTED BY: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR )~)~ ~-~ ~_~ REVIEWED BY: CITY MANAGER ~16~ 4/5THS VOTE: YES ~ NO ~ BACKGROUND Each year the City undertakes a process to solicit and approve programs and projects eligible for federal funding. This item addresses the review of the annual Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program and the HOME Investment Partnership (HOME) program. The public hearing provides an opportunity for the public and Council to make comments on how CDBG and HOME funds can be allocated to meet the City's housing and community needs. RECOMMENDATION That the City Council conduct a public hearing to review and accept public comment regarding the Housing and Community Development needs for the 2000-01 CDBG program and HOME program, accept the staff report, and direct staff to return on or about May 23, 2000 with the final funding recommendations. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION On February 1, 2000 Council approved resolution 2000-037authorizing staff to replace the CDBG Ad-Hoc Committee process with a Community Meeting Process. Community meetings were held on April 3, 2000 at the South Chula Vista Library; April 4, 2000 at Cordova Village in Rancho Del Rey; and April 26, 2000 at City HalF. Although community participation was Iow, this is not an uncommon occurrence since this was Chula Vista's first year of providing community forums. PAGE 2, ITEM NO.: MEETING DATE: 05/02/00 DISCUSSION CDBG Program The City of Chula Vista is eligible to receive $2,033,000 in CDBG entitlement funds from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for FY 2000-01. CDBG funds will primarily benefit Iow and moderate income families, with a minimum of 70 percent of the funds required to be targeted to benefit Iow income households. Accompanying this report is the 2000-01 CDBG Notebook. Although not a HUD requirement, the CDBG Notebook has been used as a local tool by staff and Council members for several years to display an overall picture of all the CDBG requests for funding received on an annual basis. The Notebook compiles all proposed public service, community project, economic development, capital improvement project, and administration and planning activities for FY 2000-01. An additional segment of this public hearing is to afford residents of Chula Vista and the City Council the opportunity to comment on the manner in which CDBG funds should be allocated. Staff recommendations will not be made at this time and the City Council is not expected to take any action other than to give desired direction. After thorough consideration of public comment, staff will prepare a report presenting CDBG funding recommendations for Council action tentatively scheduled for May 23, 2000. For the 2000-01 CDBG program, the City of Chula Vista will receive a CDBG entitlement of $2,033,000. The total amount of CDBG funding requested, which includes all funding requests from community organizations and the City, is summarized as follows: CATEGORY AMOUNT REQUESTED Public Service Funding $426,580 Community Projects 370,253 Economic Development 225,932 Capital Improvement Program 1,813,229 Administration and Planning 406,600 TOTAL $3,302,594 In order to be eligible for block grant funding, a project or service must address at least one of the CDBG national objectives which are: 1) Benefit primarily Iow and moderate income families; 2) Aid in the prevention or elimination of slums or blight; and 3) Meet other community needs having a major emergency (disasters, etc.). Community-based non profit organizations will make a presentation before Council in the order presented below. Staff is available to respond to Council questions regarding the City CDBG funding requests. PAGE 3, ITEM NO.: MEETING DATE: 05/02/00 PUBLIC SERVICE FUNDING REQUESTS The City received sixteen (16 ) eligible requests for public service funding totaling $426,580. The City may allocate up to $304,950 for public service organizations, based on a 15 percent cap of the entitlement funds. All of the funding requests from the public service organizations are CDBG-eligible as they meet the national objective to primarily benefit Pow income families. The proposals are included in the CDBG Notebook under Public Service Requests in the following sequence: YOUTH SERVICES AMOUNT REQUESTED TAB I UNITED WAY OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY - INFO LINE $5,000 - NEW REQUEST This program provides a seven-day-a-week confidential telephone service to the public, available toll free to callers throughout San Diego County and confidentially assists clients find public service providers TAB 2 CHULA VISTA YOUTH SERVICES NETWORK $140,943 This program provides youth education and counseling services in the area of tutoring/literacy, fine arts, mentoring, and day camp services. This collaborative is comprised of South Bay Community Services, Chula Vista Police Activities League, South Bay Family YMCA, Boys & Girls Club of Chula Vista, Vista Square Healthy Start, the Chula Vista Coordinating Council, MAAC Project, and Chub Vista Parks & Recreation Department. TAB 3 SHARP HEALTHCARE FOUNDATION - MOBILE HEALTH CARE CLINIC $40,000 The Sharp Mobile Health Care Clinic will provide health care to children whose parents cannot afford health insurance. The Mobile Health Clinic will rotate among seven strategically located schools. Volunteers and nurses will transport students to the clinic from schools throughout the School District. I SENIOR SERVICES AMOUNT REQUESTED TAB 4 MEALS ON WHEELS GREATER SAN DIEGO $14,000 The Meals on Wheels program is geared toward keeping seniors and other disabled persons independent and living in their own home. Volunteers deliver two meals o day, five days a week to all agency clients. TAB 5 ST. CHARLES NUTRITION CENTER $12,000 The St. Charles Nutrition Center enables homebound frail elders to live with independence and dignity in their own home. Without daily nutritious meals, the homebound would risk malnourishment and deteriorating health since many are unable to prepare their own meals. PAGE 4, iTEM NO.: MEETING DATE: 05/02/00 TAB 6 LUTHERAN SOCIAL SERVICES - SHARED HOUSING $5,554 Shared Housing is a Iow-cost housing option for individuals interested in sharing their home or for those seeking a home, at a reduced cost. The Shared Housing process insures a good match is made between the home owner and the home seeker. TAB 7 ADULT PROTECTIVE SERVICES $12,000 Adult Protective Services attempts to prevent institutionalization and improve the quality and independence of life for disabled and disadvantaged senior citizens by offering various programs including mental health case management, senior employment, and adult day health care. MISCELLANEOUS AMOUNT REQUESTED TAB 8 ACCESS CENTER OF SAN DIEGO INC. ~DidtlV~fApply !~-~1 $5,000 This program will assist landlords with understanding disability law as it relates to housing. By evaluating a random series of landlords, this program will point towards any discrimination practices and help to eliminate specific problems which may be indicative of current trends. TAB 9 LUTHERAN SOCIAL SERVICES - PROJECT HAND $12,000 Project Hand is an emergency and career assistance center that provides clients with ~hsseil~ar~cfeO. Od, clothing, transportation, medication, job search assistance, and uti, ty TAB 10 CHULA VISTA FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION AND INTERVENTION COALITION $35,360 This program provides education and outreach services to children, youth and families to aid in the prevention of violence. This collaborative proposal is comprised of South Bay Community Services, Chula Vista Police Department, the Center for Community Solutions, YWCA Domestic Violence Services, and YMCA Family Stress Counseling Services. TAB ! 1 THURSDAYS MEAL $10,000 Thursday's Meal provides free hot meals to the homeless and very Iow income residents of Chula Vista. TAB 12 CHULA VISTA POLICE DEPARTMENT - CRIME FREE MULTI-HOUSING PROGRAM $6,500 The Crime Free Multi-Housing program was developed by the Chula Vista Police Department to reduce crime in multi-family rental housing and to provide a safe living environment. The program will encourage the cooperation of apartment owners to make recommended security improvements to the property and to promote resident involvement in the apartment community. TAB 13 CHULA VISTA THERAPEUTIC PROGRAM $41,089 This program promotes the benefits of a healthy lifestyle, improve physical ab lities, bui d confidence, and strengthen interpersonal skills for disabled individuals. PAGE 5, iTEM NO.: MEETING DATE: 05/02/00 TAB 14 CHULA VISTA LITERACY TEAM CENTER $11,000 This collaborative proposal is comprised of the Chula Vista Public Library, the Chula Vista Adult School and the AItrusa Club of Chula Vista. This coalition was established with the goal of reducing illiteracy in the community. TAB 15 OTAY RECREATION CENTER STAFFING $48,854 With the completion of the Otay Recreation Center located in the Otay/Montgomery area position.°f the City, CDBG funds will be used to pay a portion of the Recreation Supervisors TAB 16 SUITS YOU SAN DIEGO - "THE FINAL TOUCHx $27,280 - NEW REQUEST J This program is designed to provide Employment I~etention and Professional Image services to economically disadvantaged men and women who are making the transition from government subsidy to economic independence. COMMUNITY PROJECT REQUESTS The four (4) Community Project requests total $370,253 and include the following type of activities: [a] neighborhood revitalization/interim assistance; and [b] special activities by community-based development organizations. There is not a CDBG funding cap for this category. All of the funding requests are included in the CDBG Notebook under Community Projects and are summarized as follows: NEIGHBORHOOD REVITALIZATION/INTERIM ASSISTANCE AMOUNT REQUESTED TAB 17 LUTHERAN SOCIAL SERVICES - CARING NEIGHBOR $47,253 Lutheran Social Services is requesting funds to continue providing health and safety home repairs to seniors. A majority of the labor is donated by local south bay contractors. TAB 18 SOUTH BAY COMMUNITY SERVICES - GRAFFITI ERADICATION $40,000 South Bay Community Services, in partnership with the Chula Vista Police Department, is requesting funds to continue their community effort to eradicate graffiti painted on private businesses and residences. Youth offenders and community volunteers provide the labor. Funds are requested for the Program Coordinator position. TAB 19 CITY OF CHULA VISTA COMMUNITY $208,000 PRESERVATION PROGRAM ThestateBUildingand IocallyDivisi°nadopted°f thebuildingPlanningcodes.Department is primarily responsible for enforcing the l COMMUNITY BASED DEVELOPMENT ORGANIZATION AMOUNT REQUESTED] PAGE 6, ITEM NO.: MEETING DATE: 05/02/00 TAB 20 SOUTH BAY COMMUNITY SERVICES - $75.000 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM This program creates housing/economic development opportunities for ow income/ households. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT REQUESTS The five (5) Economic Development requests total $225,932 and include the following type of activities: iai job training; [bi micro-loan program; and lc] business retention and expansion. There is not a funding cap for this category. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS AMOUNT REQUESTED TAB 21 SOUTHWESTERN COLLEGE - SOUTH COUNTY CAREER CENTER $35.532 The South County Career Center is one of six centers in the San Diego Career Center Network, developed and coordinated by the San Diego Workforce Partnership, Inc. The six centers are linked together forming a network of one-stop access points to information and services related to career planning, training, education, and job search assistance. TAB 22 SOUTH BAY COMMUNITY SERVICES - TEEN CENTER $26.500 This program provides youth employment training through the KIDZBIZ program. Youth are taught the essentials of operating a business. TAB23 CH lOG HMMT~ ~41~B ~)oE~EEcL~ :~t~TD~EPLAoRi~iV~[ i~ ~ E E RE D U CT i ON $100,000 The proposed Development Impact fee Reduction program is designed to assist qualifying companies within High Tech/Biotech Zone pay the fees collected by the City to fund the actual construction cost of capital improvements (roads, sewers, etc.) Supporting the Zone. J ,A, 24 cC HO~M~UvI~T~ ~ oEVc~LOEPMMpELNoT~ [PAAs..I~i~TE.ANNTc-E p RO O ~, LEAP) $13.900 This program is, among other things, a needs assessment designed to gather information of the City's existing economic base, to identify local "cluster" industries and to identify specific needs of individual companies as well as Chula Vista's industry clusters. J TAB 25 BORDER ENVIRONMENTAL COMMERCE ALLIANCE (BECA) $50,000 BECA proposes to expand the current BECA facility. While under construction, temporary modules will be purchased for relocation of BECA tenants. BECA currently houses 35 tenants. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM REQUESTS The Capital Improvement program category includes both non-profit and City requests. The non-profit capital improvement requests total $257,500 and the City capital improvement requests total $1,555,729 for a total funding request of $1,813,229. The capital improvement program category does not have a funding cap limit. I NON-PROFIT CIP REQUESTS AMOUNT REQUESTED TAB 26 BOYS & GIRLS CLUB OF CHULA VISTA YOUTH FACILITY ATHLETIC FIELD EXPANSION PROGRAM $125,000 The Boys & Girls Club is requesting funds to construct an Outdoor Speed Soccer Arena, fencing, asphalt aprons, and bleacher viewing area. TAB 27 FAC~ADEONSTAGEREvITALIZATIoNPLAYHOUSE - DOWNTOWN ARTS CENTER $2,500 This request is proposing to revitalize the front of the building. More specifically, re-do the anSidewalkawningatwiththe entryWaYsignage, to the facility, repaint the front of the bu Id ng, and insta orion of TAB 28 CHULA VISTA SALVATION ARMY - SENIOR NUTRITION PROGRAM $65,000 The Salvation Army is requesting funds to upgrade the nutrition facility located 642 Third Avenue to offer expanded meal opportunities to residents. TAB 29 CHULA VISTA AMERICAN LITTLE LEAGUE $65,000 On March 7, 2000 CVALL requested and received $50,000 in CDBG funds to complete two baseball fields for the April 1, 2000 opening day. This request is above and beyond the March 7th request. Funds are to be used to complete the two (2) multi-use fields and multi-use building (concession stand, restrooms, equipment storage and meeting rooms}. I CITY CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM AMOUNT REQUESTED TAB 30 DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS - TOBIAS AND GLENHAVEN WAY $403,298 This project involves the drainage improvements in Tobias Drive, north of Dixon Drive to Glenhaven Way. This project is located in the Castle Park Rev tal zat on Area TAB 31 CORRUGATED METAL PIPE (CPM) STORM DRAIN REPLACEMENT $315,000 This city-wide program involves the removal or relining of corrugated metal storm drain pipes and replacement with reinforced concrete pipe. This project is located in the Castle Park Revitalization Area TAB 32 PARKWAY POOL RE-SURFACING $217,431 The Parkway Renovation proiect, Phase I provides for the resurfacing of the pool shell and the replacement of underwater lighting. PAGE 8, ITEM NO.: MEETING DATE: 05/02/00 TAB 33 GATEWAY CHULA VISTA PROJECT $300,000 The Gateway Chula Vista project will involve the construction of improvements to the intersection of Third Avenue and "H" Street. The improvements will include new turning lanes, re-striping, changes to the traffic signals, and other improvements as needed. TAB 34 SIDEWALK REHABILITATION - PHASE V $270,000 This project involves the removal and replacement of deteriorated curb, gutter, sidewalk and driveways. This project is located in the Montgomery Area TAB 35 ADA CURB CUTS $50,000 This project provides for the construction of concrete wheelchair ramps at an est mated 50 locations throughout the City on an annual basis. ADMINISTRATION AND PLANNING The following is a summary of the 2000-01 CDBG Administration and Planning activities totaling $406,600. The City may allocate up to this amount for Administration and Planning , based on a 20% cap of the entitlement funds. ADMINISTRATION REQUESTS AMOUNT REQUESTED TAB 36 SOUTH BAY FAMILY YMCA HUMAN SERVICES COUNCIL $28,000 The Human Services Council develops coalitions between the communities of human service providers to effectively utilize personnel and programs and serve as a catalyst to bring local government, private industry and bus ness organ zat ons together to address and resolve the communities needs. TAB 37 CHULA VISTA COORDINATING COUNCIL (Didf Net Apply !~-00~ $25,000 The Chula Vista Coordinating Council was established in 1993 to coordinate integrated service delivery in the school setting. The vision of CVCC is to establish the elementary school as the hub of the community where adults and children come to access services. TAB 38 REGIONAL TASK FORCE ON THE HOMELESS $1,000 This program provides local agencies information on the homeless population throughout San Diego County. TAB 39 LIBRARY AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT INFORMATION AND REFERRAL SPECIALIST $11,124 This position provides information and referral services to community members, prepares quaderly statistical information on social service agencies and acts as a community liaison with other agencies. TAB 40 FAIR HOUSING COUNCIL OF SAN DIEGO $38,000 The Fair Housing Council assists the City in providing fair housing opportunities, responds to resident's concerns, and provides landlord-tenant counseling. PAGE 9, ITEM NO.: MEETING DATE: 05/02/00 TAB 41 CHULA VISTA LIBRARY AND RECREATION CHILD CARE COORDINATOR $50,000 This position will be responsible for planning and coordinating child care services in the City of Chula Vista. TAB 42 CITY STAFF ADMINISTRATION $253,476 Provides for staff costs in administering the CDBG program. HOME PROGRAM BUDGET The City will receive $846,000 in HOME funds from HUD for FY 2000-01. HOME funds may be used to provide affordable rental housing and ownership opportunities through new construction, acquisition, rehabilitation, and tenant-based rental assistance. Over the past five-years the City has used these funds to support new construction and acquisition activities related to the development of affordable housing. The following proposals are included in the CDBG Notebook under HOME Program Budget in the following sequence: TAB 43 CDBG STAFF ADMINISTRATION $253,476 HOME STAFF ADMINISTRATION $84,600 Administrative costs for city staff to oversee the CDBG and HOME program. These administrative costs represent 14% of the CDBG budget and 10% of the HOME budget respectively. These costs include staff costs for coordination, accounting, monitoring of subrecipients, environmental review, and HUD reporting requirements. TAB 44 COMMUNITY HOUSING DEVELOPMENT ORGANIZATION $126,900 HOME program regulations require a participating iurisdiction to set-aside 15% of the annual HOME entitlement for a Community Housing Development Organization (CHDO) for the purpose of develop ng and/or supporting the City of Chu a Vista in providing I affordable housing project in the City. 1 TAB 45 NEW CONSTRUCTION - AFFORDABLE HOUSING $420,000 Funds will be used to assist in the production of affordable housing by providing gap financing for future affordable housing projects. TAB 46 HUD 203K REHABILITATION PROGRAM $214,500 Funds will be used to establish a HUD 203K rehabilitation program which will assist homebuyers purchase and rehabilitate an existing home located within the western territory of the City. PAGE 10, ITEM NO.: MEETING DATE: 05/02/00 FISCAL IMPACT The City will receive $2,033,000 in CDBG entitlement funds. The fifteen (15) percent cap will limit the public service allocation to $304,950 and the twenty (20) percent cap will limit the administration and planning allocation to $406,600. In addition, the City will receive $846,000 in HOME funds for 2000-01. The grand total of 2000-01 CDBG and HOME funds to be used for eligible programs and projects will be $2,879,000. H:\HOMI]\COMMDEV~STAFF,REP\05-02 -00\CDBG PH.doc FAX (6!.}) 420-6124 la, ice Prid,: Beiieve, A~ieve, Succeed COUNCIL OFFfCES l~hn ~ 0~7, ~i~¢[~i CHULA VISTA, CA Ap~128, 2~0 Mayor S~ley Honon ~ Memb~s of~ Ci~ Co~cil Ci~ of Ch~a V~ 276 Fo~ Avenue ~a Vi~a~ CA 91910 Re: CDBG F~g R~qu~ ~e Spirit ofC~g Mobil~ C~ic De~ Representatives of the Ci~ of Chfla V~ta: We, ~ ~c~ ~hool S~ ~e ~ ~ s~p~ of ~ Comm~ D~velopm~nt Block G~nt (CDBO) ~ ~ ~de by ~ S~p H~e Foun~fioa on behalf of~ $pMt of ~ Mobile ~ you ge a~e, ~s ~que coll~tafioa ~ S~ He~e, S~pps, ~ ~ V~ have ~n ~ ~*~t tes~ony to ~e ~ ~r its ~. O~ e~fie~ ~ y~ ~x~e oily be~ ~five, a ~win for ~ent~ ~o, o~ F~m!~ Reso~ce Cen~r ~ PTA ~ve ~ 5,n~ m suppo~ ~ Mo~e Me~l Yo~ ~prov~ of~ Fox. oh's r~u~ for M0,0~ ~ CDBG ~ provision of fi~ me~cafio~, o~t~ ~ r~f~ for C~ Vi m's el~en~ e~t~m in n~d. Yo~ appm~ Mll keep c~ in need. Yo~ approval ~h~l, heal.er ~ mom ~d7 ~ We enco~e yo~ suppon offs pro~. ItB ~se ~ effeofive ~ly, { ~ WAY -~ ~000 ipp CHu~.^ wS'~,. ~, ~' Scrs April 26, 2000 The Honorable Shirley Horton Mayor of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91010 Subject; Mobile Clinic - Community Development Block Grant Dear Mayor Horton: Scripps Memorial Hospital, Chula Vista strongly supports a brant requested by Sharp HealthCare Foundation of $40,000 in CDBG (Community Development Block Grant) funds. These funds will help ensure ongoing, continued free medications, exams and referrals for disadvantaged children through the Spirit of Caring Mobile Health Care Clinic. The Mobile Health Care Clinic is a true collaborative partnership with the School District, Sharp HealthCare, ScrippsHealth, the community, volunteers, local businesses and the PTA. The need to address the health concerns of the disadvantaged children in the community is a high priority for all concerned and the need for this program is evidenced in the number of patients treated every day (10-15 per day, and increasing). Sincerely, J'0~Grah Administrator Scripps Memorial Hospital Chula Vista MCDoUGAL & JONES MARKETING AND PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT Mayor Shirley Horton and C0UNC~L OFFICES Members of the City Cogncil CHULA VISTA. CA City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue · Chula Vista CA 91910 Re: CDBG Funding Request The Spirit of Caring Mobile Clinic Dear Representatives of the City of Chula Vista: We ~re writing in support of the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding request made by the Sharp HealthCare Foundation on behalf of The Spirit of Caring Mobile Clinic. As you are aware, this unique collaboration between Sharp HealthCare, Scripps, the Chula Vista Elementary School District and the City of Chula Vista is a shining example of what a true partnership can accomplish. The support experienced within the community from parents, volunteers, community businesses, the PTA and the students and families served by this clinic has been a significant testimony to the need for its services. Your approval of the Foundation's request for $40,000 in CDBG funds will ensure the continued provision of free medications, examinations and referrals for Chula Vista's elementary school children in need. Your approval will keep children in school, healthier and more ready to learn. We encourage your support of this program. It is a wise and effective use of financial resources. J~.cerely, Michele R. McDougal ~ ~ Kimberley G. Jones 771 A Street, San Dtc~,,o Cah£ornia 92102 ?hone/FAX(d19) 460 4458 CHULA VISTA MEDICAL CENTER April 28, 2000 Chula Vista City Council 276 F Street Chula Vista, CA 91910 Dear Members of the City Council: As Manager of Volunteer Services at Sharp Chula Vista Medical Center, I have had the privilege of being involved with the dozen or so volunteers who assist with the Spirit of Caring pediatric mobile clinic. Our volunteers began training in August for their assignments on this exciting project, and they have been with the clinic from the very start. We currently have a team of volunteers who work three-hour shifts at six of the seven school sites, assisting the staff by greeting the children and helping their parents complete registration forms. Over the last several months, nearly every volunteer has come to me with a "success story," an example of how the clinic and its staff was able to care for a sick child and have a positive effect on him and his entire family. It has been apparent to each of them, as I am sure it is to everyone who has come in contact with the clinic, that this is a unique and valuable service that is well worth our support. On behalf of all of the Sharp Chula Vista volunteers, ! strongly urge the City Council to take whatever steps are needed to maintain this crucial service for our city's children. Thank you for your support. Sincerely, Imozelle T. McVeigh Manager of Volunteer Services (619) 482-5800 · 751MedicalC~nt~rGourt · Chu[aVisha, CA g1911-6699 To: Chula Vista Mayor, City Council, City Manager From: Cheri Fidler, Director, Community Health Children's Hospital and Health Center Re: Spirit of Caring Mobile Clinic Date: May 1,2000 Sharp Healthcare Foundation has requested $40,000 from a community development block fired to ensure ongoing free medical exams and referrals for disadvantaged children through the Spirit of Caring Mobile Health Clinic Program. Children's Hospital and Health Center has been involved in the planning and implementation of this program, and we strongly urge your support for this program The Spirit of Caring Mobile Clinic program is a win for everyone involved - children, teachers, parents, school nurses, and local health care and social service organizations. The children benefit by receiving needed health care services when needed, which also results in their ability to stay in school. Children's has committed to working with the SOC Mobile Clinic program to help with referrals for children needing further specialty care. We are pleased to collaborate in this worthwhile program to help keep kids healthy and in school, ready to learn. Your financial support will help ensure ongoing, continued FREE medications, exams and referrals, as well as help families find permanent medical homes. This approach is one of the best practices for improving the health of these children. Social Services of S%,them Cahfomi , REMARKS TO THE CHULA VISTA CITY COUNCIL By The Rev. Neil S. Longo San Diego County Area Director May 2, 2000 Good Evening, Mayor Horton and Members of the Council. My name is Neil Longo and I'm the San Diego County Director of Lutheran Social Services. We have operated the Project Hand program here in Chula Vista for over 20 years. The program offers emergency food and job development services to low income individual and families in the South Bay. We are once again asking for $12,000 to fund a portion of the salary of the coordinator who handles food distribution. In the first 9 months of this fiscal year (July 1, 1999 to March 30, 2000) we provided meals to a total of 2345 persons, 1247 (or 53%) of those were from Chula Vista. Each of these persons received a three-day supply of food (nine meals per person). We were projected to feed 1320 Chula Vista residents in fiscal year 99/2000. Our actual total by the end of June is estimated to be 1662, or 14958 meals. That is a cost to Chula Vista of only 80 cents per meal for each Chula Vista resident served. Ahnost all food is donated and collected by volunteers. An indcpendenl, ('alifornia nonq~rolil corporalion in nssocialion ~vilh '1 he Paragon l:otmdalion 3101 F,,urlhAxcntl~ .Snl~ Diego, CZ:~lil,~rl~iz~021(B~.l'h,~nc(C)19)?l-8722 l:n,'sinlil~ (o10) 201f1724 Who is being served: 54% are singles or couples with dependents; 46% are singles or couples with no dependents. 44% are male, 66% are female. 50% are under 17 years old. They are 33% Caucasian, 15% African-American, 48% Hispanic, 1% Asian and 1% other. In addition to the $12,000 in staff costs subsidized by the City of Chula Vista, the program is supported by donated office space on the campus of St. Mark's Lutheran Church; by two annual county- wide Phonathons; by our volunteer run Seek N' Find Thrift Shop in Clairemont Mesa; by gifts from numerous individuals, groups and organizations; and by an Annual Walkathon supported by over 22 churches from around the county - this year's is this Saturday in Mission Bay Park. Of special note, every year we distribute donated toys at Christmas, as well as special holiday meals at both Thanksgiving and Christmas. We also send individuals and families to our Thrift Shop with vouchers for clothing - sometimes for mom or dad to have something suitable to wear to a job interview, sometimes so a child won't be ridiculed at school. Our goal is to help individuals and families deal with the immediate crisis of hunger and to do all in our power to move them toward self-sufficiency. The facts and the figures don't tell the whole story. The whole story is made up of little stories - the man who breaks down and cries because he hasn't eaten in three days and no one else cared enough to help him, the children who are shouting, "Mommy has food, mommy has food," the little girl who's dancing around with a new pair of sox - the first she's ever owned. We ask for your help again. It will make a real difference in the lives of desperate people. There is nothing more basic than food. Thank you for your attention. ~l,qY-02-2000 03:15 P,N P, 02 M~yor Shirlm7 Hor~on and M~rab~r, of~¢ City Council City ofChul~ Vi~.a ~¥ - 2 2000 27~ Fora'th Av~u~ Chul~Vista, CA 91910 COUNCtLOFFICES '" CHULA VISTA, CA Re: CDBG Funding Request ~ Spirit of Caving Mobile Clinic 12~r R~esmtatives of t~e City of Chula We, the st~ff~ of New Dir~tions F~mily R~oure~ Cantor ~ writing in su~ort of me Community Devdopmant Blnsk Gnmt (CDBO) fimding request m~de by the Sh~p [-Ie~lthCm'e foundation on behalf of The Spirit of Cra'lng Mobile C2.inic. Ou~ ~pefiences with The Spirit of Csfin$ Mobile l-leMth Clinic have ~.11 bean positive. is a ~-win for ~w~-y(me involved - children, te~fl~ers, parant% ~hool nurses sn~ local h~lth ~are and social ~rvi¢~ organizations. This grant will i~ve ~ wide "trickle-down" effect - helping ps~nts, students and lhdr dbl[ngs; helpln$ ~mpmv~ th~ leamlng ~Xlm-ienee by keeping ehildnm in school ~ n~ly to lem'n; and bett~ utilizing community heafllh pmvld~r Your app~val of the Foundmion's r~luesl for ~K~,0OO in CDBO ~dg will ensure the continual provision o£ flee m~,die~tiom, ~x-,mix~ions ~nd ~f~'~ls for cMld~'~m in Your ~rov&l wiIl h~lp k~l~ children ~nd r~ty ~o we ~meour~ge y~ur support of this progrm:n. It is & wise mad effective use of' financial SH~" l~oj~:t Coordinator 915 4th Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91911 Phone (61g) 691-5301 Fax (619) 425-7416 M~Y-02-2000 03:i8 PN P, OS 1st United Way of San Diego Count), 2® Chula Vista Youth Services Network 2 3rd Sharp HealthCare Foundation 3 4th Meals on Wheels Greater San Diego 4 5th St. Charles Nutrition 5 6th Lutheran Social Services - Shared Housing 6 7th Adult Protective Services ? 8th Access Center of San Diego 8 9th Lutheran Social Services - Project Hand 9 10th Chula Vista Family Violence Coalition 10 11th Thursday's Meal 11 12th Suits You San Diego 16 13th Lutheran Social Services - Caring Neighbor 17 14th South Bay Community Services - Graffiti Eradication 18 15th South Ba), Community Services - Community Development 20 16th Southwestem College 21 17th South Bay Community Services - Teen Center 22 18th Border Environmental Commerce Alliance 25 19th Boys & Gids Club of Chula Vista 26 20th OnStage Playhouse 27 21st The Salvation Army 28 22® Chula Vista Amedcan Little League 29 23rd Chula Vista Human Services Council 36 24t~ Chula Vista Coordinating Council 37 25th County of San Diego - Homeless Task Force 38 26th Fair Housing Council of San Diego 40 NOTE: Staff is available to respond to Council comments or questions for the following programs: Library & Recreation Therapeutic Program Tab 13 Library & Recreation Chula Vista Literacy Team Tab 14 Library & Recreation Otay Recreation Staffing Tab 15 Planning & Building Community Preservation Tab 19 Community Development Fee Reduction Program Tab 23 Community Development LEAP Program Tab 24 Engineering City CIPs Tab 30-35 Library & Recreation Child Care Coordinator Tab 41 1 cHULA VISTA Community Development Block Grant Program Funding Applications Fiscal Year 2000-0t CY~ay Recreation Center Cordova Village Trolley Terrace Townhomes Working to Make Chula Vista a Better Place to Live, Work and Play city Clerk CITY COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item No.: Meeting Date: 5/2/00 ITEM TITLE: PUBLIC HEARING: PCS 99-06: Consideration of an amendment to Conditions 1 and 3 of the Salt Creek Ranch. Tentative Subdivision Map, Chula Vista Tract 92-02, and Section 3.2 of the Salt Creek Ranch Public Facilities Financing Plan to allow an increase in the number of dwelling units that may be built prior to SR-125 freeway from Olympic Parkway to SR-54 opening for public access. RESOLUTION: A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Chula Vista adopting Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program issued for this project, and approving amendment to Conditions 1 and 3 of the Salt Creek Ranch Tentative Subdivision Map, Chula Vista Tract 92-02, and Section 3.2 of the Salt Creek Ranch Public Facilities Financing Plan to allow an increase in the number of dwelling units that may be built prior to SR-125 freeway from Olympic Parkway to SR-54 opening for public access. SUBMITTED BY: Director of Planning and Buildin REVIEWED BY: City Manager ~f~Sd-0? (4/Sths Vote: Yes__ No X ) The applicant, Pacific Bay Homes, has requested an amendment to Conditions of the Salt Creek Ranch Tentative Subdivision Map, Chula Vista Tract 92-02 (AKA "Rolling Hills Ranch") and Public Facilities Financing Plan (PFFP) in order to increase the number of dwelling units (DUs) that may be built prior to SR-125 freeway opening for public access (see Exhibit "B" of City Council Resolution). The Rolling Hills Ranch (RHR) subdivision is located east of the future SR-125 and north of the existing Eastlake Business Center (see Attachment 2, Locator). The City Council has previously reviewed, analyzed, considered, and certified FEIR 89-03 and FSEIR-91-03 for the original Salt Creek Ranch GDP and SPA. The Environmental Review Coordinator prepared an Initial Study and determined that, although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because mitigation measures have been incorporated and agreed to by the project proponent. A Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program were prepared (see Attachment 6). Based on the current phasing plan and the focus of the biology survey, the Mitigated Negative Declaration recommends that the additional 568 EDUs be limited to Neighborhoods 1, 4a, 7a, 7b, and 8 of Phase II. Page 2, Item No.: Meeting Date: 05/02/00 RECOMMENDATION: 1. Adopt attached Resolution adopting Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program issued for this project and approving amendments to the Salt Creek Ranch Tentative Map Conditions and Salt Creek Ranch Public Facilities Financing Plan in accordance with the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. BOARDS AND COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: On April 3, 2000, the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration were presented to the Resource Conservation Commission (RCC). The RCC expressed concern about cumulative traffic impacts on city streets and 1-805. Discussion regarding direct project impacts focused on the intersection of"H" Street and 1-805. After extensive discussion, the RCC voted (5-0) to recommend that the City Council adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration to allow the increased building cap provided the traffic mitigation measure is revised to require the completion of the extension of Olympic Parkway to East Palomar Street prior to the issuance of any building permits beyond the current cap (See Attachment 6). On April 12, 2000, the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration, and the draft Resolution of the City Council were presented to the Planning Con~nission (PC). The PC expressed concern about cumulative traffic impacts on City streets from developments within the Eastern Planned Communities. Commissioner Willett commented that the northern road systems, such as ]~riarwood and Corral Canyon were not included in the Traffic analysis; yet are utilized by residents within the Eastern Territories who do not use East "II" Street during peak hours, and should be considered as part of the analysis scope. Commissioner Castaneda emphasized his concerns regarding existing traffic congestion citywide, and felt that the subject is not being addressed in a comprehensive manner. Commissioner Hall did not have a problem with the request to raise the cap, however, he was not convinced that the Olympic Parkway or other arterial street extensions are going to solve the existing traffic problems. He concluded that until existing traffic conditions are improved so that traffic is free flowing and safe, that city-wide developments, including Rolling Hills Ranch, should remain as adopted. Both Commissioners Castaneda and Hall want to see the completion of the Olympic Parkway extension prior to approving any cap increase. Discussion regarding direct project impacts included clarification o£ language regarding the extension of Olympic Parkway to the intersection of East Palomar Street to mitigate project impacts. After extensive discussion, the PC voted 4-2-1 (Commissioners Hall and Castaneda opposed, Commissioner Ray excused) to recommend that the City Council adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration with the clarification that Olympic Parkway be extended to the intersection of East Palomar Street for the building cap to be raised from 1,467 to 1,665 EDUs (See Attachment 1). BACKGROUND: Page 3, Item No.: Meeting Date: 05/02/00 In 1992, the City Council considered and conditionally approved a Tentative Subdivision Map known as Salt Creek Ranch, Chula Vista Tract 92-02 to subdivide approximately 1,200 acres into 2,100 single-family lots, three multi-family sites with capacity for 509 dwelling units; two school sites (elementary and middle school); two park sites; a fire station and 450 acres of open space (see Figure 1). The development of Salt Creek Ranch was planned in three phases and two development scenarios to ensure that construction of the necessary infrastructure, community facilities and amenities, as outlined in the Public Facilities Finance Plan (PFFP), were provided concurrently or in advance of development. The development scenarios are as follows: Scenario I and IA (Phase I) 1. Reduce the development potential of Phase I from 1,257 to 1,137 DUs (-120 DUs) to attain LOS D at the intersection of Hidden Vista Drive/East "H" Street. 2. Construct East "H" Street through the project (Phase I Boundaries) to ultimate four-lane Major Street standard. Construct a two-lane roadway connecting East "H" Street from the western limits of Phase I to Salt Creek I. 3. Construct Hunte Parkway to ultimate four-lane major street standards through the project and off-site, south of Otay Lakes Road. 4. Construct Lane Avenue as a Class I collector from East "H" Street to meet existing improvements at its current terminus in the Eastlake Business Center Park. 5. Install traffic signal or bond for future installation at the following intersections: East "H" Street and Lane Avenue East "H" Street and Hunte Parkway Lane Avenue and Otay Lakes Road Hunte Parkway and Otay Lakes Road. Scenario 2 (Phase I, II and III) 1. Implement all measures described under Scenario I. 2. Construct SR-125 as a four-lane roadway between East "H" Street and SR-54. 3. Construct East "H" Street as a four -lane major street from western boundary of the site to the existing terminus of"H' Street. With the exception of the SR-125 freeway, all of the above-mentioned improvements, including the reduction of 120 DUs for the first phase in Scenario I and II prescribed by the Traffic Study Page 4, Item No.: Meeting Date: 05/02/00 conducted by in 1990 have been completed as prescribed in the adopted Public Facilities Financing Plan (traffic signals have been bonded). However, the PFFP and Tentative Map conditions limit development in the Rolling Hills Ranch beyond the initial 1,137 DUs until SR-125 is open for public access or an interim roadway between East "H" Street and SR-54 is completed. With regard to the interim facility, in 1993, the City commissioned Howard, Needles, Tammen & Bergendoff (HTNB) to conduct a study to determine the feasibility and cost of an interim State Route 125 road facility (Interim State Route 125 Facility Feasibility Study dated May 1993). The study analyzed the feasibility of an interim facility located partially within the SR-125 Corridor and other existing and proposed local corridors to meet the interim forecasted traffic demands in the developing Eastem Territories. Based on the findings and recommendations of the HNTB feasibility study, the City Council adopted an interim pre-SR-125 development impact fee (DIF), which provide funding for the construction of the interim pre-SR-125 improvements. However, the City may pursue this option only if SR-125 is not constructed in the near future. Due to the timing and construction schedule of the SR- 125 freeway facility, and the fact that the City has established a DIF fee for the construction of an interim facility, the applicant is requesting that the condition limiting the Rolling Hills Ranch Planned Community to 1,137 dwelling units be deleted, and that the development be allowed to proceed subject only to the Growth Management traffic threshold standards and the City's Traffic Monitoring Program (TMP). At the present time, the developer has constructed approximately 500 units within Phase I of Rolling Hills Ranch, with approximately 637 additional units remaining to be constructed in this phase. The requested increase in the RHR development cap would allow the developer to commence financing arrangements and permit processing for additional units, which according to the applicant will take approximately eighteen months to two years before the construction starts. Thus, the additional units would be expected to be occupied beginning at the latter part of 2,002. DISCUSSION: As part of the application filed by the applicant, City staff required that the applicant enter into a 3- party agreement with the City to hire a traffic consultant for the purpose of conducting a traffic study. The traffic study included a segment and intersection analysis, to determine if and how much street capacity was available on East "H" Street to support amending the present Rolling Hills Ranch development limitation of 1,137 (the Salt Creek Ranch SPA was approved for a combined total of 2,616 dwelling units). The following paragraphs summarize the conclusions and recommendations of the Segment and Intersection analysis in more detail: Segment Analysis Since East "H" Street provides the main access to 1-805 for Rolling Hills Ranch, the segment analysis conducted by Linscott, Law & Greenspan (LLG) (titled East H Street Capacity Analysis 1999-2005, dated May 17, 1999) involves East "H" Street, between 1-805 and the Southwestern College entrance (see Figure 2). The study was intended to determine the available street segment Page 5, Item No.: Meeting Date: 05/02/00 capacity to acconunodate Rolling Hills Ranch development beyond 1,137 DUs. The City's TMP threshold standard is that a Level of Service (LOS) C or better, as measured by average travel speeds on the segment, shall be maintained on all signalized segments with an exception during peak hours where LOS D can occur for no more than any two hours of the day. The segment analysis assumed that most of the eastern Chula Vista planned community projects will contribute traffic to the East "H" Street corridor (see Table 3, Attachment 5 and Figure 3). Based on traffic generation rates, and traffic distribution percentages illustrated in Table 3, the traffic report concludes that there is additional segment capacity to support a maximum of 1,850 equivalent dwelling units. This is an increase of 713 beyond the initial 1,137 dwelling units. The traffic analysis assumed a baseline of 63,000 Average Daily Trips (ADTs) at the end of year 1999, and estimated an annual, cumulative traffic increase of approximately 3,300 ADTs on East "H" Street between 1-805 and Terra Nova (see Table 3, Attachment 4). Based on the annual additional ADTs, the segment is expected to increase from 63,000 to approximately 77,500 ADT's and LOS D for more than two hours sometime in 2004 (see Table 7 Attachment 4). Although the traffic analysis revealed that the segment capacity (with an annual cumulative ADT of 3,300) can support a maximum of 1,850 EDUs in Rolling Hills Ranch by 2004 before failing, staffrecommends that the maximum number of EDUs be reduced by 10% in order to be consistent with the FSEIR prepared in 1990, which required a 10% reduction in the project's Scenario I. The proposed reduction of 185 would set a new maximum cap at 1,665 EDUs, which can be lifted and allow Rolling Hills Ranch to build the remaining units once SR-125 from Olympic Parkway to SR-54 is open for public access. Intersection Analysis To complement the segment analysis and further determine the available traffic capacity on East "H" Street, an Intersection Analysis was also conducted. The intersection analysis (titled East H Street Intersection Analysis Chula Vista, California, dated March 8, 2000) [see Attachment 5] involved the four busiest intersections along East "H" Street. The intersections analyzed included: Hidden Vista Drive/East "H" Street; Paseo Del Rey/East "H" Street; Paseo Ranchero/East "H" Street; and at Otay Lakes Road/East "H." The analysis found that the Level of Service (LOS) at Hidden Vista Drive/East "H" would degrade from two peak hours of LOS D (AM/PM) and one peak hour of LOS C (Midday) to two peak hours of LOS D (Midday/PM) and one peak hour of LOS E (AM), if more than an additional 330 EDUs are added to the present 1,137 development cap without improvements. Once Olympic Parkway eastward to East Palomar Street is open for public access, or East"H" Street is widened to include an additional west bound thru-lane in the vicinity of Hidden Vista Drive/East "H' Street intersection, or SR-125 is open for public access, an additional 198 EDUs above the 330 mentioned above (528 total EDUs) could be accommodated for Rolling Hills Ranch prior to SR-125 opening for public access. The Olympic Parkway construction eastward to East Palomar Street intersection is anticipated to be completed by December 2001. Page 6, Item No.: Meeting Date: 05/02/00 The segment and intersection analysis reports conclude that Rolling Hills Ranch development can be allowed to proceed beyond the 1,137 to 1,467 (+330) at this time without significant traffic impacts at the above-mentioned intersections and segment. However, to mitigate potential impacts beyond the 1,467 and increase the development to the 1,665 EDUs cap as recommended by staff, one of the following improvements need to be constructed and open for public access: · Widen East "H" Street to provide an additional westbound thru lane at the East H Street/ Hidden Vista Drive intersection; or, · Complete the extension of Olympic Parkway eastward to the intersection of East Palomar Street. It should be noted that if SR-125 is constructed from Olympic Parkway north to SR-54, the project could develop beyond the 1,665-threshold cap to accommodate project build out. Staff concurs with the traffic report recommendations listed above and recommends approval to the proposed amendment to Conditions 1 and 3 of the Salt Creek Ranch Tentative Subdivision Map as suggested below. Tentative Map Amendment Based on the conclusions and recommendations of the above mentioned traffic reports, staff recommends that Condition 1 of the Salt Creek Ranch Tentative Map, Chula Vista Tract 92-02 be amended to read as follows: 1. Add the following new conditions to Resolution No. 16834: A. Developer, or their successors in interest, shall improve the project site with the project as described in Tentative Subdivision Map, Chula Vista Tract 92-02, FEIR 89-03, FSEIR 91-03 and Mitigated Negative Declaration issued for IS-00-05, except as modified by this Resolution. B. All EDUs beyond 1,137 and up to 1,665 shall only be constructed in portions of Neighborhoods 1, 4a, 7a, 7b and 8 as described in MND for IS-00-05. Any changes to the above must be approved by the Director of Planning and Building, and may require additional enviromnental review. (Planning) 2. Revise Condition 1 of the Salt Creek Ranch Tentative Subdivision Map, Chula Vista Tract 92-02, Resolution No. 16834 with the following language (deleted text is strikeout and new text is underline): the medl, ficaficns *'~ ,h ........... r ~,,~, ..... · ~ ;-~;~,~ ...~ ~;~.;, ^ , ..... hed) and .............................................................. Page 7, Item No.: Meeting Date: 05/02/00 a) Provided that biological mitigation is complied with, the building cap shall be increased to allow building permit issuance for up to 1,467 equivalent dwelling units. b) Building permits shall be granted beyond 1,467 EDUs to a maximum of 1,665 EDUs with the completion of at least one of the following improvements: Complete the extension of Olympic Parkway to the intersection of East Palomar Street; or Widen East "H" Street to provide an additional westbound thru-lane at the East H Street/Hidden Vista Drive mtersectmn. c) No final maps containing a prqject cumulative total of more than 1,665 EDUs shall be sul~ject to approval without SR-125 from Olympic Parkway to SR-54 being open for public access. 3. Revise Condition 3 of the Salt Creek Ranch Tentative Subdivision Map, Chula Vista Tract 92-02, Resolution No. 16834 with the following language (deleted text is strikeout and new text is underline): The !X.41 ..~ peclfiC c Developer shall diligently implement, or cause the implementation of all new and remaining mitigation measures pertaining to the Proiect identified in the Final Environmental Impact Report for Salt Creek Ranch, FEIR-89-03:FSEIR-91-03 and Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) issued for IS-00-05. Any such measures not satisfied by a specific condition of this Resolution or by the prqject design shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Building. Mitigation Measures shall be monitored via the Mitigation Monitoring Program approved in coniunction with the FEIR, SEIR and MND. Modification of the sequence of Page 8, Item No.: Meeting Date: 05/02/00 mitigation shall be at the discretion of the Director of Planning and Building, should changes in the circumstances warrant such revision. Public Facilities Finance Plan amendment The Salt Creek Ranch Public Facilities Finance Plan is also proposed to be amended to reflect the conclusions and recommendation of the segment and intersection traffic report and the conditions recommended by staff. The amendments to the PFFP consist primarily of adding language to Section 3.2.9, Adequacy Analysis (Scenario I/Scenario IA (Phase I)) to establish the amount of development that can be permitted prior to SR- 125 opening for public access (see revise tentative map Condition 2 above). Section 3.2.10, Threshold Compliance, will also be modified to establish compliance with the adopted Growth Management threshold standards. Attachment 8 contains the attached strikeout/underline versions of these two PFFP Sections. Conclusion: For the reasons mentioned above, staff recommends approval of the project subject to the conditions contained in the City Council Resolution. FISCAL IMPACT None. The Developer will still be responsible for paying the City's impact fees and other standard development and processing fees and as they may be amended from time to time. The Project infrastructure requirements as referenced in respective public facility finance plans and entitlement conditions remain unchanged. Attachments 1. Planning Commission Resolution 2. Locator Map 3. Figures 4. Linscott, Law & Greenspan East H Street Capacity Analysis 1999-2005, May 17, 1999 5. Linscott, Law & Greenspan East H Street Intersection Analysis Chula Vista, California, March 8, 2000 6. Mitigated Negative Declaration and RCC minutes 7. Amended Section 3.2.9 and 3.2.10 of Salt Creek PFFP 8. Disclosure Statement H:\HOME\PLANNING\StanD\PCS-9906.A113.doc RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ADOPTING MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM ISSUED FOR THIS PROJECT, AND APPROVING AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONS No I AND 3 OF THE SALT CREEK RANCH TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP, CHULA VISTA TRACT 92-02, AND SECTION 3.2 OF THE SALT CREEK RANCH PUBLIC FACILITIES FINANCING PLAN TO ALLOW AN INCREASE IN THE NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS THAT MAY BE BUILT PRIOR TO SR-125 FREEWAY FROM OLYMPIC PARKWAY TO SR-54 OPENING FOR PUBLIC ACCESS. I. RECITALS A. Project Site WHEREAS, the area of land which is the subject matter of this Resolution is diagrammatically represented in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, and commonly known as, Rolling Hills Ranch, and for the purpose of general description herein consists of approximately 1,200 acres located east of the future SR-125 freeway, and north of the existing Eastlake Business Center ("Project Site"); and, B. Project; Application for Discretionary Approval WHEREAS, a duly verified application was filed with the City of Chula Vista Planning and Building Department on December 18, 1998 by Pacific Bay Homes ("Developer") requesting approval of amendments to conditions 1 and 3 of the Salt Creek Ranch Tentative Subdivision Map, Chula Vista Tract 92-02 and Section 3.2 of the Salt Creek Ranch Public Facilities Financing Plan to allow an increase in the number of dwelling units that may be built prior to SR-125 opening for public access ("Amendment"); and, C. Prior Discretionary Approvals WHEREAS, the development of the Project Site has been the subject matter of various entitlements and agreements, including: 1) a General Development Plan, Salt Creek Ranch General Development Plan ("GDP"), previously approved by City Council Resolution No. 15875; 2) a Sectional Planning Area ("SPA") plan, Salt Creek Ranch Sectional Planning Area (SPA) plan; 3) Air Quality Improvement Plan (AQIP), Salt Creek Ranch Air Quality Improvement Plan; 4) Water Conservation Plan (WCP), Salt Creek Water Conservation Plan; 5) Design Guidelines, Salt Creck Ranch Design Guidelines; 6) Public Facilities Financing Plan (PFFP), Salt Creek Ranch Public Facilities Financing Plan; and 7) Planned Communities District Regulations, Salt Creek Ranch Planned Community District Regulations all previously approved by City Council Resolution No. 19275, and Ordinance 2765 on March 24, 1992 (referred to collectively herein as "Project"); and, Page 2 D. Planning Commission Record on Application WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held an advertised public hearing on the Project on April 12, 2000 and, after hearing staff presentation and public testimony, voted 4-2-1 (Commissioners Hall and Castaneda opposed, Commissioner Ray excused) to recommend that the City Council approve the Amendment in accordance with the findings and subject to the conditions listed below. E. City Council Record of Applications WHEREAS, a duly called and noticed public hearing on the Amendment was held before the City Council of the City of Chula Vista on May 2, 2000, on the Amendment and to receive the recommendations of the Planning Commission, and to hear public testimony with regard to same; and, WHEREAS, the city clerk set the time and place for a hearing on said Amendment application, and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the City, and its mailing to property owners within 500 ft. of the exterior boundary of the project at least 10 days prior to the hearing; and, WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely 4:00 p.m. May 2, 2000, in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the City Council and said hearing was thereafter closed. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby find, determine and resolve as follows: II. PLANNING COMMISSION RECORD The proceedings and all evidence introduced before the Planning Commission at their public hearing on the Amendment application held on April 12, 2000, and the minutes and resolutions resulting therefrom, are hereby incorporated into the record of this proceeding. I11. PREVIOUS FEIR-89-03 AND FSEIR-91-3 REVIEWED AND CONSIDERED; FINDINGS; APPROVALS The City Council of the City of Chula Vista has previously reviewed, analyzed, considered, and certified FEIR 89-03 and FSEIR-91-03 for the Project. Page 3 IV. COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA WHEREAS the Environmental Review Coordinator prepared an Initial Study and determined that, although the proposed Amendment could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not he a significant effect in this case because mitigation measures have been incorporated and agreed to by the project proponent. A Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program were prepared; and, V. INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT OF CITY COUNCIL WHEREAS the City Council finds that the Mitigated Negative Declaration, IS-00-05 has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, and the Enviroranental Review Procedures of' the City of Chula Vista; and, WHEREAS The City Council finds that the Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects thc independent judgment of'the City Council of the City of Chula Vista and hereby adopts the Mitigated Negative Declaration. VI. ADOPTION OF SPA In light of the findings described herein, the amendment to the Salt Creek Ranch Public Facilities Finance Plan, in the form attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit "B", is hereby approved. VII. SPA FINDINGS/APPROVAL A. THE SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN FOR SALT CREEK RANCH (AS AMENDED) IS IN CONFORMITY WITH THE SALT CREEK RANCH GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND THE CHULA VISTA GENERAL PLAN. The amended Salt Creek Ranch Public Facilities Finance, which is a component of the Salt Creek Ranch Sectional Planning Area (SPA) plan, is consistent with the adopted Salt Creek Ranch General Development Plan (GDP) and the Chula Vista General Plan. B. THE SALT CREEK RANCH SECTIONAL PLANNiNG AREA PLAN, AS AMENDED WILL PROMOTE THE ORDERLY SEQUENTIALIZED DEVELOPMENT OF THE INVOLVED SECTIONAL PLANNING AREAS. The Salt Creek Ranch Public Facilities Finance Plan, as amended is consistent with the Air Quality Improvement Plans, and Water Conservation Plans and will, therefore, Page 4 promote the orderly sequentialized development of the involved Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan areas. C. THE SALT CREEK RANCH SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN, AS AMENDED WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT ADJACENT LAND USE, RESIDENTIAL ENJOYMENT, CIRCULATION OR ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY. The land uses are not proposed to be changed within the Salt Creek Ranch Sectional Planning Area (SPA) plan and therefore will not adversely affect adjacent land use, residential enjoyment, circulation, or environmental quality. D. iN THE CASE OF PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL USES, THAT SUCH DEVELOPMENT WILL BE APPROPRIATE 1N AREA, LOCATION, AND OVER- ALL DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ARE SUCH AS TO CREATE A RESIDENTIAL ENVIRONMENT OF SUSTAINED DESIRABILITY AND STABILITY; AND, THAT SUCH DEVELOPMENT WILL MEET PERFORMANCE STANDARDS ESTABLISHED BY THIS TITLE. The amendments do not involve modifications to the adopted land use plan and therefore do not affect the overall design and development standards adopted for the Rolling Hills Ranch planned community E. IN THE CASE OF RESIDENTIAL USES, THAT SUCH DEVELOPMENT WILL BE APPROPRIATE IN AREA, LOCATION AND OVER-ALL PLANNING TO THE PURPOSE PROPOSED, AND THAT SURROUNDING AREAS ARE PROTECTED FROM ANY ADVERSE EFFECTS FROM SUCH DEVELOPMENT. The Public Facilities Finance Plan provides mitigation measures to insure the installation of all necessary public facilities and amenities prior to or in conjunctions with development. Thus, the additional development authorized before SR-125 is open for public access will not adversely affect the surrounding developments. F. THE STREET AND THOROUGHFARES PROPOSED ARE SUITABLE AND ADEQUATE TO CARRY THE ANTICIPATED TRAFFIC THEREON. The amendments do not involve amendments to the planned cimulation system depicted on the General Plan Circulation Element and therefore, the circulation system will be improved in accordance with the General Plan concurrent with the proposed development. Page 5 G. ANY PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT CAN BE JUSTIFIED ECONOMICALLY AT THE LOCATION (S) PROPOSED AND WILL PROVIDE ADEQUATE HOUSING UNITS OF THE TYPES NEEDED AT SUCH PROPOSED LOCATION (S). The proposed amendments to the Salt Creek Ranch Public Facilities Finance Plan do not involve new residential development. However, The adopted residential uses reflect the adopted Chula Vista General Plan and will provide needed housing to future residents in the area. H. THE AREA SURROUNDING SAID DEVELOPMENT CAN BE PLANNED AND ZONED IN COORDINATION ANT) SUBSTANTIAL COMPATIBILITY WITH SAID DEVELOPMENT. The proposed amendment does not involve changes in the land use plan ¥1II. ADOPTION OF AMENDMENTS TO TENTATIVE MAP In light of the findings described herein, the City Council does hereby approve amendments to Conditions 1 and 3 of the Salt Creek Ranch Tentative Subdivision in the form attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibits "C". All remaining conditions of Tentative Map No. 92- 02 not modified by this Resolution shall remain in full force and effect. IX. CONSEQUENCE OF FAILURE OF CONDITIONS If any of the foregoing conditions 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 revoke or modify all approvals herein granted, deny, or further condition issuance of all future building permits, deny, revoke, or further condition all certificates of occupancy issued under the authority of approvals herein granted, institute and prosecute litigation to compel their compliance with said conditions or seek damages for their violation. No vested rights are gained by Developer or a successor in interest by the City's approval of this Resolution. X. INVALIDITY; AUTOMATIC REVOCATION It is the intention of the City Council that its adoption of this Resolution is dependent upon the enforceability of each and every term, provision and condition herein stated; and that in the event that any one or more terms, provision, or conditions are determined by a Court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable, this resolution shall be deemed to be automatically revoked and of no further force and effect ab initio. Page 6 Presented by: Approved as to form by: Robert A. Leiter John M.Kaheny Director of Planning & Building City Attorney RESOLUTION NO. PCS-99-06 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE AMENDMENTS TO CONDITIONS 1 AND 3 OF THE SALT CREEK RANCH TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP CHULA VISTA TRACT 92-02 AND SECTIONS 3.2 OF THE SALT CREEK RANCH PUBLIC FACILITIES FINANCE PLAN TO ALLOW AN INCREASE IN THE NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS THAT MAY BE BUILT PRIOR TO SR-125 FREEWAY OPENING FOR PUBLIC ACCESS, PACIFIC BAY HOMES. WHEREAS, duly verified application was filed with the City of Chula Vista Planning and Building Department on December 18, 1998 by Pacific Bay Homes ("Developer") requesting approval of amendments to conditions 1 and 3 of the Salt Creek Ranch Tentative Subdivision Map, Chun Vista Tract 92-02 and Sections 3.2 of the Salt Creek Ranch Public Facilities Finance Plan to allow an increase in the number of dwelling units that may be built prior to SR-125 freeway opening for public access ("Project"); and, WHEREAS, the area of land which is subject to this Resolution is commonly known as Rolling Hills Ranch, and for the purpose of general description herein consists of approximately 1.200 acres located east of the future SR-125 freeway, and north of the existing Eastlake Business Center ("Site); and, WHEREAS the Environmental Review Coordinator prepared an Initial Study and determined that, although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because mitigation measures have been incorporated and agreed to by the project proponent. A Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program were prepared: and, WHEREAS the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration was presented to the Resource Conservation Commission (RCC) on April 3, 2000. The RCC expressed concern about cumulative traffic impacts on city streets and 1-805. Discussion regarding direct project impacts focused on the imersection of "H" Street and 1-805. After extensive discussion, the RCC voted (5-0) tO recommend that the Planning Commission adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration to allow the increased building cap provided the traffic mitigation is revised to require the completion of the extension of Olympic Parkway to East Palomar street prior to the issuance of any building permits beyond the current cap; and. WHEREAS THE Planning Commission finds that the Mitigated Negative Declaration, IS- 00-05 has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista; and, WHEREAS The Planning Commission finds that the Project impacts with respect to potential environmental impacts will be mitigated by adoption of the Mitigation Measures ! described in the Mitigated Negative Declaration, and contained in the Mitigation Monitoring Program; and, WHEREAS the Planning Commission having received certain evidence on April 12, 2000, as set forth in the record of its proceedings herein by reference as is set forth in full, made certain findings, as set forth in their recommending Resolution PCS-99-06 herein, and recommended to the City Council the approval of the Project based on certain terms and conditions, and, WHEREAS, the Planning Director set the time and place for a hearing on the Project, and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the city and it mailing to property owners and within 500 feet of the exterior boundaries of the property, at least 10 days prior to the hearing; and, WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely 6:00 p.m., April 12, 2000, in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission and said hearing was thereafter closed. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION recommends that the City Council adopt the attached Draft City Council Resolution, approving the amendment to Conditions 1 and 3 of the Salt Creek Ranch Tentative Subdivision Map, Chula Vista Tract 92-02 and Section 3.2 of the Salt Creek Ranch Public Facilities Financing Plan, in accordance with the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT a copy of this resolution be transmitted to the City Council. PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this 12 day of April, 2000, by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: John Willett, Chairperson ATTEST: Diana Vargas, Secretary lq :\HOME\PLANNING\LUIS\RHR PCS-9906.PCR.wpd g Hills Ranch Boundary CHULA VISTA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT LOCATOR PROJECT PACIFIC BAY HOMES ! PROJECT Rolling Hills Ranch ; LOCATION: SCALE: FILE NUMBER: ~ NORTH No Scale RHR AMENDMENT h:\home\plannin! ~hector\luis\is0005.cdr 04/26/00 ATTACHMENT 2 ATTACHMENT 3 Figures ATTACHMENT ~ Linscott, Law & Greenspan East 'H' Street Capacity Analysis 1999-2005 May 17, 1999 EAST H STREET CAPACITY ANALYSIS 1999-2005 Prepared by: ENGINEERS 1565 Hotel Circle South, Suite 310 San Diego, CA 92108 (619) 299-3090 April 14, 1999 Revised April 30, 1999 Revised May 7, 1999 Revised May 17, 1999 JB/JR 3-980861 TABLE OF CONTENTS DESCRIPTION PAGE NO. Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 1 Methodology ..................................................................................................................... 1 F,xisting Conditions ............................................................................................................... 1 Cumulative Projects .............................................................................................................. 5 Future Conditions ................................................................................................................. 8 Conclusions ........................................................................................................................ 11 APPENDICES Appendix A - ADT Volumes Appendix B - Traffic Monitoring Program Data Appendix C - Rolling Hills Ranch Select Zone Assignment Appendix D - Linear Regression Plots Appendix F_ - Year 2004 Future Hourly Volumes by Month ENGINEERS LIST OF TABLES TABLE PAGE NO. DESCRIPTION NO. 1. East H Street ADT Volumes ....................................................................................... 4 2. Existing East H Street TMP Average Speeds and LOS Conditions ........................... 4 3. Proposed Major Eastern Territory Projects 1999-2005 .............................................. 7 4. East H Street LOS, MPH and Hourly Volumes .................... ~ ......................................... 8 5. East H Street Hourly Percentage of ADT ...................................................................... 9 6. East H Street Hourly Cumulative Volumes .................................................................. 9 7. East H Street Total Future Hourly Volumes and LOS ............................................... 10 8. Number of Homes for Rolling Hills Ranch Proposed by Year .................................. 10 LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE PAGE_ NO. DESCRIPTION' NO. 1. Vicinity Map ................................................................................................................ 2 2. City of Chula Vista TMP Analysis Segment ................................................................ 3 3. Cumulative Project Locations ..................................................................................... 6 // ENGINEERS EAST H STREET CAPACITY ANALYSIS 1999 - 2005 INTRODUCTION The following report determines if East H Street between 1-805 and the Southwestern College Entrance has additional capacity between 1999 and 2005 to accommodate additional Roiling Hills Ranch homes above an existing cap set at 1137 homes. East H Street provides a main access to 1-805 for Rolling Hills Ranch. If additional capacity is found to exist, this capacity will be translated into an equivalent number of dwelting units that may be built per year. The limits of East H Street between 1-805 and Southwestern College were based on the City of Ghula Vista Traffic Monitoring Program definition. This analysis incorporated most if not all the proposed future eastern'territory residential projects as cumulative projects and assumed that Olympic Parkway and SR 125 was not constructed. This report is structured as follows: · Methodology · Existing Conditions · Cumulative Projects · Future Conditions · Conclusions The general study area is East H Street between 1-805 and the Southwestern College entrance. Figure 1 is a map showing the general location of the study area. Figure 2_ shows the limits of the existing TMP analysis segment. METHODOLOGY The future capacity of East H Street was determined by 1) utilizing the Traffic Monitoring Program (TMP).floating car technique to establish LOS thresholds, 2) creating an hourly Level of Service (LOS) "look-up table" through applying linear regression techniques to historical floating car data, 3) adding traffic year-by-year from anticipated cumulative projects, and 4) comparing the future volumes against the took up-table for possible LOS degradations. EXISTING CONDITIONS AVERAGE DALLY TRAFFIC VOLUMES ADT volumes for East H Street were obtained for past years from the City of Chula Vista and machine counts were conducted by Linscott, Law & Greenspan Engineers on January 19, 20, and 21,1999. The ADT volume data are contained in Appendix A and are shown in Table 1. .:. SOURCE: LLG Engineers, 1998 MIl.ES Figure 1 ~'.~ ~CZN~ ~P N G I N E ~ ;[ s -2- EAST 'H' STR~.~' CAPACITY ANALYSIS ENGINEERS Table 1 East H Street ADT Volumes Year 1-805 to Terra Nova Paseo Del Rey Paseo Ranchero to 1-805 to Terra Nova Drive to Paseo to Paseo Southwestern Southwestern Drive Del Re~ Ranchern College College Average 1996 60,440~ 41,600- 32,480~ 23~880~ 39~600 1997 NA NA NA NA NA 1998 63,540~ NA NA 26,520~ 45,030 1999 62,850~ 49,270~ 42,660~ 32,470~ 46,813 Source: City of Chula Vista, ZLinscott Law & Greenspan Engineers, NA: Not Available 'data was not collected for that year) CHULA VISTA TRAFFIC MONITORING PROGRAM The Chula Vista Traffic Monitoring Program assesses the operating performance of the City's arterial street system for compliance with the Threshold Standards of the Growth Management Plan. The threshold standards specify that a Level of Service (LOS) of C or better, as measured by average travel speeds on the arterial, shall be maintained on all signalized arterial segments with an exception during peak hours where LOS D can occur for no more than any two hours of the day. Linscott, Law and Greenspan Engineers (LLG) conducted a two-day floating car speed study on East H Street in January 1999, westbound during the morning peak hour and eastbound during the afternoon peak hour. The floating car speed data was collected with Southwestern College in session. Collection of the floating car data was performed_ in the same fashion as collected by the City of Chbla Vista staff for their TMP efforts. A sufficient amount of data was collected to maintain an 80% confidence interval as per the City of Chula Vista standards. Historical City of Chuta Vista TMP data sheets, new data sheets and statistical significance summaries are inctuded in Appendix B. The 1999 conditions and historical City of Chuia Vista TMP runs are shown below in Table 2 for East H Street. Table 2 Existin!~ East H Street TMP Avera~le Speeds and LOS Conditions I Time and Direction [ 1996 1997 1998 I 1999 I ~MPH LOS MPH LOS MPH LOS MPH LOS AM Westbound (SWC-805 NB Ramps) 35.3 A~ 32.5 B~ 31.2 B~ 32.1 B' PM Eastbound 1805 NB RamDs-SWC) 39.0 B~ $0.$ B~ 28.7 B1 26.5 C~ Source: 'Based on City of Chula Vista TMP Data ZBased on field data collected in January 1999 /5' CUMULATIVE PROJECTS There are numerous projects in the eastern territories of Chula Vista, which will add traffic to the subject section for East H Street. A list of cumulative projects was assembled to include all major future residential, commemial and industrial projects planned for development between 1999 and 2005 in the eastern territories. The approximate locations of these projects are shown in Figure 3. January of 1999 was established as a baseline to coincide with the traffic count data collection. East H Street ADT volumes were collected on January 19, 20 and 21, 1999. All projects built and occupied prior to February 1, 1999 were assumed to be accounted for in the existing traffic data. Projects proposed after February 1, 1999 were summarized as 1999 projects. This baseline helps insure that all proposed developments witl be accounted for between 1999 and 2005. Cumulative project information for residential, commercial and industrial uses were obtained from the following sources: · SANDAG Master Land Use Phasing Teble dated 12/1/97, · City of Chula Vista Staff, · Site Specific Developer Staff, and · Project Specific Traffic Impact Reports The SANDAG Master Land Use Phasing Table (used to prepare the latest traffic studies for Eastlake Trails, San Miguel Ranch and Otay Ranch) was used to develop a- cumulative information base but was updated by obtaining the latest information from City of Chuia Vista staff, site specific developer staff, and from site specific traffic impact reports. This process provided the most up to date estimate of the total number of homes forecasted to be built between 1999 and 2005. As a factor of safety, the most conservative number of anticipated forecasted homes was used. For the forecasted homes, an ADT volume was determined using a trip rate of 10 trips per dwelling unit for single family homes and 8 trips for multi family units. For the forecasted commercial projects, an ADT volume was based on the project size with 1200 trips/acre for sites less than 10 acres and 700 trips/acre for site greater than 10 acres. For the forecasted industrial sites, a trip rate of 4 trips per 1000 S.F. was utilized. The future cumulative volumes were assigned annually to East H Street based on SANDAG Select Zone Assignment plots, specific project traffic impact analysis, or by engineering judgement. Each assignment includes a reference source. A year 2000 select zone assignment without SR-125 and without Olympic Parkway was performed for Rolling Hills Ranch, which forecasted that 23% of their traffic would be assigned to East H Street. A copy showing a portion of the Select Zone Assignment for Rolling Hills Ranch is included in Appendix O. The SANDAG Select Zone Assignment used the SANDAG Master Land Use Phasing Table of 12/1/97 for ail Traffic Analysis If. ENGINEERS Zone (TAZ) inputs with the exception of Otay Ranch, which assumed the number of proposed single and multi-family units proposed by the Otay Ranch Oompany for their SPA One Amendment EIR. Rolling Hills Ranch had 102 homes built and occupied through February 1, 1999 and anticipates the completion and occupancy of 280 additional homes between February and December of 1999. Between 2000 and 2005, Rolling Hills Ranch anticipates to build about 350 homes per year. Therefore, between 1999 and 200§, Rolling Hills Ranch anticipates the completion of about 2380 homes being the sum of 280 homes for 1999, plus 350 homes per year between 2000 and 2005 (3.50*6 years = 2100). The SANDAG Master Land Use Phasing Table of 12/1/97 had a total of about 2600 homes at buildout for Rolling Hills Ranch. The cumulative projects, traffic assignments, and ADTs for eastern territory projects are shown below in Table 3. Table 3 Proposed Maior Eastern Territory Projects 1999-2005 Proposed Single I~lulti' Total Assignment ADT on Development Family Family ADT on East H East H (units) (units) Street Street Bonita Meadows~ I 290 I 0 2,900 I 30%' I 870 Eastlake Trails~ 957 186 11,058 18%~ 1,990 Eastlake III Vistasz 140 250 3,400 18%5 612 Eastlake III Weeds' 0 t 0 0 18%5 0 Otay Ranch SPA I & SPA I West~ 4,178 2,519 61,932 11%~ t 6,813 Rancho Del Rey SPA I. II, and III~ I 262 0 2,820 90%' 2.358 Salt Creek I~ I 0 i 0 ! 0 23%~ 0 Salt Creek Ranch~ (Rolling Hills Ranch) I 2,080 i 300 I 23,200 23%~ 5,336 San Miguel Ranch= I 719 I 113 I 8.094 I 23%' 1.862 Sun~ow II~ 1,066 740 16,580 11%~ 1,824 Commercial - East Lake Vistas~ 14.8 Acres @ 700/AC 10,360 2%' I 207 Commercial - Otay~ 3.3 Acres @ 1200/AC I 3,960 I 1%' 40 Commercial - Rancho Del Rey~ 0.5 Acres @ 1200/AC t 600 I 90%/ 540 Commercial - San Miguelz 7 Acres @ 1200/AC 8,400 2%' 168 Commercial -- Sunbow IIz 11 Acres @ 700/AC 7,700 1%' 77 Industrial -- Eastlake* 204,500 S.F. 818 15%' I 123 industrial - Ranche Del Re~ 4 Acres @ 80/AC I 320 90%' I 288 Residential, Commercial and Industrial 1999-2005 Totals 161,942 NA 23,108 Residential, Commercial and Industrial Avera~le per Year 23,135 NA 3,301 Sources: ~City of Chula Vista staff, February 1999 ~S~,NbAG Master Land Use Phasing Table 12/1/97 ~Otey Ranch SPA I Amendment, LLG 6/30/98 ~Pacific Bay Homes staff, February 1999 ~an Miguel Ranch SPA Transportation Study, BRW inc. 8/10/98, SLLG Leviton Report, ?Assignment based on knowledge of study area and engineering judgement. SAssignment from LLG Eastlake work. ~Assignment obtained from SANDAG setect zone assignment for Roiling Hills Ranch (Appendix C). Based on these assumptions, the total number of residential units assumed to be built per year between 1@99 and 2.005 for all major eastem territory residential projects, based on the latest available project-by-project data, is abo~ 2000 units. FUTURE COBDBOB$ In order to assess the future conditions, an hourly look-up table was created specifically for East H Street from hi~orical TMP data. Next, cumulative traffic was added year-by- year to base 1999 volumes. Finally, future volumes were compared against the generated look-up table for possible LOS degradations. LOOK-UP TABLE An houdy level of service look-up table was created by applying linear regression to the historical floating car data to generate future volumes for each LOS. By utilizing linear regression, a formula can be derived that can describe the dependence of one variable on another. For example, as the volume increases on East H Street, the average travel speed and LOS will decrease. Linear regression equations were derived for the Westbound traffic as MPH = 48.4 - 0.0101*Volume and for the Eastbound traffic as MPH = 45.6 - 0.0111*Volume. Linear regression plots are included in Appendix D. The Westbound, Eastbound, total hourly volumes and respective LOS are shown below in Table 4. Table 4 East H Street LOS, MPH and Hourl~/Volumes MPH I .>35 >28 I >--22 I >17 <13 Westbound Hourly Volume t 1330 2020 I 2610 I ~'110 I 3500 Eastbound Hourly Volume I 950 1590 I 2100 258{3 I 2940 t Total Hourly Volume I 2280 I 3610 I 4710 5690 I 6400 Source: LLG Engineers, 1999. Example calculation: LOS A for Westbound volume using MPH = 48.4- 0.0t 01'Volume becomes 35 = 48.4 - 0.0101*Volume => -13.4 = -0,0101*Volume => Volume = 1326. As shown above in Table 4, East H Street volumes are correlated to speed and respective LOS. For example, when the hourly volume on East H Street exceeds 5690, then the LOS will decrease to LOS E. CUMULATIVE TRAFFIC Cumulative project traffic was added to East H Street in hourly segments from 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM. The houdy percentages were derived from 1999 machine counts as a percentage of ADT as shown below in Table 5. Table 5 East H Street Hourl)~ Percenta~]e of ADT Time 1999 ~olumes Percent of ADT 7:00-8:00 3440 7% 8:00-9:00 2811 6% 9:00-10:00 2371 5% 10:00-11:00 2408 5% 11:00-12:00 2920 6% 12:00-13:00 3046 7% 13:00-14:00 3008 6% 14:00-15:00 3130 7% 15:00-16:00 3514 8% 16:00-17:00 3339 7% 17:00-18:00 3430 7% 18:00-19:00 3157 7% 19:00-07:00 (remainder) 10241 22% Total 46813 100% Source: LLG Engineers, 1999. Example calculation: 7:00-8:00 percentage of ADT is from 3440 / 46813 = 7%. The ADT of 46,813 is the overall East H Street average ADT from Table 1. Using the hourly percentages from Table 5, the cumulative project traffic was calculated on an hourly basis as shown in Table 6. Table 6 East H Street Houri' Cumulative Volumes Time Total Cumulative Percent Cumulative Project ADT of ADT Hourly Volumes / 7:00-8:00 7% 231 8:00-9:00 6% t 198 9:00:10:00 5% ! 166 10:00-11:00 5% 165 11:00-12:00 6% 198 12:00-13:00 7% 231 13:00-14:00 3,301 6% 1 98 14:00-15:00 7% I 231 15:00-16:00 8% 264 ' 16;00-17:00 7% 231 17:00-18:00 7% 231 18:00-19:00 7% 231 19:00-07:00 (remainder) 22% t 727 Total 3,301 100% I 3,301 Source: LLG Engineers, 1999. Example calculation: 7:00-8:00 cumulative project hourly volume is from 3294 ' 7% = 231. FUTURE VOLUMES The year-by-year volumes on East H Street were calculated by adding the cumulative project hourly volumes, from Table 6 above, to base 1999 volumes from 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM. These volumes and respective LOS are shown below in Table 7. The LOS is estimated based on the correlation between volume and LOS as derived in Table 4. Table 7 East H Street Total Future Hourly Volumes and LOS TIME Jan 1999 End of End of End of End of End of End of End of Base 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 VOL LOS VOL LOS VOL LOS VOL LOS VOL LOS VOL LOS VOL LOS VOL LOS 7:00-8:00 3440 B 3670 C 3900 C 4130 C 4360 C 4600 C 4830 D 5060 D 8:00-9:00 2811 E~ 3010 B 3210 B 3410 B 3600 C 3800 C 4000 C 4200 C 9:00-10:00 2371 B 2540 B 2700 B 2870 B 3030 B 3200 B 3360 B 3530 B 10:00-11:00 2408 B 2570 B 2740 B 2900 B 3070 B 3230 B 3400 B 3560 B 11:00-12:00 2920 B 3120 B 3320 B 3510 B 3710 C 3910 C. 4110 C 4310 C 12:00-13:00 3046 B 3280 B 3510 B 3740 C 3970 C 4200 C 4430 C 4660'C 13:00-14:00 3008 B 3210 B 3400 B 3600 C 3800 C 4000 C 4200 C 4390 C 14:00-15:00 3130 B 3360 B 3590 B 3820 C 4050 C 4290 C 4520 C 4750 D 15:00-16:00 3514 B 3780 C 4040 C 4310 C 4570 C 4830 D 5100 D 5360 D 116:00-17:00 3339 B 3570 B 3800 C 4030 C 4260 C 4490 C 4720 D 4960 D 17:00-18:00 3430 B 3660 C 3890 C 4120 C 4350 C 4580 C 4820 D 5050 D 18:00-19:00 3157 B 3390 B 3620 C 3850 C 4080 C 4310 C 4540 C 4770 D Source: LLG Engineers, 1999. As shown above in Table 7, one hour (between 3:00-4:00 PM) is forecasted to degrade to LOS D in 2003. In 2004, four hours are forecasted to degrade to LOS D thereby making East H Street not meet the City of Chula Vista TMP standards. The forecasted future hourly volumes are year-end volumes, which means the volumes- will be lower during the beginning of the forecast year. East H Street was forecasted to degrade to three hours of LOS D by July 2004 as shown in Appendix E. By July 2004, Rolting Hills Ranch could have 1850 homes built as shown in Table 8. Table 8 Number of Homes for Rollin~l Hills Ranch Proposed by Year Year Number of Homes 1999 (February- December/ 280 2000 (January-- December) 350 2001 (January- December) 350 2002 (January-- December) 350 2003 (January- December) 350 2004 (January- June~ 170 Total 1850 Source: LLG Engineers, 1999. As shown in Table 8, it is forecasted that Rolling Hills Ranch could have the existing cap of 1137 raised to 1850 homes before East H Street would degrade to LOS D. This translates to about 713 additional homes above the existing cap of 1137. ENGINEERS CONCLUSIONS The assumptions for cumulative projects assumed in this analysis can be considered as conservative. The total number of residential units assumed to be built per year for all the eastern territory projects, based on project-by-project data, was about 2000 units. City of Chula Vista staff indicated that current absorption rates are more in the order of 1500 units per year. The cumulative projects included the assumption that Roiling Hills Ranch would sell 280 homes during the remainder of 1999 and 350 homes per year from 2000 through 2005. The analysis indicates that East H Street is forecasted to operate at LOS C until 2002. In 2003, one hour is forecasted to degrade to LOS D. In July 2004, three hours are forecasted to degrade .to LOS D making East H Street not meet the City of Chula Vista TMP standards. The analysis assumed that Rolling Hills Ranch would have 1850 homes built and occupied between February 1999 and July 2004. The cap on Rolling Hills Ranch can be raised to 1850 homes before SR 125 would be needed. report.doc ATTACHMENT ~' Linscott, Law & Greenspan East %1' Street Intersection Analysis Chula Vista, CA March 8, 2000 EAST H STREET INTERSECTION ANALYSIS CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA Prepared for: CITY OF CHULA VISTA 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 Prepared by: ENGINEERS 1565 Hotel Circle South, Suite 310 San Diego, CA 92108 (619) 299-3090 March 8, 2000 JB/NP/ja 3-000955 EAST H STREET INTERSECTION ANALYSIS CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA INTRODUCTION Linscott, Law & Greenspan Engineers (LLG) completed a traffic analysis of the East H Street corridor between 1-805 and the Southwestern College Entrance to determine approximately when Traffic Monitoring Program (TMP) standards would be exceeded and to also determine the approximate maximum number of homes in Rolling Hills Ranch that could be built prior to the completion of SR 125. The results of the segment study indicated that a cap of 1850 homes should be placed on Rolling Hills Ranch based on a 2004 "failure" year for East H Street. Subsequent to that report, the City of Chula Vista has requested a similar analysis of the intersections along East H Street. This analysis addresses the following four intersections, which are the "busiest" (non-interchange) intersections along East H Street between 1-805 and Olay Lakes Road. · East H Stree~Hidden Vista Drive · East H Street/Paseo Del Rey · East H Street/Paseo Ranchero · East H Street/Otay Lakes Road This report is structured as follows: · Methodology; · Existing'conditions; · Baseline conditions; · Raising cap from 1,137 to 1,850 units; · Cumulative analysis; · Ramp meter assessment; and · Conclusions METHODOLOGY Since the East H Street se.qment analysis (LLG traffic study dated May 1999) indicated that the unit cap could be raised from 1,137 units to 1,850 units, this intersection analysis assesses whether or not the intersections along East H Street wpuld operate at adequate Level of Service (LOS D or better) with this additional 713 units. SinCe the Rolling Hills Ranch project is not yet built out to 1,137 units (about 400 are currently built), the first step was to add the existing balance of Rolling Hills Ranch units (737 E N G ] N E E R $ units) onto the street system. This was termed the "baseline" scenario. As a second step, traffic from the additional 71:3 units (1,137 to 1,8§0 units) was then added to the baseline condition to determine if adequate intersection LOS would be maintained. Finally, since there are several "cumulative" projects (as listed below) which will add traffic to East H Street in the next few years, an approximate year was determined for when the intersection LOS D standard would be exceeded with the addition of all cumulative project traffic. A list of cumulative projects planned for development between 1999 and 2005 in the eastern territories was assembled as part the East H Street Segment Gapacity Analysis. This list includes all major future residential, commercial and industrial projects as shown below. · Bonita Meadows · Eastlake Trails · Eastlake III Vistas · Eastlake II1 Woods · Otay Ranch SPA I and SPA I West · Rancho Del Rey SPA I, II, and II1 · Salt Creek 1 · Salt Creek Ranch (Rolling Hills Ranch) · San Miguel Ranch/Vista Mother Miguel · Sunbow Il · Commercial-East Lake Vistas · Commercial-Otay · Commercial- Rancho Del Rey · Commercial-San Miguel · CommerciaI-Sunbow Il · IndustriaI-Eastlake · Industrial-Rancho Del Rey The intersection operations were analyzed by determining the average delay per vehicle entering the intersection. The delay was determined using a computer program which utilized the methodology found in Chapter 9 of the 1994 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). The delay values (seconds) were qualified by giving a Level of Service (LOS) or "Grade" to the intersection. ENGINEERS EXISTING CONDITIONS AM, Midday and PM Peak hour volumes for the key intersections were collected by Linscott, Law & Greenspan Engineers in danuary and December of 1999. The manual count sheets are included in Appendix A. The peak hour volumes were collected with Southwestern Gollege in session. Figure 1 shows the existing traffic volumes for AM, Midday, and PM periods. Figure 2 shows the existing intersection lane configurations. Table 1 shows that LOS D or better operations is'calculated at each of the four intersections during the three time periods under existing conditions. Appendix 13 includes the LOS calculations. BASELINE CONDITIONS The "baseline" scenario was determined by adding the remaining Rolling Hills Ranch unit traffic up to the current 1,137 unit cap (about 737 units) onto existing conditions. Table 2 shows that LOS D or better intersection operations is maintained during each time period. Figure 3 shows the baseline traffic volumes. RAISING CAP FROM 1,137 UNITS TO 1,850 UNITS The East H Street seqment analysis indicated that the unit cap could be raised from 1,137 units to 1,850 units. The addition of 713 Rolling Hills Ranch units equates to 92 peak direction trips on East H Street, as shown in Table 3. Figure 4 shows~'h-~ assignment of 7~[61~irrg~-ltlts Ranch unit traffic. Figure 5 shows the baseline plus 713 Rolling Hills Ranch units traffic volumes. Table 4 shows the results of adding 713 Rolling Hills Ranch units to the baseline conditions. This table shows that LOS D or better operations is maintained during each time period. CUMULATIVE ANALYSIS As previously discussed, there are several other "cumulative" projects which will add traffic to East H Street in the next few years. 13ased on projections for these projects, it was determined that the East H Street segment would fail to meet TMP standards some time within the Year 2004. Therefore, the key intersections atong East H Street were analyzed with the addition of four years of cumulative project traffic (including Rolling Hills Ranch traffic). Future intersection volumes were forecasted from existing counts by adding trips generated from the cumulative projects to the eastbound and westbound through movements and factoring up all other turning movements by 1% per year to account for background growth. The East H Street Capacity Analysis Study documented the AM, Midday, and PM peak periods to each have 231-trips added to East H Street from the cumulative projects. These 231 vehicle trips were divided into eastbound and westbound trips based on directional splits from 24-hour tube counts. The forecasted intersection movement volumes for 2004 are included in Figure 6. Table 4 shows the results of this analysis. This table shows that LOS D or better operations are calculated at each intersection with the exception of the East H Street/Hidden Vista Drive intersection during the AM peak period where LOS F is calculated. In order to maintain LOS D or better operations at this intersection, one of three mitigation measures would be necessary. 1) Provide an additional westbound thru lane at the East H Street/Hidden Vista Drive intersection; or 2) Ensure Olympic Parkway is extended eastward to at least East Palomar Street; or 3) Ensure SR 125 is constructed. The provision of an additional westbound thru lane at the East H Street/Hidden Vista Drive intersection would mitigate impacts at this intersection by providing additional capacity in the westbound direction, the peak direction in the morning. The extension of Olympic Parkway will enable commuters to divert from East H Street and Telegraph Canyon Road to Olympic Parkway, thereby decreasing through traffic on East H Street at the Hidden Vista Drive intersection. This extension would serve to mitigate East H Street/Hidden Vista Drive intersection impacts. The provision of SR 125 would substantially decrease traffic on East H Street, thereby mitigating impacts at the East H Street/Hidden Vista Drive intersection. It is desired to ascertain at what point in time the East H Street/Hidden Vista Drive intersection will degrade to LOS E. In order to determine this, the total traffic from the Rolling Hills Ranch project and the other cumulative projects was forecasted on an annual basis and assigned to East H Street. Appendix C (Table A-l) shows the detailed calculations. The annual traffic volumes were first assigned to eastbound and westbound East H Street and then added to the baseline traffic volumes to obtain yearly peak hour volumes. Appendix ¢ (Table A-2) shows the peak hour turning movement volumes at the East H Street/Hidden Vista Drive intersection. Peak hour analysis at the East H Street/Hidden Vista Drive intersection indicates that this intersection deteriorates from LOS D to LOS E in about 2002. This corresponds to about 330 Rolling Hills Ranch units. Therefore, the cap on Rolling Hills Ranch could be raised from 1,137 units to 1,467 units at which time one of the three mitigation measures listed above would need to be implemented. At this time the cap could be raised to 1,850 units. £ N G I N E E R S RAMP METER ASSESSMENT According to a letter from Caltrans to the City of Chula Vista dated November 19, 1999, Caltrans plans to install ramp meters at several locations along F805 in 2001, including the westbound to northbound on-ramp at East H Street. Caltrans states that the metering rate will be approximately 1,450 vehicles per hour, 85% of the current AM peak hour demand of about 1,700 vehicles per hour. The westbound to northbound on- ramp is a one lane ramp which may be widened for an HOV lane. Assuming the AM peak hour volume on this ramp increases by 2% by Year 2001 to 1,730 vehicles per hour, the following delay and queue calculations would result. Demand = 1,730 vehicles/hour Rate = 1,450 vehicles/hour Excess Demand = 280 vehicles/hour Average delay = 280 x 60 minutes = 11.6 minutes 1,450 hour Average queue = 280 vehicles x 25 feet = 7,000 feet vehicle The above calculations assume an HOV ramp lane is not provided. The distance on the ramp between the approximate placement of the ramp meter and East H Street is approximately 800 feet. The distance betweefi the northbound on-ramp and Hidden Vista Drive is about 1,400 feet. Therefore, based on the above assumptions, the queue from the ramp meter would extend past the East H Street/Hidden Vista Drive intersection and will negatively impact operations on East H Street. If in fact a 7,000 foot queue did develop, the queue would extend eastward from 1-805 to approximately half-way between Del Rey Boulevard and Paseo Del Rey. However, it should be noted that the impact of the installation of ramp meters by Caltrans is not a project impact. CONCLUSIONS The following four "key" intersections along East H Street were analyzed in this report. · East H Street/Hidden Vista Drive · East H Street/Paseo Del Rey · East H Street/Paseo Ranchero · East H Street/Otay Lakes Road The analysis indicated that adequate intersection operations could be maintained with the addition of Rolling Hills Ranch traffic only assuming a raise in the Rolling Hills 5 £ ~, G I N E E R S Ranch cap from 1,1:37 units to 1,850 units (92. AM peak hour westbound trips). However, with the addition of all cumulative project traffic, mitigation would be necessary at the East H Street/Hidden Vista Drive intersection. One of three measures would be necessary. 1) Provide an additional westbound thru lane at the East H Street/Hidden Vista Drive intersection; or 2) Ensure Olympic Parkway is extended eastward to at least East Palomar Street; or 3) Ensure SR 125 is constructed. The analysis shows that the cap on Rolling Hills Ranch units could be raised to 1,467 units with no mitigation. One of the three mitigation measures listed above would need to be implemented before the 1,467 unit cap coutd be exceeded. At this time, the cap could be raised to 1,850 units. There are many assumptions that need to be made in this type of analysis, including the distribution of Rolting Hills Ranch and cumulative project traffic, the timing of cumulative projects and the future ramp meter rates. For this reason, a 10% "factor of safety" could be applied to the ultimate 1,850 unit cap, resulting in an overall cap of 1,665 units. Based on assumptions provided by Caltrans, it is possible that the installation of a ramp meter on the westbound to northbound on-ramp will result in traffic queues extending past Hidden Vista Drive, thereby negatively impacting East H Street operations. 955.doc EAST tt STREET C_M:'ACITY A~NALYSIS TABLE 1 EXISTING ANALYSIS PERIOD SCENARIO Existing Delay I LOS East H StreeffHidden Vista Drive AM 32.0 sec. D IvlIDDAY 24.2 sec. C PM 27.6 sec. D East H StreetfPaseo Del Rey AM I5.2 sec. C .MIDDAY 18.1 sec. C PM 17.6 sec. C East H Street/Paseo Ranchero AM 16.3 sec. C MIDDAY 14.6 sec. B PM 16.3 sec. C East H Street/Otay lakes Road A-M 20,0 sec. C IvlIDDAY 19.9 sec. C PM 20.9 sec. C Delay is measured in seconds. LOS = Level of Service NB = Northbound DELAY LOS 0.0 to 5.0 A 5.1 to 15.0 B 15.1 to 25.0 C 25.1 to 40.0 D 40.1 to 60.0 E > 60.0 F 3'7 EAST H STREET CAPACI 1 Y A_NALYSIS TABLE 2 PERIOD SCENARIO Existing Baseline* Delay LOS Delay ] LOS East It SWeet/Hidden Vista Drive AM 32.0 sec. D 32.6 sec. D MIDDAY 24.2 sec. C 24.6 sec. C PM 27.6 sec. D 27.7 sec. D East H Street/Paseo Del Rey AM 15.2 sec. C 15.2 sec. C MIX)DAY 18.1 sec. C 18.7 sec. C PM 17.6 sec. C 18.2 sec. C East H Street/Paseo Ranchero AM 16.3 sec. C 16.4 sec. C MIDDAY 14.6 sec. B 14.8 sec. B PM 16.3 sec. C 16.6 sec. C East H Street/Otay lakes Road AM 20.0 sec. C 20.2 sec. ' C MIDDAY 19.9 sec. C 20.4 sec. C PM 20.9 sec. C 21.4 sec. C * Baseline re >resants existing volumes with the balance of Rolling H/lis Ranch built out to 1,137 units. Delay is measured in seconds. LOS = Level of Service NB = Northbound DELAY LOS 0.0 to 5.0 A 5.1 to 15.0 B 15.1 to 25.0 C 25.1 to 40.0 D 40.1 to 60.0 E > 60.0 F TABLE 3 GEN3ERATION/DISTRIBL'TION OF 713 L.'/~TrS ADT = 7130 (713 Units* 10 Al)T/Unit) Additional ADT on "lC' Street = 1640 (23% utilize East "H' SU'eet per prior Traffic Study) PERIOD PERCEI~r PEAK HOUR SPL1T OF ADT TRI~S PERCENT TRIllS EB 1 WB EB I WB AM 8% 131 0.30 0.70 39 92 Midday 7% 115 0.52 0.48 60 55 PM 10% 164 0.70 0.30 115 49 Source: SANDAG. EB = Eastbound V~rB = Westbound EAST H STREET CAPAcI'I Y' ANALYSIS T.ABLE 4 PERIOD SCENARIO Existing Baseline * Baseline + 713 Units ** Delay [ LOS Delay ] LOS DelayI LOS East H Street/Hidden Vista Drive AM 32.0 sec. D 32.6 sec. D 34.7 sec. D MIDDAY 24.2 sec. C 24.6 sec. C 24.9 sec. C PM 27.6 sec. D 27.7 sec. D 28.1 sec. D East H StreetfPaseo Del Rey AM 15.2 sec. C 15.2 sec. C 15.3 sec. C MIDDAY 18.1 sec. C 18.7 sec. C 19.1 sec. C PM 17.6 sec. C 18.2 sec. C 18.6 sec. C East H Street/Paseo Ranchero AM i6.3 sec. C 16.4 sec. C 16.7 sec. C MIDDAY 14.6 sec. B 14.8 sec. B 15.1 sec. B PM 16.3 sec. C 16.6 sec. C 17.1 sec. C East H Street/Otay lakes Road AM 20.0 sec. C 20.2 sec. C 20.9 sec. C MIDDAY i9.9 sec. C 20.4 sec. C 21.I sec. C PM 20.9 sec. C 21.4 sec. C 21.5 sec. C · Baseline represents existing volumes with the balance of Roiling H/lis Ranch bnilt out to 1,137 u~its. · * Baseline + 713 Units represents an additional 713 nits of Rolling H/lis Ranch built out for a total of 1,850 units. Delay is measured in seconds. DELAY LOS LOS =Level of Service 0.0 to 5.0 A NB =Northbound 5.1 to 15.0 B 15.1 to 25.0 C 25.1 to 40.0 D 40.1 to 60.0 E > 60.0 F EAST It STREET C.4.PACITY AN.~LYSIS T.~BLE 5 PERIOD SCENARIO Existing Baseline Baseline + 713 Units Year 2004 Delay[ LOS Delay[ LOS Delay LOS DelayI LOS East H Street/llidden Vista Drive AM 32.0 sec. D 32.6 sec. D 34.7 sec. D 61.2 sec. F MIDDAY 24.2 sec. C 24.6 sec. C 24.9 sec. C 25.9 sec. D PM 27.6 sec. D 27.7 see. D 28.1 sec. D 31.1 sec. D East H StreeffPaseo Del Rey AM 15.2 sec. C 15.2 sec. C 15.3 sec. C 16.7 sec. C IvI~DAY 18.1 see. C I8.7 sec. C 19.1 sec. C 20.2 sec. C PM I7.6 sec. C 18.2 sec. C 18.6 sec. C 19.9 sec. C East H StreetfPaseo Ranehero AM 16.3 see. C 16.4 sec. C 16.7 sec. C 20.5 sec. C IvZlI)DAY 14.6 sec. B 14.8 sec. B 15.1 sec. B 15.7 sec. B PM I6.3 sec. C 16.6 sec. C 17.1 sec. C 18.1 sec. C East lrI Street/Otay lakes Road AM 20.0 sec. C 20.2 sec. C 20.9 sec. C 22.7 sec. C MIDDAY 19.9 sec. C 20.4 sec. C 21.1 sec. C 21.6 sec. C PM 20.9 sec. C 21.4 sec. C 21.6 sec. C 25.0 sec. C Delay is measured in seconds. DELAY LOS LOS = Level of Service 0.0 to 5.0 A NB = Northbound 5.1 to 15.0 B 15.1 to 25.0 C 25.1 to 40.0 D 40.1 to 60.0 E > 60.0 F ATTACHMENT ~ Mitigated Negative Declaration Mitigated Negative Declaration PROJECT N_iME: An amendment to Rolhng I-{Jib Ranch Tentative Subdivision Map 92-02 Conditions of Approval 1 and 3 of Section 7 to grant an increase in the building cap from 1,137 dwelling units to a maximum of 1,665 equivalent dwelling units CEDU's) prior to the completion of SR-125. PROJECT LOCATION: Rolling Hills Ranch, east of San Miguel Road, north and south of Proctor Valle3, Road PROJECT .kPPLIC.~NT: Pacific Bay Homes CASE NO: IS-00-05 DATE: March 30, 2000 ProiecT Setting The project site is within the 1,197-acre Rolling H/Ils Ranch (A_KA, Salt Creek Ranch) master plarmed community on the eastern urb~nivSng fringe of the CID,. The approved Sectional Planning Area plan (SPA) includes 2,095 sin~e family, 61 single family attached, and 390 multiple f~rnily dwelling units. It also includes two elementary schools, a fire station, ~,o community pul'pOse facilities, two public parks, one prfivate park, and natural open space. The project is re~onally located in the southern foothills of San MJguel Mountain, north ofEas ~tLake Business Center and northwest of Upper Otay Lake. The recently approved 738-acTe San MJguel Ranch master planned commun/ty is located immediately northwest o£the project site and the proposed State Route 125 (SR-125) toll road is planned approxknately 2 miles east. Much oft. he surrounding area is developed w/th single f~rnity homes..ks of Jauuary 1, 2000 approximately 400 homes have been constructed in Roliing Hills Ranch as a part of Phase I. Te~ain in the proj eot area consists of gently rolling hil]~ with historic a_m-icultural uses. In general, the undeveloped pordons of Rolling Hills Ranch consist of open sparsely vegetated areas with some areas disturbed by historic a~mfcultural uses, recent discing and conslraction activity. Based on the current phasing plan, if the building cap is increased the additional 528 EDU's would be constructed in portions of Nei~ffaborhoods 1, 4a, 7 a, 7b, and 8. Neighbothood 1 consists of 93.9 acres on the north side of Proctor Valley Road, west of Hume Park~'ay. NeigJaborhood 4 consists of 18.7 acres located at - .- the ~e..-ninns of Mt. M/guet Road and south of McKenzie Creek Road. Neighbothood 7a consists of 35.5 acres. Neighborhood 7b consists of 59.9 acres located on the north side of Proctor Valley Road easl of Hurtle Park-a'ay; and Neif_Caborhood 8 is 74.4 acres in size and is located urZmediately south of Neighborhoods 7a & ~ on the south side of Proctor \:alley Road, east of Hume Parkway. This Initial Study has been prepared to provide addifiorml/nformation and analysis of potential environmental impacts as a result of the proposed amendment to the Tentative Subdivision Map covered under the Salt Creek Ranch Annexation/ General Development Plan/Pre-Zone Final Environmental Impact Report ('FEIR- 89-3) and the Salt Creek Ranch Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR-91-3). The proposal is an amendment to Conditions of Approval 1 and 2 Section 7 of Tentative Subdivision Map 92-02. The condition, (identified as a mitigation measure) in FSEIR 91-3, limits development in phase I to 1,137 dwelling u.rfiJs .... prior to the consW'~ac~on of SR-125 in order to mifigaze potenfikt significan[traffic impacts at the intersection of Em~ "IF' Su-eet/Hidden Vista Drive. Specifically, Section 7, hem 1 specifies that the Public Fac/lit/es Pinancmg Plan (PFFP) shall be modified to indicate a reduction in Phase I to 1,137 un/ts. Section 7, Item 2 specifies rte sequence ofrranaportarion improvements are required To correspond to any future eastern Chula Vista Transportation Phasing Plan, as amended by final SR-t25 Financing Study (t-INWi'B, May 1993). The PFFP will be amended to reflect the increase accordingly. The proposed amendment w/Il allow Rolling Hills Ranch to increase the limit on development by 528 EDU's and initiate construction cfa portion of Phase ti for a total of 1,665 EDU's. The 528 EDU's ~511 be constructed in Neighborhoods I, 7a, 7b; and 8 in accordance '~Sth the approved Tentative SubdixSsion Map. The amendment constitutes a change in the phasing of reskienfial development and an amenclm~nt to a prexfious traffic mitigation measure and does not result in a net increase in the total numb~ of approved dwelling un/ts or density. C. Compatibility ~5th Zoning. General Plar~ and Sectional Planning .~'ea Plan The subject property is currently zoned for residential uses. Neighborhoods 1 and 7a are zoned LM, Low Medium Residential. Neighborhood 4a is M, Medium Residential and Neighborhoods 7b & 8 are zoned L, Low Residential. The General Plan designation is LM~ Low Medium Residential. The proposed project is in compliance w/th the approved Sectional Area Plan zoning desiKnations, and the General Plan D. Identification of Emfironmenta] Effects An Imfiat Study conducted by the City of Chula Vista (including an attached EmSronmental Checklist form) determined tha* the proposed project will not have a si~o'ni~cant cmvironmental effect, and the preparation of an Environmental Impact Repom wi~J noi be required. 'Fn/s/'fzitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in azcordance ~Sth Seation ]5070 of the State Cati£omia Environmental Quality (CEQA) Guidelines. 1. TP, ANSPORTATION/CIRCUI.ATION/TRAFFIC THRESHOLD STANDARD T'l~e proposal would result in the amendment to a pre~5ous mitigation measure in FSEER 91-3 (page 3-t06, Scenario 2) that was required in order to reduce traffic impacts at the int~ersection of East '%I" Street and Hidden Vista Drive to a level below significance. The mitigation measure in FSEIR 91-3 limits the mount of development in Rolling Hills Ranch to 1,137 dwelling units (Phase I) prior to the consnmcfion of SR-125. Acmording to the En_tfineering Division the basis for the requested amendment stems from the following: 1. The recent traffic studies are focused analysis which were done with actual counts for the existing conditions and ~o~¢~h rates from the various projects throughout the City based on histor/cal data and a shorter projected future year scenario analysis, whereas the prev/ons sturlies in the EIR were long range forecasts; 2. The nniform ~owth rate of development assumed over the last decade did not occur due to an economic slow do~m in the earl5' 1990's resulting in a reserve of anticipated nips on the roadways; 3. T'ne se~mmenr improvements to the Ci~'s circulation system have continued beyond those improvements anticipated in the olS~al u-a~c smd), such as the widening of Bonita road at the interchange with 1-805, Omy Lake Road and, Tole_re'apr Canyon Road; and 4. Intersection improvements to add add/tional mm-lanes and/or throu_?ga lanes to the major Intersections have also been completed, some of which are beyond what was originally anticipated to be consu'ucied at build-out at: · East '57' Street at: Hilltop Errive, Hidden \;ism DrSve, Mount Mdguel Road, Paseo Del Re>,, and Tierra Del Re>,. · Otay Lakes road at: Bonita Road_ East H Street, EastLake Parkway, and Telegraph Canyon Road. · Tele_~,~aph Canyon Road at: Medical Center Drive, Pasco Ranchero and the almost completed improvements in the v/ciniry of the 1-805 inteTchange ~Sth Halecrest Drive. To dete~-nine how much capaciW su-eet capaciD' was available on East "IF' the CiD' ' required the applicant to emer Into a 3-paro' a_m-eement xx-ith the CiD, to hire a traffic consultant to conduct a traf-fic study. Lniscort, Law and C-'reenspan Engineers (LLG) pr~ared both a segment analysis and intersection analysis. The City of Chula Vista Land Development S~fion of the Engineering Divisio. n rexSewed and concurred with the findings and conclusions of the LLG traffic smd/es (End, Sneering Division memorandum dated March 29, 2000 on file in the Planning Dixqsion). The findings and conclusion of the East "IF' Street Se~oment Analysis and Int~rsection .~atysis conducted by LLG are discussed in more detail below: East H Street Intersection .amalysis. March 2000 (Intersection Analysis) The in/tiM building cap of 1, t 37 was established based upon an inte~ection analysis. Tn~efore, a focused intersection analysis was condu:Ied lo ensure that levels of ser~'Jce al the most critical int~.ersections along East '7t" $~reet will not detehorate beyond the l/mits set by FSEIR 91-03. at the "East "H" Street Intersection Analysis Chula \;ism, California", dated March 8, 2000, to determined the available traffic capacity al four intersections of P. mst '~-I" Street These intersections were al Hidden Vista Drive, Pasco Del ReT, Pasco Ranchero, and Otay Lakes Roach The most critical location found in the study was the intersection of East "II" Street/Hidden Vista Drive. Th/s study concluded that an additional 330 EDU's (Cumulative 1,467 EDU's) can be added by the project before a cumulative impact is indicated al the subject intersection. The study further concluded that if one of the following improvements is constructed the threshold limit can be increased by another 198 EDU's in addition to the above-noted 330 EDU's (C't~mulative 1,665 EDU's): 1. Provide additional westbound thru lane at the East "H" Street/Hidden Vista Drive intersection; or 2. Ensure Olympic Partm,ay is extended eas~'ard to at least East Palomar Street. According to the Engdne~-u-ing Division the widening ofEas~ '~F' Street has not been evaluated (scheduled) for improvement and th~efore is nor consid~ed feasible at this rime. The ex-~ension of Olympic Parkway to East Palomar Strut is considered highJy feasible and is currently underway and scheduled for completion by the end of December 2001. Based on the constraints at the intersect/on of East 'fiT' Street and Hidden Vista Drive no building permits will be approved beyond an/n/rial 330 EDU's (project cumulative 1,467 EDU's) nnless one of the two improvemenB no,ed-above in the Intersection Analysis is comoleted. Mitigation: 1) Proxfded biolo~caJ mitigation is complied with, the building cap shall be increased from 1,137 dwelling un/ts to allow building permit issuance for up to 1,467 EDU's (an additional 330 EDU's) and Final Map approval up to 1,665 EDU's (an adddt/onat 528 EDU's). 2) Build/sag permits shall be ~anted beyond 1,4~7 EDU's to a maximum of 1,665 EDU's with the completion of at least one of the £ollowing improvements: a. Complete the ex'tensiun of Olympic Parkway to East Palomar Street; or b. Widen East "II" Street to provide an adddtional westbound thru lan~ at the East "H" StreetFl-Iiddcn Vista Drive intersection. East "H' Street CapaciD' Analysis 1999-2005, May 1999 (Segment .4malysis) The May 1999 report titled "EasI "H" Street Capaci~' .tmalysis 1999-2005" included cons~'r-vafive assumptions that all oth~ projects in the CiD, would also contribute fneir share of traffic to tiffs conSdor (Table .3 of Segment Analysis). The E~t '%-?' Street Capacity A.ualysis concluded that there is additional segment capacity based on the existing circulation element and the Traffic Mon/toring Program (TMP) =mfidelines :for the Earn "IF' Street corridor to allow for a maximum of 1,665 EDU's prior to the completion of SR-125-an increase of 528 EDU's beyond the in/rial 1,137 dwelling m-flu. .at this time, the construction of SR-125 is considered feasible, but not under the direct control of the City. SR-125 is currently scheduled for construction to commence later th.is year and is anticipated to open by the end of December 2003. Mitigation: 1) Final Map approval shall not exceed 1,665 EDU's w/th'out the completion of SR-125. 2. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Tr~e habitats, bioio~cal resources, and sensitive species occurring onsite have been derailed in both FEIR-89-3 and FSEIR-91-3. Final EIR-89-3 evaluated the project's approved G~neral Development Plan (GDP) and Final Subsequent EIR-91-3 addressed additional impas~s to habitats from the Sectional Planning Area (SPA) plan. Since the preparation of these enx~ironmental dom~men~, the Quino Checkerspot butterfly (Euphyd~as edita quino) has been listed as Federally Endangered (1997); the Otay mrplant (Hemizonia conjugens) has been 1/sled as State Endangered and Federally - Threatened (1998); and the burroxaing owl (Speoryto cunicularia) has been Federally listed as a Species o£ Special Concern. As a result, biolo~cal surveys were required to address these additional sensitive biolo~cal resources. ~niELIX Emironm~atal Plan~ing, Inc. was relained by the applicant to identify any additional biolo~cally sensitive resources and potential impacts to those resources (Attac. hmen~ "A", i-]]ELD[., Letters surnmmS~Sng su~wey findings, November 11, 1999, September 29, 1999 September 23,1999). These surveys covered the majority of Neighborhoods 1, 7a, 7'0, and 8. The boundaries of the survey area are identified in Attachment "B". Nei_mhborhood 4a was ~ot covered by the surveys since it was prexfiously ~adext Enxironmental Planning ~f4 and the City's biolo~st have reviewed the above-noted sun,eys. The findings of these smweys, potential impacts to biolo~cal resources, and required mitigation to reduce potential impacts to a level below siEai~cance are discussed below. NEIGHBORHOOD 1 0'2v Tarplant Surveyed Area Twenty (20) individual Otay larplants were observed in the mid-eastern portion of Neighborhood 1. The tarplants are surrounded on three sides by unconsolidated soil stockpiles and on the fourth side by a moderately ~aveled, hard packed, dirt road used to access the Otay Water District property to the north. Due to the presence of Otay tm-plant take authorization is required by the California Department offish and G~me and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Therefore, grading pvxmits and Final Map approval shall not be approved by the City until the applicant has obtained take authorization for the id~tifi ed Omy tarplants in.Nei~hborhood~ I. The remainder of the surveyed portions of Neighborhood 1 is highly disturbed by decades of farming-related activities including discing, cultivation, and cattle The soil has been amended by adding sludge as fertilizer to hnprove the land for grazing and discing typically occurs three or more times a year. According Helix, the probability of Otay tarplant occurring in the remaining surveyed portions of neighborhood 1 is very low because 1 ) no Otay un-plant was observed during surveys conducted during the plant's I3owering period (except for the 20 individual tarplunts observed in the mid- eastern porhon of Neighborhood 1); and _) tn~ long hism~, of frequent am-icultural ac.sviries i~as severely akered fine potential habitat, I/kely rendering it tmstfirable for the species. Mitigation: !) The approval ofF/hal Maps and the issuance of ~ading perm/ts for Neighborhood 1 shall not be _.granted until the applicant has obtained take authorization from the CalLforrfia Department offish and Game and the U.S. Fish and V~r/ldtife Senfice for any id~'en~fiect biolo~cal sensit/ve resource/ncluding Ora}' tm-plant. Unsur*eved Area .~ shown on Attachment "B" the 1999 Spring Survey for Otay urn-plant did not include all the areas '~5thin the boundaries of NeifhboFnood 1. According to the City's biolo~st, the unaurveyed area at the southeastern property line is kighly disturbed and has a low potential for Otay tarpla.nt. The unsurveyed area at the western property line has potential for Otay tarplant since in the past several years the City's biolo~st has obsem~ed Omy tarplunt in th/s area_ A rare plant su~,ey shall be conducted for the unsurveyed areas of Neif..hborhood 1. Mitigation: Potential impacts to Otay tarplant will be mitigated to a level below sim~ificance by the following mitigation measures: 1) .tm Otay tm'plant survey shall be conducted in the unsurveyed portions of Neif_hborhood l to dete~m~ine the presence of Otay tm-plant; and 2) -Fne approval of Final !~{aps and the issuance of ~admg permits for Neighborhood shall not be ~anted un~il the applican't has obtained take authorization from the Califorma D~,'-tmenI offish and Game and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Se~'ice for any identified bJolo~ca] sc~nsitive resource including Om3' tm-plant. Quino Checkerspot Butterfly Habitat The spriug survey for Quino habitat found that due to decades of agricultural operations and past stockpile activities, there is a low potential for Quino checkerspoI habitat ~fithin the surveyed area of Neighborhoed 1. Mi~zgarion: The following m/tigation measure will serve to reduce any potential impacts to Quino checkcrspot butterfly and Quino checkexspot habitat to below a level of significance: 1) A qnal~fied biolo~st shall be retained by the applicant to ensure that sensitive areas are not disturbed during the ~m~ading of Neighborhood 1. Unsurveyed Area The smweyed area ofNei52aborhood 1 conmin~ open, sparsely vegeuated areas, which may support modern'ate Quino checkerspot habitat. Due to the moderate potential for Quino checkerspot habitat,, the CiD, shall not authorize grading permits or Final Map approval for Nei22aborhood 1 until a survey is conducted for all areas x~ftbin tile boundaries of Neigjaborhood 1 to determine the presence of Quino checkers'pot butterfly and Qnlno chcck~pot habita~ - Mitigation: Potential impacts m Quino check,spot butterfly and Quino habitat in the unsu~,eyed portion ofNeiffEaborhood 1 will be reduced to below a level of si~o-nificance by the fol]o~dng mitigation measure: 1) Prior to the approval ofF'ha) Maps and the issuance o£ _.~ad{n$ peri.ts for Neighborhood 1 the applic~mt shall be required to conduct a protocol level survey determine the presence of Qt~no checkerspot butterfly and Qu~no checkerspot habitat. 2) In the event that biolo~cally sensitive resources including Qttino check~rspot butterfly and/or Quino checkerspot habitat is foundg the approval of F~nal Maps and the issuance of_m-ading p~mits shall not be granted until the applicant has obtained take authorization fi-om the California D~pa~tment offish and Game and the U.S. Fish and ~Vi]dlife Service. Bu~o~in~ Owl ~ne 1P99 Sprin~ sur,,ey did no~ includ~ N~hbo~ood ~. ~ applic~ ~ b~ r~qmred ~o ronduc~ a protozo] ]~w] pr~-ron~cfion s~w~y ~ N~i~bofnood 1 ~o d~t~n~ ~e ~e follo~g ~figafion me~e ~41] s~e ~o reduce pot~fi~ ~p~ to b~o~g owl to below a level of si~fic~ce: 1) ~e app~t s~ be req~ed to conduct a protocol level s~ey ofNei~borhood 1 to det;~.fine ~e presmce ofb~o~g owl ~d ~five b~o~g owl b~ows. 2) ~ ~e ev~t ~ biolo~c~y s~ifive reso~ces ~clu~g b~o~g owl ~d active b~g owl b~ows ~e fo~ ~e approv~ of F~ Maps ~d ~e issuance of ~g p~ s~ not be ~ted ~fil ~e appSc~ h~ ob~ed ~e auto--on from ~e C~o~a D~m~ent offish ~d ~e ~d ~e U.S. Fish ~d Wfl~fe S~ce. 3) A q~ed biolo~t sh~] be re. ed by ~e apphc~t to ~e ~at s~ifive ~e not ~bed d~g ~ ~a~g ofNei~borhood ~. h~IG~O~OODS 7~ 7b. and g Omv T~I~ & O~o Ch~ck~ot Sub, ever Area ~ ~e ~ey~d po~o~ ofNei~borhoo~ 7~ ~, ~d ~ ~e biolo~c~ s~eys ~d not ~fl ~e presence of ~y ~I~ Q~o check~o~ bu~y, or Q, fino h~imt. ~e ~wey~d ~e~ have been ~s~d by d~cad~s of a~c~-~ op~rafio~ ~fl p~ s~ockpi]e acfi~dfies. Du~ to ~e low po~enfi~ for Omy ~l~ ~d Qn~no ch~ff~r~o~ ~o occ~ o~y ~ ~e s~eyed po~om ofNei~bo~oo~ 7~ ~, ~d 8 ~a~g a~ b~ ~owed to occ~ ~ ~e s~,eyed ~e~ b~efl on complete ~ ~e fo~o~g ~tigafion _Mi~'i g ation : Grading shall be ~imited to the surveyed areas ~dth the £ollo~d~g mitigation measure which serve to reduce potential impacts to below a level of significance: l) A qualified biologist shall be ret~ned by the applicant to ensure that sensitive areas are not disturbed during the ?arting of Neighborhoocls 7a, 7b, and 2) Prior to the issuance of_.grading permits for the surveyed areas of Neighbor'hoods 7b, and 8 the applicant shall submit a fencing plan to the mitigation monitor for approval to protect the ~m~urveyed areas ~-om disturbance; 5) Site prepmmfion activities, specifically sm_zing ~rea operations and maintenance rows for hea~T mm:hmery shall be restricted Io the surveyed areas of Neighborhoods 7a, 7D, and 8: -') No cleanng of brash shall be allowed in the adjacent unsmweyed sensitive habitat areas (as identified in Attachment "B")ofNeighborhoods 7a, 7b, and 8 until a rare plant survey is conducted and the applicaut has obtained necessary lake authorization from the California Deparmaent offish and Game and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serciee for any id~mfified biological sensitive resource including Otay tarplant, Quino checkerspot butterfly, or Quino habitat. Unsurveyed Area As shown on Attachment 'qB", the Spring Survey for Otay tarplaut and Quino checkerspot did not cover several portions of Neighborhoods 7a, 7b, and 8. A small shyer of sparsely vegetated habitat that may support moderate Quino checkerspot habitat occurs along the eastern edge of Neighborhood 7a and 7b. Mitigation: The following mitigation measures will serve to reduce any pmential impacts To the un~urveyed portions of Neigdaborhoods 7a, 7b, and 8 to below a level of si=maificance: ]) Prior to the issuance of_minding p=mits for the masurveyed areas of Neighborhoods Tm, 7b, and 8. a rare plant survey shall be conducted for the unsurveyed areas of NeigJaborhoods 7a, 7b, and 8; and 2) In the eye, at that sensitive biolo~cal resources including Om3, tarplant, Quino - ch~ck=tspot butterfly and Quino habitat is present in the unsurveyed areas of Neighborhoods 7a, 7b, and g, _m'ading permits for the alSected areas shall not be issued until the apph:ant has obtained uxke authorization from the California Depautmenl offish ~a.nd Game and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Ser~Sce for any identified biolo~cal sensitive resource including Otay tarplant, Quino checkerspor butterfly, or Quino habitat. 3) Upon the issuance of ~m-ading permits, a qualified biolo~st shall be retained by the apphcant to ensure that sm2~sitive areas are not disturbed during the ~ading of NeigJaborhoods 7a, 7b, and 8. Bu_,7o,~Sn g Owl Surveyed Area Neighborhoods 7a, 7b and 8 were surveyed for burroadng owl burrows. The ~urvey efforts concentrated on the areas in each neigdaborhood that have the highest potential for burrows and that were not disturbed in approximately May 1999 by discing. No sign of bm-rowing owls or their burrows was observed in NeigJaborhoods 7a, 7b, and 8. 9 M~tigation : The follo~4mg mifigado~ measures shalJ serve to reduce potential impacUs to bm-rowing owl to below a level of si~m~ificance: 1) A qnmlified biologis! shall be relamed by the applicant to ensure thai sensitive areas are not dismrbM during the grating of Nei_?.hborhoods Va, 7b, amd 2) Prior to the issuance of grading p~r~mts the appheant shall submit an approved f~ncing plan to'protect the unsurveyed areas from disturbance; and 3) Site preparation activities, specifically staging area operations and maintenance rows for hea~.w machinery shall be restricted to the sm-veyed areas of Neighborhoods ?a, To, andS. Unsurveyed Area The 1999 Spring Survey Area boundary, as shown on "lB", excludes some areas to the e2st and west ofNeig_.hbothoods ?a and 7b and also excludes the most eastern portion of Neighborhood 8. Therefore, there remain~ a potential for the pres~-'nce of burrowing owl in the ~m;urveyed areas of Nei_~dnborhoods Va, To, and E. I2 order to address any potential impacts to burro~dmg owls or their bm-rows the City will not authorize ~ading in the unstop,eyed m-eas o£Ne]ghborhoods 7a. /To, and ~ until a protocol level pre- ~onstruction survey is zonducted for burrowing owl and active burrows and any necessary take authorization is obtained from the California D~partmem offish and Game and the U.S. Fish and Wildli£e Z~ri..qgation: The £ollow-h2g rrdtigafion measures shalI sen, e to reduce potential Lmpacts 'm the bm-rowing owl to below a level of 1) Prior to the issnance of grading pm-m2ts for the areas outside the bioto~cal survey boundm-y the unsurveyed portions o£ Ne~_?_hborhoods 7a, To, and 8 shall be surveyed for the pres~ce of burrowing owl and active burrowing owl burrows; 2) 12 the event that sensitive biolo~cal r~sources including burrowing owl or active burro~dng owl burrows are present in the unsurveyed areas o£Neighborhoods 7a, To, and 8, _m-ading pm-mits for the affected arezs shall not be issued until the applicant has obtained nezessary take authorization from the California b~patmem offish and Game and the U.S. Fish and Wildllfe E. Mitigation Necessary to Avoid $i~m~ifican! Effects Spec/tic project mitigation meaazr~s are re_.qinzed to reduce potential environmenral impacts identified in the Initial Study to a level below si?ificance. The mitigation measures will be made a condition of approval and shall be incorporated in the approved Mitigation Monitoring Pro_zram (Armchmcnl "C") ~0 TR.MwFIC/CIRCULATION,TRa. FFIC THRESHOLD STA_N-DA3~D 1) Provided biolo~cal mitigation is complied with, the building cap shall be increased from 1,137 dwelling umts to allow building p=~mit issnance for up to 1,467 EDU's (an additional 330 EDU's) and Final Map approval up to 1,665 EDU's (an additional 528 EDU's). 2) Building permits shall be granted beyond 1,467 EDU's to a maximum of 1,665 EDU's ~hth the completion of at least one of the following improvements: a. Complete the extension of O])mapic Park~,ay to East Palomar SWeet; or b. Widen East "IF' Street to provide au additional westbound thru lane at the East '~I" Sla-eet/Hidden Vista Drive intersection. 3) Final Map approval shall not exceed 1,665 EDU's 'ahthout the completion of SR- 125. BIOLOGIC.~L RESO127RCES 1 ) The approval of Final Maps and the issuance of ~m-ading p~'~-mits for Neig2aborhood 1 shall not be ~anted until the applicant has obtained take authorization from the Californ/a Depmtment offish and Game and the U.S. Fish and V~rildlife Sec'ice for any/de-at/fled biolo~cal sensitive resource including Om5' tarptant. 2) An Otay mrplant survey shall be conducted in the unsun, eyed portions of Neighborhood 1 to determine the presence of Otay tarplant; and 5) The approval of Final Maps and the issuance of ~m-a6.ing perm/ts for Nei~_2abor'nood 1 shall not be ~m-anted until the appl/canz has obtained take authorization fi-om the Californ/a Department offish and Game and the U.S. Fish and V~rilfllife Scar%ce for any identified biolo~cal sensitive resource including Om5, tarplmat. ~) A quahfied biologist shall be retained by the applicant t~ ensure that sensitive areas are not disturbed dur/ng the Fading of Nei~aborhood 1. 5) Pr/or to the approval of Final Maps and the issuance of grading permits for Neig2aborhood 1 the applicant shal/be required to conduct a protocol level survey to determine the presence of Quino checkerspot buttc~:fly mad Quino checkerspot habitat. 6) 5a the event that biolo~cally scmsitive resources including Quino checkers-pot butterfly and/or Qu.ino checkerspot habitat is found, the approval of Final Maps and the issuance of grading permits shall not be granted until the applicant has obtained take authorization from the California Depaxtment offish and Game and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Ser-~fce. 7) The appl/cant shall be required to condum a protocol level survey of Neighborhood 1 to det~rn',ine the pres~nce ofburro~hng owl and active bm-ro~hng oM bm-rows. 8) In the event that biologically sensitive resources including burrowing owl and active burro~dng owl burrows are foun4, the approval of Final Maps and the issuance of _.~racling perm/ts shall nol be ~m-anted until the applicanl has obtained take authorization fi.om the California D~armamt offish and Game and the U.£. Fish and Wiklli fe Set,rice. 9) A qualified biolog/st shall be retained by the applicant to ensure that sensitive areas are not disturbed during the grading of Neighborhood 1. 10) A qnMified biologist shall be retained by the apphcant to ensure that sensitive areas are not disturbed during the ~m-ading of Neighborhoods 7a, 7b, and 8. 11 ) Prior to the issuance of ~ading permits for the sunTeyed areas of Neighborhoods 7a, 7b, and 8 the applicant shall submit a fenc'mg plan to the mitigation monitor for approval to protect the unsurveyed areas from disturbance; 12) Site preparation anfiv/ties, specifically s ~ta~ug area operations and maintenance rows for heaxgr machinery shall be restricted to the surveyed areas of Neighborhoods 7a, 7b, and 8; 13)No clearing of brush shall be allowed m the adjacent nn~urveyed sensitive habitat m-cas (as id~fified in Attachrn~at 'q3")of Neighbo~oods 7a, 7b, and 8 until a rare plant survey is conducted and the apphcant has obtained necessary rake authorization from the California Department offish and Game and the U.S. Fish~ and Wildlife Service for any identified biolo~cal sensitive resource including Otay tarplant, Qu/no check~pot butterfly, or Quino habitat. 14)Prior 1o the issmmce of ~m-a5ing permits for the unsurveyed areas of Neighborhoods 7a, 7b, and 8. a rare plant sun,ey shall be conducted for the unsurveyed areas of Neifhborhoods 7a, 7b, and 8; and !5)Lu the event that sensitive biological resources including Om>, tarpla.ut, Quino checkerspot butterfly and Qumo hah/mt is present in the unsurveyed areas of NeizDaborhoods 7a, 7b, and 8, _m-ading perm/ts for the affected areas shall not be issued until the applican1 has obtained take authorization from the CaIifomia Department offish and Game and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Sendce for any identified biological sensitive resource including Otay tarplant, Qnino checkerspot butt~y, or Quiuo habitat. 16) Upon the issuance of ~ading permits, a qualified biolo~st shall be retained by the a?plicant to ensure that sensitive areas are not disturbed during the gad/ng of Neiz~b. borhoods 7a, 7b, and 8. 17) A qualified biolo~st shall be retained by the applicant to ensure that sensitive areas are not disturbed during the gradiug ofNei~aborhoods 7a, 7b, and 8; 18) Prior to the issuance of grading permits the applicaut shall submit an approved fencLug plan to protect the unsurveyed areas from disturbance; and 9) Site prepm-ation activities, sp~ificai}y snag'rog area operations and mamtenamce rows for hea~3, machineO, shall be restrJcled lo the surveyed areas of Neig. hborboods 7m 7b, and 8. 20)Prior to the issuance of ~m-admg permits for the m-cas outside the biolo~ca] smwey boundary the unsurveyed portions of Neighborhoods 7a, 7b, and 8 shal] be sm, eyed for the presence ofburrowing owl and active burroadng owl burrows; 21)In the event that sensitive biolog/cal resources including burrowing owl or active burrowing owl burrows are present in the unsurveyed areas of Neighborhoods 7a, 7b, and 8, grading peri,its for the affected areas shall not be issued until the applicant has obtained necessary take authorization from the California Department offish and Game and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. , F. Summary of Public Comments A Notice oflmtial Study was circulated on December 7, 1999 to all property owners wilhin 300-foot radius. The comment period ended on December 16, 1999. The d~pm~a~ue-nt received coin,,ents from a total of 4 property ox~mers. Three owners verbally erpressed their concerns with the additional traffic generated from the proposal prior to rte completion of SR-125 and the timing of approved amerfifies for their respective nei~_Jaborhoods. The traffic concerns were in regards to the impacts on Omy Lakes Road and Proctor Valley Road, and East %H Stre~L. One o~xmer prov/ded written comments concerning B'~ffic ~inpacts and potential safety hazard on Bonita Road. The propm'ty owner was particularly concert-ned about the current heax~ traffic volumes, which make it difficult to access Bonita Road from Dory Drive and the concera that the proposed project ~-ill exacerbate this current congestion. The proper~y o~mer requesls assurance from the re, dew board that traffic volume ~dll not /n~ease as a result of this building proje~r. Consultation 1. Lndiv/duals and Organizat/ons City of Chula Vista: Maxilim R.F. Ponseg~, Emfironmental Start Dorm, Community PlarmJng Lu/s Hemandez, Community :,nn~ Moore, Cily Attorney's Office Pegg'y McCarberg, City Attorney's Office George Kremple, City Manager's Office Frank Pdvera, Land Development, Engineering Sohaib "Alex" Al-Agra, Land Development, En~dneer/ng Cliff Swanson, Eng-ineering Ralph Leyva, Traffic Engineering' Dave Kaplan, Land Development, Engineering Samir Nuha/ly, Advance Plannin~ Wastewater Engin~ring Beverly Blessent, D~,elopment Planning Gary Wilham~, Developmenl plarmmg Rick Rosaler, Communiw Planning Doug Pen-y, Fire Marshall Richard Preuss, Police Crime Prevention Brad R~mp, Building Duane Baz?el, Advance Planning Chula Vista Elementary School District: Dr. Lowell Billings Sweetwater Union High School District: Katy Wright Applicant's Agent: Dave Gatzke, Rolling Hills Ranch l<[im Baranek, Helix Emfronmental 2. Documents Chula Vista General Plan (1989) Title 19, C-'hula Vista Municipal Code Salt Creek Ranch Annexat/onJGDP/Pre-Zone FEI[R-89-3 (1990) Salt Creek Ranch SPA FSEI[R-91-3 (1992) Salt Creek Ranch SPA Mitigation Monitoring Program Emqt H Street Capaci .ty A.ualysis 1999-2005 CLinscott, Law & Greenspan_ May 17, 1999) Bast H Street Intersection .4y~lysis (Linscort, Law & Greenspan, March 8, 2000) Results of Biolo~sal Surveys (II[ELI. X, Letters dated 11/11/99, 9/29/99, and 9/23/99) 3. In/t/al Study This emdronmental determination is based on the attached Initial Study, any comanents received on the Initial Stud5, and any comments received during the public re,flew period for this Nega~ve Declaration. The report reflects the independent judgement of the CiD, o£ Chula Vista. Further information regarding the environmental rexfiew of this projec~ is available from the Chula Vista Planning and Building Deparmaent, 276 iFourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91910. Mar/lyn'R.F. Pons~=~ EmSronme:nt Rexdew Coordinator ATTACHM]ENT "A" HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. Biological Survey Results Mesa, C4 92~1-6~52 phone (619) 462-I525 ~ ~p~t p~NNIN~ 276 ~m Av~e ~a V~ ~ 91910 Su~e~ Pot~ ~or ~y ~t ~d ~o ~e&~pm ~y m Nei~borhoo~ 2, 7 ~d 8 ~ ~e Ro~g Hills ~& ~ a point ~ ~mfi~ ~ ~e =F~ t999, ~ ~ed ~e ~jo~ cmos) ~d ~e ho~ p~t f~ ~ ~o ~ot ~y ~m~ ~e~). ~ a~ed fi~e ~m ~ ~ ~t w~e ~eyed. Two ~ ~e~, tong 13.7 am, ~t ~ ~ ~amed by ~e d~el~m~t w~e not ~eyed: l) ~ ~m w~ of ~e ~ ~ge i~ee ~d ~y Wat~ ~m road nm~orhood 7. A ~ e~t p~ ~ ~y ~t w~ noted n~ofnood ] ~d ~ ~o~ded by a ~ road ~o~fled soft ~d or,ge ~m~g. ~e excluded ~e~ ~ ~ m portion ~e N~lighted ~ ~e a~ed ~e po~ of ~ n~orhoo~ ~eyed for ~o ~ot ~v pot~ d~ ~e Sp~ 1999 ~fi~ ~ ~ ~e ~po~ ~te ~ ~e ~d 8 covmd ~ ~ ~e r~e p~t ~wey ~ve a low ~m~ ~ ~e 0mo Mbimt fl~e m d~d~ ~ a~ o~fi~ ~d p~ mo~pfle a~. ~e 13.7 m ~,eved ~ m nei~bofnoo~ 2 ~d 7 ~ve motivate potmn~ ~or q~no For ~ pm~os~ ~ Ro~g ~ ~'s ~ ~Dphmhon f~ a ~'~fic ~a~5~ p~t ~d q~o ~eys m ~ ~e~ ~t ~ve~ ~ ~eyed on Project l~mager Enclom.u-e: 1999 Spring Survey Areas cc: Dave Gatske, Pacific Bay Homes Tom Hn ff. ,,.~. September 29, 1999 · phone (61~) 462-JSY5 PLANNIN Ms. M~ Pon~ Ci~' of Ch~ Vis~ 276 4m Avenue Ch~ V~, CA 91910 ~bjec~ Pot~ for Q~iuo chef--pot b~ to oc~ m nei~borhoods 1, 7 ~d 8 on ~e Roll~ng ~s Rm~ ~oject D~ Ms. Ponse~ As re~ested, ~s le~ pro~d~s a b~ef snmmmD, of biolo~ con'boris on ~e Rolling ~s ~ ~te ~ ~ ~te to U.S. Fi~ ~d WH~e S~ce's IriSeS:s) re~to~ re~em~nm to condu~ q~o-ch~ak~rspoz bu~e~y (QCB) (~~ ~a ~) ~eys. -Parc Bay Homes proposes ~pa~ porous of n~bar~ods 1, 7, ~d 8 ~thln ~e n~ y~. The !999). W~t%~u ~e Ad~t Fo~sed S~ .~ ~s ~ gene~, xmless ~ ~e ~ ~ ~ ~o~ zo ~bor no pomn~ for ~e Q~B. A gme~ assesm~t to det~ine ~e ~te's smmb~ m 'suppo~ QCB conduced at ~y ~me of ~e y~. ~ a s~ey po~ for a site ~o ~ppo~ ~e QCB. ~e US~S ~ows for a more fo~ml QCB hmbi~t assessor m ~ conduced '~m Feb~ May 31 to dete~ine ~' s~ble ~bi~z components do occm- on s~mbie habitat does not oc~,~- on site, a ~bimt assesment ~ed m ~e USerS for zu~om~on ~m ~e USerS to w~ve QCB s~,s. ~ sub~m~ a habitat as~sm~t to ~e US~S ~ M~ of 1999 for a pa~on of Nei~barhood 7. The USerS ac~pted ~s assessmen~ ~d no focused QCB s~-s ~ m~d ~tbim ~s ~ B~ed on prexSous site s~eys, r~ of ~ a~ photo~ph, ~d ~use ~ ad~t QCB ~s obse~ed n~ ~w~ O~v Re--ok robes to ~e sou~-~u~st of ~e pr~ect ~) ~em is QCB to occ~ ~in ~e proposed mpa~ ~s of ne~borhgods 1, 7 ~d 8. The ~ea of pm~sed ~pa~ ~th~n Nei~borhood 1 majo~ ot NM~rhood 7 ~d ~ of Ne~borh~ 8 ~ a low ~t~ for ~e QCB to ~ due ~ ~e ~hc ~d on-gong a~ o~fions. A ~mm~ '~ of 0~n,':~ely v~mt~ ~bimt o~-~ong ~e ~m edge of N~6rh~d 7 ~t~mt my snpp~ mod~ QCB . : .- .~[;~. :'_ .-: . ... L~.---r ~o Marib.~ Pons-g~ S~mb-~r 2~. 1. _ _ · Ci? of Chula ye~ 2009 ~t s~ason) to v~, ~e ~n~ or ~ck of a~mp~are habi~ on si~. HQCB ~bi~t d~s o~ on ~, it ~ ~ ne~s~ to do a ~ ~t s~n of fo~s~d s~s. U you ~v~ ~y ~c~ons plc~c ~ ~ at Biolo~ Group M~ger USFWS 1999. Survey Protocol for the Endangered Quino Checkerspm Butterlby (Euphpdrz3as ,~deba ~m~/no) for the 1999 Field Season. phone (619) 462-1515 ~ ~ v~ ~ ~910 ~y ~ ~hoo& 1, 7, ~d 8. D~ 1~. Po~g~ Know ~ ~ ~eyed ~d N~hood ~ ~cov~ed ~eyed ~e ~d p~ s?w~ ~ne ~o~ of S~t ~d~ (no~ ~d sou~ of ~o~or V~ev Road, r~v~y) ~d ~e c~ p~k ~te. F~ N~hood l, ~e ~ey w~ condu~d ~ ~ ~ ~g ~ge f~ ~d ~ ac~ road. ~y T~t P~old ~ ~ ~d~ ~d ~t~ c~du~d ~ N~h~d 1 on 'May 7, t~7 Oett~ ~=Fon a~ed). He w~ed p~ ~ ov~ ~e ~ N~orhood 1 ~ ~ w~ b~,. He ~d not ~ow ~t ~ w~ not ~e w~m b~Q~ of N~orhoofi !. ~ ~ ~te, he co-~ed appro~tely 126 ~ ~ ~ May co~d ~ w~ p~ ~. N~ood I w~ n~ ~ed ~ it w~ d~oid of veg~ ~e w~t~ b~ of ~ ~ H~Ii~ ~ ~te, so ~e ~ov~d ~fiy ~ f~e. ~, ~ ~ w~ ~ ~e o~ ~ w~ n~ ~ed ~ 19~7 or ~y ~ not o~,ed ~d ~ N~h~d K~y ~ ~d~ ~v~ed, ~d pa~ed, ~ road ~d to ac~s ~e ~v Wat~ ~ (0%~) ~. ~ ~fl ~ ~ ~fl~ by ad~g slud~ ~ ~ ~ ~ove ~e n~rhoo~ 7 ~d 8 ~ve ~ ~ly ~, ~e n~-m~e vege~fion cover ~ comp~abie. o~ed d~g ~e)~ c~u~ed d~ ~ p~'s flow~ ~oda (~c~t for Debo~ ~fi~ ~%ved N~oo~ 7 ~d 8 on j~y 6, 1999 to look for a~ve ~ J~y 15) wh~ ~ ~ m~ ~ to o~e ~o~g ow~ accor~ ~ ~e ~ey ~ conc~tefl on ~ ~ ~ ~ ~rhood ~t ~ve ~e pot~ ~ ~o~ m~d ~t w~ not ~d ~ ap~o~y ~y 1999 by C~ ~eye& A~e ~g owl ~ w~ not ~o~d ~ N~orhoo~ 7 m~d S. Wi~ ~ nerve r~ ~ ~ ~e~, Parc ~y Hom~ shoed ~ ~owed to ~eyed po~ of n~rhoo~ !, 7 ~ 8. ~.__-__-- - _ ~-~ , '.. With re,rd to authorizing rake o~ the O'my tm-plant population in Neighborhvod the C/ty p~rpm-ed and cer~M~d the Salt Creek Ranch SPA ~ docu_ment (SC/q#8909272'I) in 1~v_ The biology analysis in the ]~dl{ anticipated the ?otentia] for rare plant sidles and identified a pc~tentiaIiy si~Tli~ic~nt impact i%~itig-ation in the ~e~i~ed ]~ require~ sp~ing survey~ ~or rare planm. This survey report is prepared m response to ~ adopted IViit~6on Monitoring Program ~or ff~e lvroject. There:fore, to auhhor~ tl~e tz~, the Cit~, should reqllire ~ imp]em~ngafion of a nlltigation plan to offset impac~ to the Omy mrp]ant cmused by the proposed grading. Prepm-ation and ado~don of a Ini~igafion plan would s~tL~ty any regulatory compliance needed under the Ca/ifornia ~.ndan~e~ed Spe~es Act (C3~_qA) and Native ]:']ant Protection Act (which was incorporated into the CF_SA by the State Legislature). Based on the regulations, Section 20B1 authorization ~rom abe C~H~ornia Depm-~,ent of Fish and Game or US. Fu~h and W~ali~e Service should not be required for Rolling I-7~]l= Ranch to p~oceed with the known the specie,o" (Section 208'1 0v) and (c)). The_~ore, the City can authorize the re~ova] c6 the Iist~d plant s~es ~ithc~t a take permit provided hhe developer notifies the C~H~Corrda Department of ~ and Gmne at least lO days in advance of the removal (in accordamce -a4th the Native P"mnt ProteCtion Ac~) and imlvlemen~ a plan (in accordance ~'ith the California 5andangered S_medes Act) to mi~g~te for impacts of the remco-al. Please contact me presented m this letter. Tom Biology Group ivimr~ge.r ]vlaps of surveyed azea (Y'i=~.u-es 1 and 2) Lette~ from I-larold l~5er, Dudek and Associates, *o Mar~yn Ponseggi, C-i~, of ~r,~la %r'~m, dated lviay g0, 1997. c: Klm Bm-anel~ ~ LLz Ja~ Pacific Bay Homes ATTACHMENT "B" H-ELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. BiOlogical Survey Boundaries Case No. IS-00-(}5 ENWIRON.'M~ENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1. Nme of Proponent: Pacific Bay Homes 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 3. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: 2300 Boswell Road, Suite 209 Chula Vista, CA 91914 4. Name of Proposal: An amendment to Rolling Hills Ranch Tentative Subdivision Map 92- 02 Conditions of Approval 1 and 3 of Section 7 to grant an increase in the building cap from 1,137 dwelling units to a maximum of 1,665 equivalent dwelling units (EDUs) prior to the completion of SR-125. 5. Date of Checklist: March 30, 2000 I. LA~NrD USE .4,NrD PL.4~N'N~[NG. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or [] m m [] zoning7 b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or [] 2 [] [] policies adopted by agencies with jur.;sdicrion over the project? c) Affect agricultural resources or operations [] .m D x (e.g., impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of - ~ [] ~ an established community (including a low- income or minori .ty community)? Comments: The proposal constitutes a change in development phasing and does not result in a change in general plan designation or zoning. The proposal is in conformity, with the Salt Creek Ranch General Development Plan (GDP), Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan, and the Chula Vista General Plan. Land use impacts were adequately addressed in the Salt Creek Ranch Annexation/ General Development. Plan/Pre-Zone Final Environmental Impact Report-89-3 (hereafter referred _to as FEIR-89-3) and in the Salt Creek Ranch Sectional Planning Area Final Subsequent Environmental Impact Report-91-3 (hereafter referred to as FSEIR-91-3). II. POPULATION A_NrD HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumularive!y exceed official regional or local ? population projections? b) Induce substantial growth in an area either - ~ [] ~ direcdy or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable rn rn r~ ~ housing? Comments: Growth inducing impacts were adequately addressed in FSEIR 91-3. The proposal affects the phasing of development and does not result in any additional dwelling units beyond those addressed in FEIR-89-3 and FSEIR-91-3 III. GEOPI-IYSICAL. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Unstable earth conditions or changes in r2 m m geologic substructures? b) Disruptions, displacements, compaction or ~ rn [] overcovering of the sol/? c) Change in topography or ground surface relief 2 -n ~- features? d) The destruction, covering or modification of [] r~ [] any unique geologic or physical features? e) Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils; [] D [] either on or off the site? f) Changes in deposition or erosion of beach m m m sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or s~zeam or the bed of the ocean or any bay inlet or lake? g) Exposure of people or property to geologic [] ~ rn hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mud slides, ground failure, or similar hazards? Comments: The proposed amendment to Tentative Map 92-02 does not result in an3, additional geophysical changes in that geology and soils issues were adequately addressed in FEIR-89-3. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff?. b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? c) Diszharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g.. temperature, dissoh'ed oxygen or turbidin.')? d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any [] r~ [] water body? e) Changes in currents, or the course of direction u u u of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either r~ [] [] through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? g) Altered direction or rat~ of flow of [] [~ s groundwater? h) Impacts to groundwater quality? s [] rn i) Alterations to the course or flow of flood '~ [] [] waters? j) Substantial reduction in the amount of water [] ~ _n othem,ise available for public water supplies? Comments: The proposed amendment to Tentative Map 92-02 does not result in any additional impacts to water. Water quality and hydrology were adequately addressed in FEIR 89-3 and FSEIR 91-3. V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to [] r2 ~ an existing or projected air qualin_, violation? b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? ~ rn [] c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperarure, - ra [] or cause any change in climate, either locally or regionally? d) Create objectionable odors? [] [] [] e) Create a substantial increase in stationa~' or ~ [] D non-stationary sources of air emissions or the deterioration of ambient air quality? eommellts: Tile proposal does not result in addkional impacts to air quality. Impacts to air quality impacts were adequately addressed in FEIR-89-3. Xrl. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? [] [] ~ [] b) Hazards ~o safety from design features (e.g., 2 2 2 ~ sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? c) Inadequate emergency access or access to [] rn rn m nearby uses? d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? rn rn r~ [] e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or [] [] m ~ bicyclists? f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting ~ ~ m [] alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? [] [] m h) A "large project" under the Congestion r~ [] [] [] Management Program? (An equivalent of 2400 or more average daily vehicle trips or 200 or more peak-hour vehicle trips.) Comments: The proposal would permit the development of Rolling Hills Ranch to proceed beyond the ! .157 dwelling unit cap imposed as a condition of approval on the Tentative Map. Development would be allowed to proceed to an initial 1,467 EDU's (330 additional EDU's)prior to the construction of the extension of Olympic Parkway to East Palomar Street or the widening of East "H' Street and to a maximum 1,665 EDU's (528 additional EDU's) prior to the construction of SR-125. The proposal could result in potentially significant traffic impacts to East "H" Street unless imtigation. Potential impacts and mitigation to redt!ce those impacts to a level below - significance are discussed in detail in the attached Mitigated Negative Declaration. VII. BIOLOGIC_~L RESOURCES. Would ti~e proposal resul~ in impacts to: a) Endangered, sensitive species, species of D [] [] ,n concern or species that are candidates for lisrlng? b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage [] [] m [] trees)? c) Locally designated natural communkies ~ n a n (e.g., oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian and [] r~ ~ [] vernal pool)? e) Wildlife dispersal or n'figration corridors? [] [] ~ r~ f) Affect regional habitat preservation planning [] [] [] [] efforts? Comments: The proposal could result in. potentially significant impacts to the Federally Endangered Quino Checkerspot burrer~y (Euphydryas ed/It quino), the State Endangered and Federally ?0 Taremened Omy ta~lanl (Hemizonia conjugens}, and ~o ~he Burrowin~ owl Fed¢rally lismd as a Species of Special Concern. Biological survey's were required ~o address potential significanl impacts Io these sensitive biological resources. The findings and conclusions of the recenI biological surveys and mitigation to reduce potential impacts to below a level of significance are discussed in detail in the attached Mitigated Negative Declaration. VIH. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation r~ [] [] m plans? b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and [] [] ,~ m inefficient manner? c) If the site is designated for mineral resource [] [] [] m protection, will this project impact this protection? Comments: The proposal does not result in additional impacts to energy and mineral resources. Impacts to gas. electricity, and energy were adequately addressed in FEIR-89-3. ~III. HAZARDS. Would tile proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of [] [] [] m hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: petroleum products, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? b) Possible interference with an emergency [] [] [] ~ response plan or emergency evacuation plan? c) The creation of an.3' heal~ hazard or potential : [] n ~ health hazard? d) Ex~posure of people to existing sources of [] [] ~ m potential health hazards? e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable [] m [] m brush, grass, or trees? Comments: The proposal is a request to amend the phasing of residential development and does not involve the use of hanardous substances or will not result in the exposure of the public to potential health or safety hazards. IX. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? [] [] m m b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? [] [] [] m Comments: The proposal would not result in any additional noise impacts. Noise impacts were adequately addressed FE1~-89-3 and FSEIR-91-3. ?! X. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal t~ave an effect upon, or result in a need for ne,' or altered governmenz services in any of the following a) Fire protection? r~ ~ rn [] b) Police protection? [] m n [] c) Schools? D D rn m d) Maintenance of public facilities, including [] [] D [] roads? e) Other governmental services? [] rn [] [] Comments: The proposal would not result in any additional impacts to public services other than those previously identified and addressed in FEIR-89-3 and FSEIR-91-3. [] [] [] [] 32[. Thresholds. Brtll the proposal adversely impact the Cio"s Threshold Standards? As described below, the proposed project does not adversely impact an5' of the seen Threshold Standards. a) Fire/EMS ~ [] [] t~ The Threshold Standards requires that fire and medical units must be able to respond to calls within 7 minutes or less in 85 % of the cases and within 5 minutes or less in 75 % - of the cases. Comments: The Fire Threshold Standard was adequately addressed in FEIR-89-3. b) Police [] '~ [] [] The Threshold Standards require that police units must respond to 84 % of PrioriB, t calls within 7 minutes or less and maintain an average response time to ail Priori~, 1 calls of 4.5 minutes or less. Police units must respond ro 62.10 % of Priority 2 calls within 7 minutes or less and maintain an average response time to all Priority 2 calls of 7 minutes or less. The proposed project complies with this Threshold Standard. Comments: The Police Threshold Standard was adequately addressed in FEIR-89-3. c) Traffic ~ E [] [] The Threshold Standards require that all signalized arterial segments operate at a Level of Service (LOS) "C" or better, with the exception that Level of Service (LOS) "D" ma3, occur during the peak two hours of the day. Those signalized intersections west of 1-805 which do not meet the standard above standard may continue to operate at their current 1991 LOS, but shall not worsen. No intersection may reach LOS "E" or "F" during the average weekday peak hour. Intersections of arterials with freeway ramps are exempted fi.om this Standard. The proposed project would comply with this ~nreshotd Standard. Commenls: The signalized arterial segment on East H Street From Otay Lakes Road to Hidden Vista is anticipated to function at LOS C or bener. The Hidden Vistas' East H Street, Pasco Del ReyW_.ast H Street, Pasco Ranchero/East H Street, and Otay Lakes Road/East H Street intersections are forecasted to operate at LOS C with the an additional 330 EDU's (total 1,467 EDU's). These intersections would also continue to operate within the Threshold Standard with the addition of up to 528 EDU's (total 1,665 EDU's) as long as the construction of Olympic Parkway to East Palomar Street or with the widening of East H Street are completed prior to SR-125. Olympic Parkway to East Palomar Street is anticipated to be completed by December 2001. Mitigation has been incorporated that would allow Final Map approval up to 1,665 EDU's, and would withhold building permit approval at 1,467 EDU's until either 1) Olympic Parkw~'ay to East Palomar Street is constructed or 2) an additional westbound lane on East H Street is constructed. Traffic impacts and mitigation to reduce potential traffic impacts to a level below significance is discussed in more detail in the attached Mitigated Negative Declaration under Transportation/Circulation/Traffic Threshold Standard. d) Park/Recreation ~ r~ [] ~ The T~reshold Standard for Parks and Recreation is 3 acres/I,000 population. The proposed project complies with this Threshold Standard. Comments: Parks, Recreation, and Open Space were adequately addressed in FEIR 89-3. e) Drainage _ The Threshold Standards require that storm water flows and volumes not exceed City Engineering Standards. Individual projects will provide necessary improvements consistent with the Drainage Master Plan(s) and City Engineering Standards. The proposed project complies with this Threshold Standard (,page 3-102). Comments: The Drainage Threshold Standard was adequately addressed in FEIR-89-3 and FSEIR- 91-3. f) Sewer The Threshold Standards require that sewage flows and volumes not exceed City Engineering Standards. Individual projects w~ll provide necessary improvements consistent with Sewer Master Plan(s) and City Engineering Standards. The proposed project complies with this Threshold Standard. Comments: The Sewer Threshold Standard was adequately addressed in FEIR-89-3 and FSEIR-91- 3. g) Water [] [] [] The Threshold Standards require that adequate storage, treatment, and transmission facilities are constructed concurrently with planned growth and that water quality standards are not jeopardized during grow~ and construction. Applicants may also be required to participate in whatever water conservation or fee off-set program the Ci~, of Chula Vista has in effect at the time of building permit issuance. Comments: FEIR-89-3 adequately addressed the Water Threshold Standard. XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new syriems, or substamial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? [] [] [] [] b) Communications systems? [] [] [] m c) Local or regional water treannent or rn r~ [] s~ distribution facilities? d) Sewer or septic tanks? ~ ~ r2 m e) Storm water drainage? [] r~ [] [] f) Solid waste disposal? ~ rn [] [] Comments: Increase in demand and impacts on utilities were adequately addressed in FELR-89-3 and FSEIR-91-3. 333'1. AESTI~;TICS. Would the proposal: a) Obstruct an3' scenic vista or view open to the r: [] r~ [] public or will the proposal result in the creatio~ - of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? b) Cause the destruction or modification of a [] _'2 2 m scenic route? c) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? m [] [] a d) Create added light or glare sources that could [] ,n [] [] increase the level of sky glow in an area or cause this project to fail to comply with Section 19.66.100 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, Title 197 e) Reduce an additional amount of spill light? ~ [] ~ [] Comments: The proposal would not result in any additional aesthetic impacts. Landform and aesthetic impacts were adequately addressed in FEIR-89-3 and FSEIR-91-3 XiW. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Will the proposal result in the alteration of or [] the destruction or a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? 7~ b) Will the proposal result in adverse physical or ~ D ~ aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure or object? c) Does the proposal have the potential to cause a rn tn r~ physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? d) Will the proposal restrict existing religious or r~ tn [] sacred uses within the potential impact area? e) Is the area identified on the City's General Plan r~ [] s EIR as an area of high potential for archeological resoumes? Comments: The proposal would not result in any additional impacts to Cultural Resources than those that were adequately addressed in FEIR-89-3 and SFEIR-91-3. XW. PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES. !4qll the tn rn rn [] proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of puleontological resources ? Comments: Impacts to prehistoric resources were adequately addressed in FEIR-89-3 and FSEIR- 91-3. The proposal does not result in any additional impacts to paleontological resources. XqrI. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or [] rn [] [] regional par~ or other recreational facilities? b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? [] ~ ~ tx c) Interfere with recreation parks & recreation D r~ [] [] plans or programs? Comments: Impacts to recreation were adequately addressed in FEIR-89-3. The proposal does not result in an increased demand for parks or recreational facilities. XWII. MA.N~ATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFIC.4,NCE: See Negative Declaration for ma~ffarory findings of significance. If an EIR is needed, this section should be completed. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal communiB', reduce the nu~ver or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods or California history or prehistory? Comments: Sensitive and endangered plants and anlnlals have been addressed in Section VII, Biology. Mitigation has been incorporated to reduce potential biological impacts to a level less than significant. b) Does the project have the potential to achieve [~ [] r~ [] short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? Comments: The scope and nature of the project would not result in the curtailment of any long- term environmental goals. c) Does the project have impacts that are D [] r~ individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects o£ other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) Comments: Cumulative impacts were previously addressed in Both FEIR-89-03 and FSEIR-91- 03. The proposed project does not result in any additunal cumulatve project impacts. d) Does the project have environmental effect D [] [] which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Comments: The project is a change in development phasing that results in an amendment to a previous traffic mitigation measure and therefore does not have the potential to cause substantial adverse direct or indirect effects on human beings. XIX. PROJECT REVISIONS OR MITIGATION MEASURES: The following project revisions or mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project and will be implemented during the design, construction or operation of the project: TRAFFIC/CIRCULATION/TRAFFIC THRESHOLD STANrDARD 1) Provided biological mitigation is complied with, the building cap shall be increased from 1,137 dwelling units to allow building permit issuance for up to 1,467 EDU's (an additional 330 EDU's) and Final Map approval up to 1,665 EDU's (an additional 528 EDU's). 2) Building permits shall be granted beyond 1.467 EDU's to a maximum of 1.665 EDU's with the completion of at least one of the following improvements: a. Complete the extension of Olympic Parkway to East Palomar Street; or b. Widen East "H" Street to provide an additional westbound thru lane at the East "H" Sn'eetlHidden Vista Drive intersection. 3) Final Map approval shall not exceed 1,665 EDU's without the completion of SR-125. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 1) The approval of Final Maps and the issuance of grading permits for Neighborhood 1 shall not be granted until the applicant has obtained take authorization from the California DeparUment of Fish and Game and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for any identified biological sensitive resource including Otay tarplant. 2) An Otay tarplant survey shall be conducted in the unsurveyed portions of Neighborhood I to determ/ne the presence of Otay tarplant; and 3) The approval of Final Maps and the issuance of grading permits for Neighborhood 1 shall not be granted until the applicant has obtained take authorization from the California Deparnuent of Fish and Game and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for any identified biological sensitive resource including Otay tarpiant. 4) A qualified biologist shall be retained by the applicant to ensure that sensitive areas are not disturbed during the grading of Neighborhood 1. 5) Prior to the approval of Final Maps and the issuance of grading permits for Neighborhood I the applicant shall be requked to conduct a protocol level stirvey to determine the presence of Quino cbeckerspot butterfly and Quino checkerspot habitat. 6) In the event that biologically sensitive resources including QuIno checkerspot butterfly and/or Quino checkerspot habitat is found, the approval of Final Maps and the issuance of grading pern~its shall not be granted until the applicant has obtained take authorization from the California Department offish and Game and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Scm,ice. 7) The applicant shall be required to conduct a protocol level survey of Neighborhood 1 to determine the presence of burrowing owl and active burrowing owl burrows. 8) In the event that biologically sensitive resources including burrowing owl and active burrowing owl burrows are found, the approval of Final Maps and the issuance of grading permits shall not be granted until the applicant has obtained take authorization from the California Department of Fish and Game and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 9) A qualified biologist shall be retained by the applicant to ensure that sensitive areas are not disturbed during the grading of Neighborhood 1. 10) A qualified biologist shall be retained by the applicant to ensure that sensitive areas are not disturbed during the grading of Neighborhoods 7a, 7b, and 8. 1) Prior to the issuance of grading permits for the surveyed areas of Neighborhoods 7a, 7b, and 8 the ': applicant shall submit a fencing plan to the mitigation monitor for approval to protect the ?? unsurveyed areas fi.om disturbance; 12) Site preparation activities, specifically staging area operations and maintenance rows for heavy machinery shall be restricted to the surveyed areas of Neighborhoods 7a, 7b, and 8; 13) No clearing of brash shall be allowed in the adjacent unsurveyed sensitive habitat areas (as identified in Exhibit "A" of the Mitigation Monitoring Program) of Neighborhoods 7a, 7b, and 8 until a rare plant survey is conducted and the applicant has obtained necessary take authorization from the California Department of Fish and Game and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for any identified biological sensitive resource including Otay tarplant, Quino checkerspot butterfly, or Quino habitat. 14) Prior to the issuance of grading permits for the unsurveyed areas of Neighborhoods 7a, 7b, and 8. a rare plant survey shall be conducted for the unsurveyed areas of Neighborhoods 7a, 7b, and 8; and 15) In the event that sensitive biological resources including Otay tarplant, Quino checkerspot butterfly and Quino habitat is present in the unsurveyed areas of Neighborhoods 7a, 7b, and 8, grading permits for the affected areas shall not be issued until the applicant has obtained hake authorization from the California Department of Fish and Game and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for any identified biological sensitive resource including Omy tarplant, Quino checkerspot butterfly, or Quino habitat. 16) Upon the issuance of grading perm/ts, a qualified biologist shall be retained by the applicant to ensure that sensitive areas are not disturbed during the grading o£ Neighborhoods 7a. 7b, and $. 17) A qualified biologist shall be retained by the applicant to ensure that sensitive areas are not disturbed during the grading of Neighborhoods 7a, 7b, and 8; 18) Prior to the issuance of grading permits the applicant shall submit an approved fencing plan to _ protect the un~urveyed areas from disturbance; and 19) Site preparation activities, specifically staging area operations and maintenance rows for heavy ma:hines' shall be restricted ro the sum, eyed areas of Neighborhoods 7a, 7b, and 8. 20) Prior to the issuance of grading permits for the areas outside the biological survey boundary the unsurveyed portions of Neighborhoods 7a, 7b, and 8 shall be surveyed for the presence of burrowing owl and active burrowing owl burrows; 21) In the event that sensitive biological resources including burrowing owl or active burrowing owl burrows are present in the unsurveyed areas of Neighborhoods 7a, 7b, and 8, grading permits for the affected areas shall not be issued until the applicant has obtained necessary take authorization from the California Depml~ent of Fish and Game and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Sen'ice. X.~X. AGREEMEN-f TO ISfPLEMENT MITIGATION MEASL'P~S By signing the line(s) provided below, the Applicant(s) and/or Operator(s) stipulate that they have each read, understood and have their respective company's authohty to and do agree to the mitigation measures contedned herein, and will implemem same to the satisfaction of the Envkonmentat Review Coordinator. Failure to sign the line(s) provided below prior to posting of this [Mitigated] Negative Declaration with the County Clerk shall indicate the Applicants' and/or Operator's desire that the Project be held in abeyance without approval and that Applicant(s) und/or Operator(s) shall apply for an Environmental Impact Report. Printed Name and Title of Authorized Representative of [Property Owner's Name] ~c~c~'~ ~ Si~a~e~f SuborNed Representative of Date ~rope~er's Nme] Printed Name'~nd Title of [Operator if different from Property O,xmer] 5~i~,~namre of Authorized Repr~ er~tatave of Date [Operator if different from Property Owner] -~I. ENVIRONMENT.a..L FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The em'iron_mental factors checked below would be potenrially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant tmpacr" or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated," as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. [] Land Use and p!~nning [] Transportation/Circulation [] Public Se~,ices [] Population and Housing [] Biological Resources [] Utilities and Service Systems [] G~ophysicaI [] Energy and Mineral Resources [] Aesthetics [] Water [] Hazards [] Cultural Resources [] Air Quali~ [] Noise [] Recreation [] Mandatory Findings of Significance JOUI. DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: '-'. I f-md that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the '- environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the [] environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I fred that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and [] an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I fred that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but [] at least one effect: 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant irnpacts'~ or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the [] environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier El[R, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. An addendum has been prepared to provide a record of this determination. Si=nature Dat6 Em,ironmental Review Coordinator CiD' of Chula Vista ATTACHMENT "C" MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP) ,ROLLING HILLS RANCH MASTER PLANNED COMMUNITY (IS-00-05) MMRP REQUIREMENTS The environmental analysis in Sections VI, VII, and XI(c) of Rolling Hills Ranch Environmental Checklist - IS-00-05 indicates that the proposed project, has the potential to create significant adverse impacts in relation to traffic and circulation, biological resources, and the City adopted growth management traffic threshold. A number of mitigation measures in the IS-00-05 Mitigated Negative Declaration are recommended to reduce and/or avoid the potentially significant adverse impacts of the project. These mitigation measures shall be adopted by the Chula Vista City Council, in conjunction with the adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration for IS-00-05~ Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code requires a public agency to adopt a monitoring and reporting program for assessing and ensuring the implementation of required mitigation measures applied to proposed developments. Specific reporting and/or monitoring requirements, which will be enfomed during project implementation, should be adopted coincidental to the final approval of the project by the responsible decision maker(s). In accordance with Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21081.6, the City' of Chula Vista has developed this Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMIC) for the proposed Amendment to the Rolling Hills Ranch Tentative Subdivision Map 92-02 project. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program shall be incorporated into the existing Salt Creek Ranch Mitigation Monitoring Program on file in the Planning and Building Department. The purpose of the MMRP is to ensure that the proposed development project complies with all applicable environmental mitigation and permit requirements. MONITORING PROGRAM Due to the nature of the environmental issues identified, the Mitigation Monitor shall be the Environmental Review Coordinator or her designee for the City of Chula Vista. It shall be the responsibility of the appellant to ensure that the conditions of the Mitigation Mon/toring Program are met to the satisfaction of the Environmental Review Coordinator. Evidence in written roma confirming compliance with the mitigation measures specified in Mitigated Negative Declaration No. IS-00-05 shall be provided by the biological monitor and applicant as identified in the attached Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Checklist to the Environmental Review Coordinator as stipulated by each mitigation measure. The Em,ironmental Review Coordinator will thus provide the ultimate verification that the mitigation measures have been accomplished. Table 1 lists the mitigation measures listed in Section E, Mitigation Necessary to Avoid Significant Effects, of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and which will be implemented as part of the project. In order to determine if the applicant has implemented these measures, the method and timing of verification are identified, along with the City department or agency responsible for monitoring/verifying that the applicant has completed each mitigation measure. Space for the signature of the verifying person and the date of inspection is provided in the last column. Attachment 7 Salt Creek Ranch PFFP Section 3.2.9 and 3.2.10 Strikeout = Deleted text Underlined ~'Added text TRB~FIC 3.2.9 Adequacy Analysis The adequacy of traffic is based upon a detailed study performed by Willdan Assodates, Traffic Impact Study for Salt Creek Ranch dated November 18, 1991. The following information is an excerpt fi.om that study. (1992) Throughout the traffic impact study for th/s project, a distinction is made between Ex/sting Conditions, Base Conditions, Scenario 1 and lA Conditions, and Scenario 2 Conditions. The following is a description of each condition and 'the methodology and tasks undertaken in forecasting the travel demand. (1992) 1. ~. The existing traffic and roadway conditions were established based on information obtained from the City of Chula Vista and the 1990 Growth Management Intersection Monitoring Program prepared by JHK and Associates. 2. Base Conditions. The base conditions were established based on information contained in the ECVTPP. These conditions assume construct/on of all approved developments and related roadway improvements as documenled in the ECVTPP, except for the segment of "H" Street just west of the project site, which was assum~ed to consist of a two-lane paved mad2 3. .Scenario 1 and lA Conditions. The Scenario 1 conditions assume the completion of Phase I of the Salt Creek Ranch, in addition to the base condition described above. This condition was establ/shed as follows. a. Daffy and peak hour trip generation rates for Phase I were developed based on ANDAG s Traffic Generanon Mom,o! (see Table 9.2, page 28). b. The Phase I traffic was assigned to the surrounding roadways and added to the base condition resulting in Scenario 1 tra~c volumes. The trip distribution and assignment 'of the Phase I traffic was est/mated based on the TRA,~ model software. c. After the results of the analysis indicated unmit/gable impacts at the intersection of Hidden Vista Drive/East ~I" Street, Phase I traffic and the corresponding development were reduced to establish Scenario IA. 3.2-10 ~ S~tCr~e~ch Public Facili~'es Finance Plan TRAFFIC d. It should be noted that the Circulation network assumed for Scenario 1 and Scenaho IA are different. Scenario 1 assumes that a segment of East "H" Street will remain as a dirt road while Scenario lA assumes that Proctor Valley Road wii1 remain as a two lane din mad and East "H~ Street west of the site w/Il be paved as a two lane road. 4. $cenar/o 2 Conditi~m. The Scenario 2 conditions assume the ultimate development of Salt Creek Ranch and the implementation of a four-lane at-grade roadway along the State Route 125 corridor. The methodology used to establish the projected traffic volumes for this scenario is similax to Scenario 1 above, using the total traffic generated by Salt Creek Ranch. Based on the analysis contained herein, major improvements to the surround/ng roadway networks have been identified to mitigate the traffic knpact of this project and other approved 'projects in the area and to improve ex/sting operational conditions as well These improvements include: (1992) Base Condition 1. Interconnect all traffic signals in the eastern territories and synchro- nize the signal timing to provSde a suitable progress/on for through traffic along the major circulation streets. A centraliTed computer- system should be installed to more efficiently monitor and coordinate the traffic signal operation in the eastern terr/tories and to optlmiTe the tr~f~c signal u/mings at all intersections to provide for an efficient traffic operation and reduce delays. (1992) 2. The intersect/on of Telegraph Canyon Road./EastLake Parkway will require the following improvements in order to operate at level of service (LOS) D or better during the peak hours. (1992) a. Widen the southbound approach of Eastl~ke Parkway to provide a charmelized fight tm-n lane with an acceleration lane. Restripe to allow the following lane configa~rafion: · Eastbound- two left, two through~ and two right Westbound-- two left, two through, one through/right, one right · Northbound -- two left, one througt~ and one through/right Sa//Oeek Ranch 3.2-11 Pub/fir Fa,-il~i~ Finance Plan ~ TP. AF~C Southbound-- one left, t~,o through, and one charm¢lfzed right b. Construct a driveway (w/th acceleration/deceleration lanes) along Telegraph Canyon Road west of Eas!l.ake Parkway in conjunct/on w/th the proposed shopping center in the northwest corner, in order to divert a portion of the fight mrn and left turn volumes from the southbound and eastbound approaches of this intersection, respectively. Prohibit the left turn move- ment from the driveway. 3. The intersection of East "H" Street/Hidden Vista Dr/ye w/Il require the following/mprovements in order to operate at LOS D or better during the peak hours. (1992) a. Widen the eastbound and westbound approaches of East "H" Street to provide an additional through lane in each direction. Provide the following lane corrfigurafion: Eastbound- two left, four through, and one right · Westbound- two left, three through, and one through/fight · Northbound-- one left, one left/through, and one right · Southbound- one left, one/eft/through, and one fight 4. The intersection of East "H" Sireet/Ota_v Lakes Road w/il require the following improvements to provide LOS D or better during the peak hours. (1992) ...... a. Widen the eastbound and westboun~approaches of East "H ....... -S~r~-&~t6. p-r-o~d~--an-addki0nal'-ttircmgh lane i~-~ch di~/e~d~n. · Eastbound- one left, three through, and one right Westbound-- one left, three through, and one right · Northbound- two left, two through, and a free right · Southbound-- two left, two throngh, and one fight b. Widen the northbound approach of Olay Lakes Road to provide an additional left turn lane. C-'hnnnelize the right turn move- ment c. Widen the southbound approach of Olay Lakes Road to provide an additional left turn lane. Salt TRAFFIC 5. The intersect/on of Bonita R0ad/0tav Lakes Road will require the follow/ng improvements to provide LOS D or better during the peak hours. (1992) a. Widen the westbound approach of Bonita Road to provide an additional left turn lane. Provide the following lane configura- tion: Eastbound- two through, one right Westbound- two le~ two through Northbound- two left, and one right 6. The intersection of Otay Lakes Road/Elmhurst Drive will require the following improvements to provide LOS D or better dur/ng the peak hours. (1992) a. Widen the northbound and southbound approaches of Otay Lakes Road to provide an additional through lane in each direction and daal left turns northbound. 7. Since the ADT along Otay Lakes Road exceeds the City's threshold for LOS C, three through lanes in each direction should be provided between Telegraph Canyon Road and noFth of East "H" Street. (1992) Scenario 1/Scenario lA (Phase I) 1. Reduce the development potent/al of Phase I by 120 dwelling units to attaha LOS D at the /mersectiou of Hidden Vista Drive/East "H" .............. S_~r_e_et~... _(17_92) ............ 2. Construct East "H" Street ~trough the project (Phase I boundaries) to ultimate four-lane major street standards, consistent with the City of Chula Vista design criteria. Construct a two-lane roadway connecting East "H" Street from the western limit of Phase I development to Salt Creek I to City standards. (1992) 3. Construct Hunte Parkway to ultimate four-lane major street standards through the project and offsite south to Telegraph Canyon Road, consistent with the City of Chula Vista design criteria. (1992) 4. Construct Lane Avenue as a Class II collector from East "H" Street to meet existing improvements at its current terminus in the Eastl_ake I~ t Salt C~eek t~ach 3.2-13 Pubic Facilities Finance P~n Traft'~c The follo~4ng are additional text that reflects the amendments to Section 3.2.9 and 3.2.10 of the Salt Creek Ranch PFFP: Business Park, consistent with the City of Chula Vista's design criteria. (1992} 5. At the discretion of the City Traffic Engineer, install traffic signals or bond for future installation at the following intersections: (1992} East "H' Street/Lane Avenue East "H' Street/Hunte Parkway ·Lane Avenue/Telegraph Canyon Road Hunte Parkway/Telegraph Canyon Road 6. Implement transportation demand management strategies, including provisions of transit sendce and bus stops in order to reduce the peak hour demand on the street network. (1992) 7. Provided biological mitigation in IS-00-05 is compl/ed with, the building cap shall be increased to allow building permit issuance for up to 1,467 ecmivalent dwell/rig units. 8. Building permits shall be granted beyond 1,467 EDU's to a max/mum of 1.665 EDU's with the complet/on of at least one of the follow/rig imDrovements: Complete the extension of Olympic Parkway to East Palomar Street; or Widen East "H' Street to provide an additional westbound thru-lane at the East "H' Street/ Hidden Vista Drive intersection. _ 9. No final Maps containing a Proiect cumulative total of more than 1665 EDU's shall be subiect to approval without SR-125 from Olympic Parkway to SR-54 bein~ open for public access. Seen~*io 12 (Phase I, H, and Ill amd State Route 1251 !. Implement all the measures described under Scenario 1 above. (1992) 2. Construct State Route 125 as a four-lane roadway between East "H' Street and State Route 54 with enhanced geometrics at the intersections. (1992) 3. Construct "H' Street as a four-lane major street from the western boundary of the site to the existing terminus of"H' Street. {1992} SoJt Creek Ranch 3.2-14 Public Facilities Finance Plan T~afflc 3.2.10 Thl'eshold Compl~,~ce. Threshold compliance ~1 continue to be monitored through the annual inter~ection monitoring program and the Eastern Chula Vista Transportation Phasing Plan updates. (1992) Based upon the ~-affic analysis by Linscott, Law & Greenspan (LLG) prepared for the Salt Creek project, threshold compliance is projected to be malntahued w~th implementation of the improvements identified in the 'base condition' and 'Scenazio 1~lA" of the Traffic Impact Studies datcd .~!o';cmbcr !8, !99!. (1992) May 17, 1999 and March 8, 2000. [2000) Provided biological mitigation in IS-00-05 is complied with, the building cap shall increased to allow building p~rmJt issuance for up to 1,467 equivalent dwel]mg units. Building permits shall be granted beyond 1,467 EDU's to a maximum of 1,665 EDU's w~th the completion of at least one of the following improvements: Building permits shall be granted beyond 1,467 EDU's to a maximum of 1,665 EDU's udth the completion of at least one of the following improvements: Complete the extension of 015~npic Parkway to East Palomar Street; or Widen East 'H' Sweet to provide an additional westbound ~h~-u-ta~ne at the East 'H~ Street/ Hidden Vista Drive intersection. No final Maps containing a Project cumulative total of more than 1665 EDU's shall be subject to approval ~dthout SR-I25 from Olympic Parkway to SR-54 Salt Creek Ranch 3.2-18 P~blic Facilities Finance Plan Traffic Future development within Salt Creek Ranch will be required to pay Traffic Signal Fees in accordance with Chula Vista Council Policy No. 475-01. Traffic Signal Fees, Tra_usportat/on DIF Fees, Interim Pre-125 DIF Fees and all other applicable fees shall be paid at the rate hu effect at the time the building permits are issued. (1996) Nom-DIF Streets and ~ignals The Salt Creek Ranch project contains resident/al streets and signals that, by CiD~ policy, are not el/gible for DIG credit. These streets and signals ~1 be funded by the development. (1992) Salt Creek Ranch 3.2-19 P~blic Facilities Finance Plan ATTACHMENT g Disclosure Statement THE CFi _ OF ~ VIS-FA DISCLOSURE S'I'A. -.:JMEN'T 'You are required Io file a Slalemenl o~' Dmclosure ol oar:am o~'nership or financial imer~ts, pa)vnents, or campaign comribmion.s, on all matter~ which will require di.~"retionam., amion on the pa,-I or Jhe CiD, Coun~l, Planning Commi.~Sion, and all other offi:/al bodi~. The following inform, orion musl be di.~losed: t. I..~I the names ot' all persons hamnf: a financial inleresI in the proper~f v,'hir, h is the sub.ie,:~ of lhe applic:~tion or the contract, e.g., owner, applimnt, eomramor, submmramor, material supplier. PACIFIC BAY PROPERTIES 2300 BOSWELL ROAD. SUITE CHULA VISTA, CA 91910 2. If any person' identified pursuant 1o (1) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names of all inclividua~ owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or o~ming any partnership interest in the partnership. if an3, person' identified pursuanl to (I) above is non-profit organization or a trust, lk~t the names of any person serving ~ diremor of the non-profh organization or ~ tr~lee or benefi~ary or ~rustor of the trust. 4. Have you had more than S2T50 worth of businems transacted with an)' member of the City shaft, Boar~, Commissions, Comminee~, and Counsil within the p~s~ twelve month~? h~es__ No X If yes, ple,a.~ indicate person(s): ~ 5. Pl~zse idenlih, each ~.nd evgm,, person, inciudine_ any a,,:n,~= _ emDiov.e~.s.. . consultants, or independent ¢.ontmetors who you have assigned to represent you before the City in this matter. GI~ ASARO - PACIFIC BAY HOFfES DAX.~ t:L4.M/'~R - HUNSA_F'd~R & ASSOCIATES 6. Have you and/or.your officers or a=,nB,'o" in the a~regate, contributed more than el,000 to a Coun~Imember in the curren~ or pre. ceciing elation period? Y~ No X If yes state which Counnilmember(s): additional pagem as ~-~,y) * ' * ~ Sig~atu~ of ~ntmmor/app~t P~t or B~e name of mntmmor/appBmnt CHULA VISTA Departtnent of Planning and Buildirig Date: April 28, 2000 To: The Honorable Mayor and Council From: Robert A.Leiter, Director of Planning and Building ~/~ Subject: PCS-99-06; Salt Creek Ranch Tentative Subdivision Map (ITEM #10) Enclosed are two items that were not included in the Council packet that was distributed on Thursday. One item is the Planning Commission minutes for the April 12, 2000 meeting in which they discussed this item. The second item is a letter that was received today, Friday, April 28th, relating to this item which we are including for your review. Thank you. April25,2000 St,~, Dorm Ci~ of Chula Vista Planning and Building Department 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 Dear Mr. Donn: This letter serves as written documentation of my opposition of case number PCS 9% 06. Unfortunately I wiI1 not be able to amend the hearing on May 2, but still wish to document my opposition to Pacific Bay Homes' amendment to build additional homes than proposed fi)r before the SR 125 freexvay opening. Truthfully; when my husband and I purcbased a new home at Rolling Hills Ranch in the Madison Iane section, we were concerned about being able to get to and from the freeway. I lo~vever, our sales person insisted that Pacific Bay Homes' building would not surpass the proposed amount of housing before the new freeway opened. \Ve have lived in our house for 10 months nox~; and have experienced a remarkable increase in traffic congestion since our move-in. We realize the demand for housing in San Diego is greater than the supply, but current east Chula Vista streets do not accommodate the amount of cars on the road. Pacific Bay ltomes along with a dozen other builders must be realistic about the traffic situation in east Chula Vista. Moreover, SR-125 has not been officially approved yet what if it is not? Keep in mind that we must share the road with long-term residents, and new Eastlake and Otay Ranch homeoxw~ers as xvelL Thank you for your kind consideration Sincerely, Je Rolh'h-~ t tills Ranch Homeowner 2489 EAGLE \?ALLEY DRIVE · CHULA VISTA, CA · 91914 PHONE: 619.216.8702 MINUTES OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA Council Chambers 6:00 p.m. Public Services Building Wednesday, April 12, 2000 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista ROLL CALL/MOTIONS TO EXCUSE: Present: Chair Willett, Commissioners Castaneda, Hall, Ray, Thomas, Cortes and O'Neill Staff Present: Jim Sandoval, Assistant Director of Planning and Building Elizabeth Hull, Deputy City Attorney Klm Vander Bie, Associate Planner Leilani Hines, Community Development Specialist Luis Hernandez, Senior Planner Alex AI-Agha, Senior Civil Engineer PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/SILENT PRAYER INTRODUCTORY REMARKS: Read into the record by Chair Willett ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: No public input. 3. PUBLIC HEARING: PCS 99-06; Consideration of an amendment to Conditions I and 3 of the Salt Creek Ranch Tentative Subdivision Map, Chula Vista Tract 92-02, and Section 3.2 of the Salt Creek Ranch Public Facilities Financing Plan to allow an increase in the number of dwelling units that may be built prior to SR-125 freeway opening for public access. Pacific Bay Homes. Commissioner Ray excused himself from the dais due to a previously scheduled engagement. Background: Luis Hernandez, Senior Planner, reported that Rolling Hills Ranch, a master planned community formerly known as Salt Creek Ranch consists of 1,200 acres located north of the existing Eastlake Business Center. It is accessed primarily from East H Street, with secondary access from Lane Avenue and Hunte Parkway via Otay Lakes Road. In 1990 the City Council approved the General Development Plan with 2,800 dwelling units and other support land uses which include: a) two school sites (middle and elementary schools) b) a fire station site c) two park sites (1 neighborhood and 1 community park) d) two community purpose facility sites; and e) approximately 450 acres of open space. In 1990 the City Council approved the Salt Creek Ranch SPA with basically the same land use components, minus 200 dwelling units less than the General Development Plan. Planning Commission Minutes - 2 - April 12, 2000 The adopted SPA Plan and its regulatory components (the Planned Community District Regulations and the Public Facilities Financing Plan) outline more specifically the development of the Master Planned Community and established development parameters that insure that all on-site and off-site public facilities needed to support the project are provided in conjunction or in advanced of development. The SPA requires several on-site and off-site improvements, including a facili~ connecting the project to SR-125 located to the north. The SPA limits the development of Rolling Hills Ranch to the first 1,257 dwelling units (Phase I), until SR-125 is constructed and open for public access. Subsequently, in 1992, the City Council approved the Tentative Subdivision Map for 2,616 dwelling units subject to certain conditions of approval. One of the conditions required that Phase I of the project be reduced from 1,257 to 1,137 dwelling units in order to mitigate traffic impacts identified in the traffic report prepared for the Tentative Map. The development phasing has been modified, as required by the Tentative Map conditions of approval. With the exception of the construction of SR-125, most of the public facilities prescribed in the Public Facilities Financing Plan have been completed or bonded. Presently, Rolling Hills has obtained Final Maps for the entire Phase I of the project, and has obtained 765 building permits and sold approximately 500 homes. It is important to note that due to more precise engineering of the site and the inclusion of some neighborhood amenities, Phase I has lost approximately 170 dwelling units for a total of 963 instead of 1,137 dwelling units at the end of completion of Phase I. The applicant has requested that the cap imposed on Salt Creek Ranch be deleted and that they be al lowed to proceed subject to the Growth Management threshold standards adopted for the entire eastern territory. Traffic Analysis Alex AI-Agha, Senior Civil Engineer, reported that the proposed amendment is to revised the Salt Creek Ranch Tentative Map Condition of Approval No. 1 and 3. These conditions limited the project development to 1,137 dwelling units. The proposed amendment to the Tentative Map conditions and to the related section of the Public Facilities Financing Plan will increase the development limit to 1,665 equivalent dwelling units. The traffic studies conducted in 1990 identified the project's Phase Traffic demands and recommended that the development scenarios adopted by the GDP and SPA Plan be modified to reduce the number of dwelling units that may be built prior to SR-125 opening, from 1,257 to 1,137 (reduction of 120 units). The intent of the building cap and the recommended reduction was to insure that the Level of Service (LOS) at the intersection East H Street and Hidden Vista Drive not exceed Level of Service D. Lindscott Law and Greenspan Engineers conducted two studies to determine if and how much Planning Commission Minutes - 3 - Al~ril 12, 2000 street capacity is available on East H Street. The initial study was to analyze the short-term impact of all on-going land development projects on the East H Street roadway section as defined by the City GMOC standard. The second study was to identify the impacts of the proposed amendment on various intersections along East H Street in order to ensure that the existing building cap would not be violated. The study concluded that by July 2004 with anticipated growth, East H Street will not meet the City's Traffic Monitoring Program standards. By July 2004, East H Street was forecasted to degrade to 3 hours of LOS D. Based on the anticipated growth rate, Rolling Hills Ranch would have built 1,150 EDU by July 2004. However, staff recommended development limit for the project to be at only 1,665 EDU's. The Consultant also conducted an intersection analysis on four key intersections along East H Street. The study concluded that the intersection of East H Street and Hidden Vista Drive would degrade from two peak hours of LOS D and one peak hour of LOS C to two peak hours of LOS D and one peak hour of LOS E if more than an additional 330 EDU's are added to the present 1,137 development cap without improvements. The segment and intersection analysis reports concluded that Rolling Hills Ranch development can be allowed to proceed beyond the 1,137 to 1,467 EDU's at this time without significant traffic impacts at the above mentioned intersections and segment. However, to mitigate potential impacts beyond the 1,467 EDU's and be able to increase the development to the maximum of 1,665 EDU's recommended by staff, one of the following improvements needs to be constructed and open for public access: o Provide an additional westbound thru lane at East H Street/Hidden Vista Drive intersection; or o Olympic Parkway is extended eastward to at least East Palomar Street. Mr. AI-Agha stated that is should be noted that if SR-125 is constructed from Olympic Parkway north to SR-54, the project could develop beyond the 1,665 EDU's threshold cap to accommodate project build out. Staff recommendation: 1. Based on the Initial Study, adopt the attached Mitigated Negative Declaration issued for IS-00- 05 and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program issued for this project. 2. Adopt attached Resolution PCS-99-06, recommending that the City Council approve the proposed amendments to Conditions 1 and 3 of the Salt Creek Ranch Tentative Subdivision Map and Section 3.2.9 and 3.2.10 of the Salt Creek Ranch Public Facilities Financing Plan in accordance with the findings and subject to the conditions contained in the Draft City Council Resolution. Planning Commission Minutes - 4 - April 12, 2000 Commission Discussion: Commissioner Hall question why the traffic analysis focused on traffic segments that were east of 1-805 and up H Street, excluding the west segment toward Hilltop Drive. Mr. AI-Agha responded that the scope of the study considered the project-direct impact and general cumulative impact. The critical intersections that will be directly impacted by the project are the intersections at 1-805 and East H Street and some key intersections along East H Street. Commissioner Hall further stated that he is not convinced that the traffic pattern that is now causing the blockage on East H Street has a significant percentage that is coming from Otay Ranch, and clarified that what is being discussed now is the East H Street traffic problem and the future cumulative effect of all of the other developments. Commissioner Thomas asked Mr. AI-Agha to elaborate on the Level of Service E that is contained in staff's report. Mr. AI-Agha stated that if more than 330 EDU's are added to the present 1,137 development cap without improvements, the section of East H Street, between Hidden Vista and 1-805 would be at a Level of Service E during one peak hour (AM). This is based on a look-up table standard for comparing volume on a standard street. The look up table is very conservative and is only used for initial assessment but not for actually measuring the level of service. Presently the volume on East H Street is approximately 63,000. Once you go beyond 60,000 you are in Level Of Service D. The study is predicting approximately 3,300 ADT's, therefore, at one point in the year 2004 it will get close to 77,000, which translates into a Level Of Service E. Mr. AI-Agha further clarified that there are two limits which are being recommended. The initial cap, which is 1,467 DU's and the pre-SR-125 limit, which is 1,665 DU's. The developer cannot exceed the 1,467 initial cap unless Olympic Parkway is constructed. Once Olympic Parkway is constructed, then the development can proceed to an additional 198 units and shall stop at 1,665 dwelling units until the construction of SR-125. Therefore, the limit is phased into two stages. Commississioner Thomas asked what measures has the City considered if these projections occur before the year 2004. Mr. AI-Agha responded that the Growth Management Oversight is applied fairly and equally to all developments and would stay on top of these projections. It could also recommend a moratorium be imposed. The City is conducting traffic studies on an annual basis for the years 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004 in order to avoid reaching the conditions in the year 2004 which would make a moratorium inevitable. Commissioner Thomas inquired if the City is consistent in its restrictions across the board to other developments i.e. San Miguel Ranch. Planning Commission Minutes - `5 - April 12, 2000 Mr. AI-Agha responded affirmatively i.e. for San Miguel Ranch, the development will be limited to 675 to pre-SR-125 and will likely do the same for future developments. Commissioner O'Neill stated that although the City could impose a moratorium on development, it has no control over student enrollment populations for Southwestern College and was a bit disconcerted to learn that although the traffic studies do factor in, on an aggregate basis, the traffic generated by the College, it does not, however, address the student enrollment number sfor evening classes. Jim Sandoval, Assistant Planning Director, stated that through discussions with the College on another issue, they have indicated that they are moving toward capping their enrollment and establishing satellite campuses at different sites away from the main Campus on Otay Lakes Road. Commissioner Hall inquired if the signal lights along East H Street and Telegraph Canyon Road are synchronized to allow optimum traffic flow and if so, is it included in the traffic study. Mr. AI-Agha responded that they are synchronized on both roadways. The Caltrans segment may not be in synch with the Cities system, however, they are, as well, synchronized to operate optimally with their system on their segment of the interchanges. This information was included in the traffic study. Public Hearing Opened 8:35 Dave Gatzke, 2300 Boswell Road, Suite 209, applicant, thanked staff and the Commissioner for their time in considering this proposal and gave a brief overview of the project. Mr. Gatzke indicated that they are thoroughly aware of community concerns regarding increased traffic congestion. They made a significant investment in traffic studies and have worked with staff for over a year to fully analyzing the impact of this proposal. The traffic studies do indicate that sufficient capacity exists to support this proposal and strongly urge the Planning Commission to adopt staff's recommendation. Public Hearing closed 8:50 COMMISSION DISCUSSION Commissioner Castaneda expressed concern with the myopic view on this whole issue of traffic problems on East H Street and some of the mitigation measures. The whole picture is that these are regional issues and SR-125 will need to be constructed and in service to alleviate some of the gridlock on 1-805, therefore, he does not support granting any density or increases in DU's and he does not support staff's recommendation. Chair Willett asked for clarification on the widening of East H Street/Hidden Vista Drive. Marilyn Ponseggi, Environmental Review Coordinator, stated that the Mitigated Neg Dec offers one of two alternatives for mitigation: 1) either the additional lane, or 2) the completion of Olympic Parkway from 1-80.5 to where Palomar will be extended. Planning Commission Minutes - 6 - April 12, 2000 The Mitigated Neg Dec goes on to find that the widening of East H Street is infeasible, therefore, the mitigation that is included is that prior to those additional units being allowed, Olympic Parkway would need to be opened from the Sunbow bounda~/to what will be the future Palomar intersection. Commissioner Castaneda stated he did not agree with Ms. Ponseggi's statement because before those improvements are even built, we're granting a 330 increase in units. Ms. Ponseggi responded that they can go to 330 additional units (for a total of 1,467) at this this time without any impact, and they cannot exceed 1,665 until SR-125 is opened. Mr. Al-Agha stated that it is important to note that the project won't reach the original cap of 1,137 until another year and a half from now based on their current building plan. Olympic Parkway is financed and under construction and should be completed up to east Palomar by that time. Commissioner Castaneda stated that if that's the case, why don't we allow them to build the 1,137 and then if the improvements are completed, they can build the additional 330 units PUBLIC HEARING RE-OPENED Liz Jackson stated that part of that request is due to the fact that it takes a considerable amount of time to plan and to implement infrastructure improvements prior to actually pulling a building permit. Prior to proceeding with Phase II grading for the property, their business partner would need some type of financial assurance that prior to spending 8 million dollars in improvements, there is the ability to proceed with construction in the future. While we may not actually pull the building permits, it takes approximately a year or so to mag) the project and then it takes time to construct the improvements, design the product and build the houses themselves. Ms. Jackson pointed out that Olympic Parkway is bonded for in its entirety. Public Hearing closed. Commissioner Hall stated that he does not oppose and developer or development, but is not convinced with that Olympic Parkway or any other arterial improvement is going to resolved the long-term issues and he would like to see it happen first before he approves anything more than what is already on the books. MSC (Thomas/O'Neill) (5-1-0-1) based on the Initial Study, adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration issued for IS-00-05 and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program issued for this project along with the clarification on Page 4 of the Negative Declaration to read, "ensure Olympic Parkway is extended eastward to where it intersects East Palomar Street. Motion carried with Commissioner Hall voting against it. Planning Commission Minutes - 7 - April 12, 2000 MSC (Thomas/O'Neill) (4-2-0-1) that the Planning Commission: a. Adopted Resolution PCS 99-06 recommending that the City Council approve the proposed amendments to Conditions 1 and 3 of Sal Creek Ranch Tentative Subdivision Map and Section 3.2.9 and 3.2.10 of the Salt Creek Ranch Public Facilities Financing Plan in accordance with the findings and subject to the conditions contained in the Draft City Council Resolution; b. Include the clarification on Page 4 of the Negative Declaration to read, "ensure Olympic Parkway is extended eastward to where it intersects East Palomar Street, and c. Removing the language contained in the Public Facilities Financing Plan regarding the H Street improvements. Motion carried with Commissioners Castaneda and Hall voting against. i~~ilis Banch Beundary ~ ~/~ CHUL,~ VISTA PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT ~'='~="~"~! F~CU~'~'r PACIFIC BAY HOMES  PR~ RoliingHil~s ~.~ TENTATIVE MAP AMENDMENT .o~,~ '~-'~"~'~' EXHIBIT A '" h:~Drr~Pt~nin~ r~hecto~ uis~sOO0S.c~r 01/25/D0 EXtIIBIT B Traffic Add the fonowinZ items to Scenario 1/1A (Phase I} of Section 3.2.9 Section 3.2.9 Adequacy Analysis 7. Provided biological mitigation in IS-00-05 is complied with, the bufldin§ cap shall be increased to allow building permit issuance for up to 1,467 equivalent dwelling units. 8. Building permits shall be granted beyond 1,467 EDU's to a maximum of 1,665 EDU's ~4th the completion of at least one of the following improvements: Complete the extension of Olympic Parkway to East Palomar Street; or Widen East 'H' Street to provide an additional westbound thru-lane at the East 'H' Street/Hidden Vista Drive intersection. 9. No final Maps containing a Project cumulative total of more than 1665 EDU's shall be subject to approval without SR-125 from Olympic Parkway to SR-54 being open for public access. 3.2-14 Public Facilities Finance Plan EXHIBIT B-1 Modify Section 3.2.10 of the Salt Creek R-~ch PFFP as follows: Deleted language is shown in strikeout and added l~.~o~age in u~, derlined. 3.2.10 Threshold Compliance Threshold compliance will continue to be monitored through the annual intersection monitoring program and the Eastern Chula Vista Transportation Phasing Plan updates. (1992) Based upon the traffic analysis bv Linscott, Law & Grecnspan fLLG) prepared for thc Salt Creek project, threshold compliance is projected to be maintained with implementation of the improvements identified in the 'Scenario 1 / lA' of the Tr~fSc Impact Studyi_'es__ dated ..~.~_.~. TM ..... ~'~ .~,~ ~ .....~ oa ~ {1992) May 17, 1999 and March 8, 2000. [2000) Provided bio)o~cal mlti~atJon in IS-00-0$ is complied ~4th, the buildinE cap shall increased to allow buJJdinE permit issuance for up to 1.467 equivalent dwclUn~ units. Buildin~ pernuts shal] be ~canted beyond 1,467 EDU's to a maximum of 1.665 EDU's with the completion of at least one of the fo]iowin~ i~provements: Buildin¢ permits shall be ~rantcd beyond 1,467 EDU's to a maximum of 1.665 EDU's with the completion of at least one of the fo]]ovcin¢ improvements: Complete the extension of O]%tmpic Part~-a¥ to East Palomar Street: or Widen East 'H" Street to provide an adddtJonal westbound thru-lane at thc East "H" Street/ Hidden Vista Drive intersection. No final Maps containing a Proiect cumulative total of more than 166~ EDU's shaJJ be subiect to aDproval without SR-125 from OlvmDic Parlcwav to SR-54 Salt Creek Ranch 3.2-18 Public Facilities Finance Plan ' '.- H:\HOME\PLANNING\StanD\PCS9906 Salt Creek PFFP Attachment 8 PC rpt.doc Exhibit "C' CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. Add the following new conditions to Resolution No. 16834: a) Developer, or their successors in interest, shall improve the Project Site w/th the Project as described in Tentative Subdivision Map, Chula Vista Tract 92-02, FEIR 89-03, FSEIR 91-03 and Mitigated Negative Declaration issued for tS-00-005, except as modified by this Resolution. b) Ail EDU's beyond 1,137 a=d up to 1,665 shall only be constructed in portions of Neighborhoods 1,4a, 7a, 7b and 8 as described in MND for Is- 00-05· Any changes to the above must be approved by the Director of Planning and Building, and may require additional environmental review. ~lanning) 2. Revise Condition No. I of the Salt Creek Ranch Tentative Subdivision Map, Chula Vista Tract 92-02, Resolution No. 16834 with the following language (deleted mxt is strikeout a~d new text is underline): · · ' ~; ....;-~m~ ~FFP) a) Provided that biological mitigation is complied with. the buildin~ cap shalI be increased to allow building permit issuance for up to t.467 equivalent dweltin~ un/ts. b) Buildin~ permits shall be mranted beyond 1.467 EDU's to a maximum of 1.665 EDU's with the completion of at least one of the follo~4n_o improvemems: Complete the extension of Olympic Parkway to East Palomar Street: or Widen Eas! "H" Street lo provide an additional westbound thru-lane at the East "H" Street/ Hidden Vista Drive inlersectJon. c) No final Maps containing a Project cumulative total of more than 1665 EDU's shall be subject to approval without SR-125 from Olympic Parkway to SR-54 being open for public access. _3. Revise Condition No. 3 of the Salt Creek Ranch Tentative Subdivision Map, Chula Vista Tract 92-02, Resolution No. 16834 with the following language (deleted text is strikeout and new tex~t is underline): Developer shall diligently implement, or cause the implementation of all new and remaining mitigation measures pertaining to the Proiect identified in the Final Environmental Impact Report for Salt Creek Ranch. FEIR-89- 03. FSE1R-91-03 and Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) IS-00-05. Anv such measures not satisfied bv a specific condition of this Resolution or bv the project_ desi_on shall be implemented 'to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Buildinm Mitiaaion Measures shall be monitored via the M/tiaation Monitoring, Proc, ram approved in coniunction with the FEIK SEIR and MND. Modification of the sequence of mitigation shall be at the discretion of the Dkec`tor of Plannin~ and Buildin~ should changes in the circumstances warrant such revision. H:'ZIOME'~PLA.N~rlNG,StanD~PCS 9906 CC Rpt. Exhibit C.doc RESOLUTION NO. PCS-99-06 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE AMENDMENTS TO CONDITIONS 1 AND 3 OF THE SALT CREEK RANCH TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP CHULA VISTA TRACT 92-02 AND SECTIONS 3.2 OF THE SALT CREEK RANCH PUBLIC FACILITIES FINANCE PLAN TO ALLOW AN INCREASE IN THE NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS THAT MAY BE BUILT pRIOR TO SR-125 FREEWAY OPENING FOR PUBLIC ACCESS, PACIFIC BAY HOMES. WHEREAS, duly verified application was filed with the City of Chula Vista Planning and Building Department on December 18, 1998 by Pacific Bay Homes ("Developer") requesting approval of amendments to conditions 1 and 3 of the Salt Creek Ranch Tentative Subdivision Map, Chula Vista Tract 92-02 and Sections 3.2 of the Salt Creek Ranch Public Facilities Finance Plan to allow an increase in the number of dwelling units that may be built prior to SR-125 freeway opening for public access ("Project"); and, WHEREAS, the area of land which is subject to this Resolution is commonly known as Roiling Hills Ranch, and for the purpose of general description herein consists of approximately 1,200 acres located east of the future SR-125 freeway, and north of the existing Eastlake Business Center ("Site); and, WHEREAS the Environmental Review Coordinator prepared an Initial Study and determined that, although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because mitigation measures have been incorporated and agreed to by the project proponent. A Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program were prepared: and, WHEREAS the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration was presented to the Resource Conservation Commission (RCC) on April 3, 2000. The RCC expressed concern about cumulative traffic impacts on city streets and 1-805. Discussion regarding direct project impacts focused on the intersection of "H" Street and 1-805. After extensive discussion, the RCC voted (5-0) to recommend that the Planning Commission adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration to allow the increased building cap provided the traffic mitigation is revised to require the completion of the extension of Olympic Parkway to East Palomar Sti-eet prior to the issuance of any building permits beyond the current cap; and. WHEREAS THE Planning Commission finds that the Mitigated Negative Declaration, IS- 00-05 has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista; and, WHEREAS The Planning-Commission finds that the Project impacts with respect to potential environmental impacts will be mitigated by adoption of the Mitigation Measures described in the Mitigated Negative Declaration, and contained in the Mitigation Monitoring Program; and, WHEREAS the Planning Commission having received certain evidence on April 12, 2000, as set forth in the record of its proceedings herein by reference as is set forth in full, made certain findings, as set forth in their recommending Resolution PCS-99-06 herein, and recommended to the City Council the approval of the Project based on certain terms and conditions, and, WHEREAS, the Planning Director set the time and place for a hearing on the Project, and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the city and it mailing to property owners and within 500 feet of the exterior boundaries of the property, at least 10 days prior to the hearing; and, WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as advertised, namely 6:00 p.m., April 12, 2000, in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission and said hearing was thereafter closed. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION recommends that the City Council adopt the attached Draft City Council Resolution, approving the amendment to Conditions 1 and 3 of the Salt Creek Ranch Tentative Subdivision Map, Chula Vista Tract 92-02 and Section 3.2 of the Salt Creek Ranch Public Facilities Financing Plan, in accordance with the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT a copy of this resolution be transmitted to the City Council. PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this 12 day of April, 2000, by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: John Willett, Chairperson ATTEST: Diana Vargas, Secretary : H: \H 0 MELPLANNINGLLUIS hRItR PCS-9906.PCR.wpd I Rolling Hills Ranch Boundary L~R APPLICANT: PACIFIC BAY. HOI~ES I h:\home\plannin ~hector\iui$\is0005.cdr 04/26/00 ATTACHMENT 2 ATTACI-IM'ENT 3 Figures 7 ATTACHMENT t~ Linscott, Law & Greenspan East -%I' Street Capacity Analysis 1999-2005 May 17, 1999 EAST H STREET CAPACITY ANALYSIS 1999-2005 Prepared by: ENGINEERS 1565 Hotel Circle South, Suite 310 San Diego, CA 92108 (619) 299-3090 April 14, 1999 Revised April 30, 1999 Revised May 7, 1999 Revised May 17, 1999 JB/JR 3-980861 TABLE OF CONTENTS DESCRIPTION PAGE NO. introduction ........................................................................................................................ 1 Methodology ..................................................................................................................... 1 Existing Conditions .................................................... Cumulative Projects .............................................................................................................. 5 Future Conditions ................................................................................................................. Conclusions ........................................................................................................................ 11 APPENDICES Appendix A - ADT Volumes Appendix B - Traffic Monitoring Program Data Appendix C - Rolling Hills Ranch Select Zone Assignment Appendix D - Linear Regression Plots Appendix E - Year 2004 Future Hourly Volumes by Month ENGINEERS LIST OF TABLES TABLE PAGE NO. DESCRIPTION NO. 1. East H Street ADT Volumes ........ ~ .............................................................................. 4 2. Existing East H Street TMP Average Speeds and LOS Conditions ........................... 4 3. Proposed Major Eastem Territory Projects 1999-2005 .............................................. 7 4. East H Street LOS, MPH and Hourly Volumes ................... ; .......................................... 8 5. East H Street Hourly Percentage of ADT ...................................................................... 9 6. East H Street Hourly Cumulative Volumes .................................................................. 9 7. East H Street Total Future Hourly Volumes and LOS ............................................... 10 8. Number of Homes for Rolling Hills Ranch Proposed by Year .................................. 10 LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE PAGE_ NO. DESCRIPTION' NO. i. Vicinity, Map ................................................................................................................ 2 2. City of Chula Vista TMP Analysis Segment ................................................................ 3 3. Cumulative Project Locations ..................................................................................... 6 EAST H STREET CAPACITY ANALYSIS 1999 - 2005 INTRODUCTION The following report determines if East H Street between 1-805 and the Southwestern College Entrance has additional capacity between 1999 and 2005 to accommodate additional Rolling Hills Ranch homes above an existing cap set at 1137 homes. East H Street provides a main access to 1-805 for Rolling Hills Ranch. If additional capacity is found to exist, this capacity will be translated into an equivalent number of dwelling units that may be built per year. The limits of East H Street between 1-805 and Southwestern College were based on the City of Chula Vista Traffic Monitoring Program definition. This analysis incorporated most if not all the proposed future eastern'territory residential projects as cumulative projects and assumed that Olympic Parkway and SR 125 was not constructed. This report is structured as follows: · Methodology · Existing Conditions · Cumulative Projects · Future Conditions · Conclusions The general study area is East H Street between 1-805 and the Southwestern College entrance. Figure 1 is a map showing the general location of the study area. Figure 2 shows the limits of the existing TMP analysis segn~ent. METHODOLOGY The future capacity of East H Street was determined by 1) utilizing the Traffic Monitoring Program ('TMP).flcating car technique to establish LOS thresholds, 2) creating an houdy Level of Service (LOS) "look-up table" through applying linear regression techniques to historical floating car data, 3) adding traffic year-by-year from anticipated cumulative projects, and 4) comparing the future volumes against the took up-table for possible L.OS degradations. EXISTING CONDITIONS AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES ADT volumes for East H Str(~et were obtained for past years from the City of Chula Vista and machine counts were conducted by Linscott, Law & Greenspan Engineers on January 19, 20, and 21, 1999. The ADT volume data are contained in Appendix A and are shown in Table 1. FNJ..BI~OOK PN.A SOURCE: LLG Engineers, 1998 MILE~ Figure 1 ENGINEERS ~~- IC'Aq~-'T =?.-I~' ~'i'~'t.-;-I ~_ADA~F';'¥ A. IUAIY~I~ Table 1 East H Street ADT Volumes Year 1-805 to Terra Nova Paseo Del Re)' Paseo Ranchero to 1-805 to Term Nova Drive to Paseo to Pe___~eo_ Southwestem Southwestern Drive Del Re~/ Ranchero Colle~le Co!!m~e Average 1996 60,440~ 41,600' 32,480~ 23~880~ 39~600 1997 NA NA NA NA NA 1998 63,540~ NA NA 26,520~ 45,030 1999 62,850~ 49,270z 42,660~ 32,470z 46,813 Source: ~City of Chula Vista, ZLinscott Law & Greenspan Engineers, NA: Not Available ~ata was not collected for that year) CHULA VISTA TRAFFIC MONITORING PROGRAM The Chula Vista Traffic Monitoring Program assesses the operating performance of the City's arterial street system for compliance with the Threshold Standards of the Growth Management Plan. The threshold standards specify that a Level of Service (LOS) of C or be~er, as measured by average travel speeds on the arterial, shall be maintained on all signalized arterial segments with an exception during peak hours where LOS D can occur for no more than any two hours of the day. --- Linscott, Law and Greenspan Engineers (LLG) conducted a two-day floating car speed · . study on East H Street in January 1999, westbound during the morning peak hour and eastbound during the afternoon peak hour. The floating car speed data was collected with Southwestern College in session. Collection of the floating car data was performed in the same fashion as collected by the City of Chbla Vista staff for their TMP efforts. A- sufficient amount of data was collected to maintain an 80% confidence intervaJ as per the City of Chula Vista standards. Historical City of Chula Vista TMP data sheets, new data sheets and statistical significance summaries are included in Appendix B. The 1999 conditions and historical. City of Chu a Vista TMP runs are shown below in Table 2 for East H Street. Table 2 Existing East H Street TMP Average Speeds and LOS Conditions MPH LOS MPH LOS IMPH LOS I MPH LOS~ AM Westbound (SWC - 805 NB Rarnps) 35.3 A1 32.5 B' 31.2 B' I 32.1 BZ I PM F~stbound (805 NB Ramps-SWC) 33.0 B' 30.3 B~ 28.7 B~~ 26.5 C' ~ Source: ~Based on City of Chuta Vista 'iMP Data ZBased on field data collected in January 1999 CUMULATIVE PROJECTS There are numerous projects in the eastern territories of Chula Vista, which will add traffic to the subject section for East H Street. A list of cumulative projects was assembled to include all major future residential, commercial and industrial projects planned for development between .1999 and 2005 in the eastern territories. The approximate locations of these projects are shown in Figure 3. January of 1999 was established as a baseline to coincide with the traffic count data collection. East H Street ADT volumes were collected on January 19, 20 and 2'1, '1999. All projects built and occupied prior to February .1, .1999 were assumed to be accounted for in the existing .traffic data. projects proposed afle~ February .1, .1999 were summarized as '1999'projects. This baseline helps insure that all proposed developments will be accounted for between 1999 and 2005. Cumulative project information for residential, commercial and industrial uses were obtained from the following sources: · SANDAG Master Land Use Phasing Table dated 12/1/97, · City of Chula Vista Staff, · Site Specific Developer Staff, and · Project Specific Traffic Impact Reports The SANDAG Master.Lap. d_ Use P_hasing Table (used to prepare the latest traffic studies for Eastlake Trails, San Miguel Ranch and Otay Ranch) was used to develop a- cumulative information base but was updated by obtaining the latest information from City of Chula Vista staff, site specific developer staff, and from site specific traffic impact reports. This Process provided the most up to date estimate of the total number of homes forecasted to be built between 1999 and 2005. As a factor of safety, the most conservative number of anticipated forecasted homes was used. For the forecasted-homes, an ADT volume was determined using a trip rate of 10 trips per dwelling unit for single family homes and 8 trips for multi family units. For the forecasted commercial projects, an ADT volume was based on the project size with 1200 trips/acre for sites less than 10 acres and 700 trips/acre for site greater than 10 acres. For the forecasted industrial sites, a trip rate of 4 trips per 1000 S.F. was utilized. The future cumulative volumes were assigned annually to East H Street based on SANDAG Select Zone Assignment plots, specific project traffic impact analysis, or by engineering judgement. Each assignment includes a reference source. A year 2000 select zone assignment without SR-125 and without Olympic-Parkway was performed for Rolling Hills Ranch, which forecasted that 23% of their traffic would .be assigned to East H Street. A copy showing a portion of the Select Zone Assignment for Rolling Hills Ranch is included in Appendix C. The SANDAG Select Zone Assignment used the SANDAG Master Land Use Phasing Table of 12/1/97 for all Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) inputs with the exception of Otay Ranch, which assumed the number of proposed single and multi-family units proposed by the Otay RanCh Company for their SPA One Amendment EIR. Rolling Hills Ranch had 102 homes built and occupied through February 1, 1999 and anticipates the completion and occupancy of 280 additional homes between February and December of 1999. Between 2000 and 2005, Rolling Hills Ranch anticipates to build about 350 homes per year. Therefore, between 1999 and 2005, Rolling Hills Ranch anticipates the completion of about 2380 homes being the sum of 280 homes for 1999, plus 350 homes per year between 2000 and 2005 (350'6 years = 2100). The SANDAG Master Land Use Phasing Table of 12/1/97 had a total of about 2600 homes at buildout for Rolling Hills Ranch. The cumulative projects, traffic assignments, and ADTs for eastem territory projects are shown below in Table 3. Table 3 Proposed Maior Eastern Territory Prc~ects 1999-2005 Proposed Single Multi Total Assignment ADT on Development Family Family ADT on East H East H (units) (units) Street Street Bonita Meadows~ 290 0 2,900 30%' 870 Easdake Trails' I 957 186 11,058 18%= 1,990 Fastlake III Vistas~ I 140 250 3,400 18%~ 612 Easttake III Woods' I 0 I 0 i 0 18%" 0 Otay Ranch SPA I & SPA I Wes¢ I 4,178 t 2,519 t 61,932 11%~ 6,813 Rancho Del Rey SPA I, II, and IIIz t 262 I 0 I 2,620 90%' 2.358 Salt Creek Iz I 0 t 0 ! 0 23%~ 0 Salt Creek Ranch4 (Rolling Hills Ranch) I 2,080 I 300 I 23,200 23%' 5.336 San Mi.a. uel Ranch= I 719 t 113 I 8.094 23%' 1.862 Sunbow II~ I 1,066 740 I 16,580 11%° t 1,824 14.8 Acres @ 700/AC 10,360 2%' 207 Comrnercial -- Otay" I 3.3 Acres @ 1200/AC I 3,960 1%' 40 Commercial- Rancho Del Rey~ 0.5 Acres @ 1200/AC t 600 90%' 540 Commercial- San Miguel' 7 Acres @ 1200/AC I 8,400 2%' 168 Co,mmercial - Sunbow IIz 11 Acres @ 700/AC 7,700 1%' 77 Industrial -- Eastlake~ 204,500 S.F. 818 15%' 123 .~lndusl~'aJ -_Ran_cho DelRe _ 4 Acres @ 80/AC I 320 90%' 288 Residential; Commercial and Inch~ial 1999-2005 Totals 161,942 NA 23,108 i Residential, Commercial and Industrial Avera~le per Year 23,135 NA 3,301 s,~. ~ . .?_ .... sta staff, February 1~99 ZS~NDAG Master Land Use Phasing_Table 12/1/97 L~ay ~ancn ~ I Amenoment, LLG 6/30/98 Pacific Bay Homes staff, February 1999 =San Miguel Ranch SPA Transportation Study, BRW Inc. 8/10/98, SLLG Leviton Report, ?Assignment based on knowledge of study area and engineering judgement. SAssignment from LLG Eastlake work. SAssignment obtained fi-om SANDAG select zone assignment for Rolling Hills Ranch (Appendix C). ENGINEERS Based on these assumptions, the total number of residential units assumed to be built per year between 1999 and 5)005 for all major eastern territory residential projects, based on the Imest available project-by-project data, is about 2000 units. FUTURE CONDITIONS In order to assess the future conditions, an hourly look-up table was created specifically for East H Street from historical TMP data. Next, cumulative traffic was added year-by- year to base 1999 volumes. Finally, future volumes were compared against the generated look-up table for possible LOS degradations. LOOK-UP TABLE An hourly level of service look-up table was created by applying linear regression to the historical floating car data to generate future volumes for each LOS. By utilizing linear regression, a formula can be derived that can describe the dependence of one variable on another. For example, as the volume increases on East H Street, the average travel speed and LOS will decrease. Linear regression equations were derived for the Westbound traffic as MPH = 48.4 -- O.0101*Volume and for the Eastbound traffic as MPH = 45.6 - 0.0111'Volume. Linear regression plots are included in Appendix D. The Westbound, Eastbound, total hourly volumes and respective LOS are shown below in Table 4. Table 4 East H Street LOS, MPH and Hourl~/V0iur~es MPH I >35 >28 j >_.22 j >17 <13 Westbound Hourly Volume ! 1330 t 2-020 I 2610 I ~'110 3500 Easfl3ound Hourl~/Volume [ 950 I 1590 I 2100 ! 2580 2940 Total Hourhj Volume J 2280 t 3610 j 4716 j 5690 J 6400 Source: LLG Engineers, 1999. Example calculation: LOS A for Westbound volume using MPH = 48.4 - 0.0101 Volume becomes 35 = 48.4-0.0101 Volume => -13.4 = -0.0101*Volume => Volume = 1326. As shown above in Table 4, East H Street volumes are correlated to speed and respective LOS. For example, when the hourly volume on East H Street exceeds 5690, then the LOS will decrease to LOS E. CUMULATIVE TRAFFIC Cumulative project traffic was added to East H Street in houdy segments from 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM. The houdy percentages were derived from 1999 machine counts as a percentage of ADT as shown below in Table 5. E N G I N E ~ R $ Table 5 East I~1 Street Hourly Percentage of ADT Time 1999 Volumes Percent of ADT 7:00-8:00 3440 7% 18:00-9:00 2811 6% 9:00-10:00 2371 5% 10:00-11.00 2408 5% 11:00-12:00 2920 6% 12:00-13:00 3046 7% 13:00-14:00 3008 6% 14:00-15:00 3130 7% 15:00-16:00 3514 8% 16:00-17:00 3339 7% 17:00-18:00 3430 7% 18:00-19:00 3157 7% 19:00-07:00 (remainder/ 10241 22% Total 46813 100% ' Source: LLG Engineers, 1999. Example calculation: 7:00-8:00 percentage of ADT is from 3440 / 46813 = 7%. The AD'I' of 46,813 is the overall F~st H Street average ADT from Table 1. Using the hourly percentages from Table 5, the cumulative project traffic was calculated on an hourly basis as shown in Table 6. Table 6 East H Street Hourly Cumulative Volumes Time Total Cumulative Percent Cumulative Project - ADT of ADT Hourly Volumes 7:00.8:00 7% t 231 8:00-9:00 6% I 198 9:00~10:00 I 5% I 165 10:00-11:00 5% 165 11:00-12.00 ' ' - 6% 198 12:00-13:00 7% 231 113:00-14:00 3,301 6% i 198 14:00-15:00 7% 231 15:00-16:00 8% 264 16:00-17:00 7% 231 117;00-18:00 7% 231 18':00-19:00 7% I 231 ~19 00-07:00 ~remainder) 22% t 727 Total 3.301 100% I 3,301 Source: LLG Engineers, 1999. Example calculation: 7:00-8:00 cumulative project hourly volume is from 3294 * 7% = 231. FUTURE VOLUMES The year-by-year volumes on East H Street were calculated by adding the cumulative project hourly volumes, from Table 6 above, to base 1999 volumes from 7:00 AM to -vD- 7:00 PM. These volumes and respective LOS are shown below in Table 7. The LOS is estimated based on the con'elation between volume and LOS as derived in Table 4. Table 7 East H Street Total Future Hourl~/Volumes and LOS TIME Jan 1999 End of End of End of End of End of End of End of Base 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 VOL LOS VOL LOS VOL LOS VOL LOS VOL LOS VOL LOS VOL LOS VOL LOS 7:00-8.-00 3440 B 3670 C 3900 C 4130 C 4360 C 4600 C 4830 D 5060 D 8:00-9:00 2811 B 3010 B 3210 B 3410 B 3600 C 3800 C 4000 C 4200 C 9:00-10:00 2371 B 2540 B 2700 B 2870 B 3030 B 3200 B 3360 B 3530 B 10:00-11:00 2408 B 2570 B 2740 B 2900 S 3070 B 3230 B 3400 B 3560 B 11.00-12:00 2920 B 3120 B 3320 B 3510 B 3710 C 3910 C. 4110 C 4310 C 12.00-13..00 3046 B 3280 B 3510 B 3740 C 3970 C 4200 C 4430 C 4660'C 13:00-14:00 3008 B 3210 B 3400 B 3600 C 3800 C 4000 C 4200 C 4390 C 14:00-15:00 3130 B 3360 B 3590 B 3820 C 4050 C 4290 C 4520 C 4750 D 15:00-16:00 35¥t B 3780 C 4040 C 4310 C 4570 C 4830 D 5100 D 5360 D 16:00-17:001 3339 B 3570 B 3800 C 4030 C 4260 C 4490 C 4720 D 4960 D 17.00-18:00 3430 B 3660 C 3890 C 4120 C 4350 C 4580 C 4820 D 5050 D 18.00-19:00 3157 B 3390 B 3620 C 3850 C 4080 C 4310 C 4540 C 4770 D Source: LLG Engineers, 1999. As shown above in Table 7. one hour (between 3:00-4:00 PM) is forecasted to degrade to LOS D in 2003. In 2004, four hours are forecasted to degrade to LOS D thereby malting East H Street not meet the City of Chula Vista TMP standards. The forecasted future hourly volumes are year-end volumes, Which means the volumes- will be tower during the beginning of the forecast year. East H Street was forecasted to degrade to three hours of LOS D by Juiv 2004 as shown in Appendix E. By July 2004, Roiling Hills Ranch couid have 1850 homes built as shown Jn Table 8. Table 8 Number of Homes for Rollin! HElls Ranch Proposed by Year Year Number of Homes 1999 (February- December) 280 2000 (January-- December) 350 2001/January- December) 350 2002 (January-- December) 350 2003/January-- December) 350 2004 (January - June~ 170 Total 1850 Source: LLG Engineers, 1999. As shown in Table 8, it is forecasted that Rolling Hills Ranch could have the existing cap of 1137 raised to 1850 homes.before East H Street would degrade to LOS D. This translates to about 713 additional homes above the exist!rig cap of 1137. ENGINEERS C;ONOLUSION$ The assumptions for cumulative projects assumed in this analysis can be oonsidered as conservative. The total number of residential units assumed to be built per year for all the eastern territory projects, based on project-by-project data, was about 2000 units. Oity of Ohula Vista staff indicated that ourrent absorption rates are more in the order of '1 $00 units per year. The cumulative projects included the assumption that Rolling Hills Ranch would sell f>80 homes during the remainder of 1999 and 350 homes per year from 2000 through 2005. The analysis indicates that East H Street is forecasted to operate at LOS O until 2002. In 2003, one hour is forecasted to degrade to LOS D. In ,)uly 2004, three hours are forecasted to degrade to LOS D making East H Street not meet the Oity Of Ohula Vista TMP standards. The analysis assumed that Rolling Hills Ranch would have 1850 homes built and oocupied between February 1999 and duly 2004. The cap on Rolling Hills Ranch ¢an be raised to 1850 homes before SR 125 would be needed. 8B1 report.~oc ATTACHMENT Linscott, Law & Greenspan East ~-I' Street Intersection Analysis Chula Vista, CA March 8, 2000 EAST H STREET INTERSECTION ANALYSIS CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA Prepared for: CITY OF CHULA VISTA 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 Prepared b?: - E N G I N E E R S 1565 Hotel Circle South, Suite 310 San Diego, CA 92108 (619) 299-3090 March 8, 2000 JB/NP/ja 3-000955 EAST H STREET INTERSECTION ANALYSIS CHULA VISTA~ CALIFORNIA INTRODUCTION Linscott, Law & Greenspan Engineers (LLG) completed a traffic analysis of the East H Street corridor between 1-805 and the Southwestern College Entrance to determine approximately when Traffic Monitoring Program (TMP) standards would be exceeded and to also determine the approximate maximum number of homes in Rolling Hills Ranch that could be built prior to the completion of SR 125. The results of the segment study indicated that a cap of 1850 homes should be placed on Rolling Hills Rar~ch based on a 2004 ~failure" year for East H Street. Subsequent to that report, the City of Chula Vista has requested a similar analysis of the intersections along East H Street. This analysis addresses the following four intersections, which are the abusiest" (non-interchange) intersections along East H Street between 1-805 and Otay Lakes Road. · East H Street/Hidden Vista Drive · East H Street/Paseo Del Roy · East H Street/Paseo Ranchero · East H Street/Otay Lakes Road -his report is structured as follows: · Methodology; · Existing conditions; · Baseline conditions; · Raising cap from 1,137 to 1,850 units; · Cumulative analysis; · Ramp meter assessment; and · Conclusions METHODOLOGY Since the East H Street seqment analysis {LLG traffic study dated May 1999 indicated that the unit cap could be raised from 1,137 units to 1,850 units, this intersection analysis assesses whether or not the intersections along East H Street would operate at adequate Level of Service (LOS D or better) with this additional 713 units. Since the Rolling Hills Ranch project is not yet built out to 1,137 units (about 400 are currently built), the first step was to add the existing balance of Rolling Hills Ranch units (737 units) onto the street system. This was termed the "baseline" scenario. As a second step, traffic from the additional 713 units (1,137 to 1,850 units) was then added to the baseline condition to determine ff adequate intersection LOS would be maintained. Finally,-since there are several "cumulative" projects (as listed below) which will add traffic to East H Street in the next few years, an approximate year was determined for when the intersection LOS D standard would be exceeded with the addition of all cumulative project traffic. A list of cumulative projects planned for development between 1999 and 2005 in the eastern territories was assembled as part the East H Street Segment Capacity Analysis. This list includes all major future residential, commercial and industrial projects as shown below. · Bonita Meadows · Eastlake Trails · Eastiake III Vistas · Eastlake III Woods · Otay Ranch SPA I and SPA I West · Rancho Del Rey SPA I, II, and III · Salt Creekl · Salt Creek Ranch (Rolling Hills Ranch) · San Miguel Ranch/Vista Mother Miguel * Sunbow Il · Commercial- East Lake Vistas · CommerciaI--Otay · Commercial- Rancho Del Roy · Commercial-San Miguel · CommerciaI-Sunbow II · Industrial- Eastlake · Industrial-Rancho Del Rey The intersection operations were analyzed by determining the average delay per vehicle entering the intersection. The delay was determined using a computer program which utilized the methodology found in Chapter 9 of the 1994 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). The delay values (seconds) were qualified by giving a Level of Service (LOS) or "Grade, to the intersection. ENGINEERS EXISTING CONDITIONS AM, Midday and PM Peak hour volumes for the key intersections were collected by Linscott, Law & Greenspan Engineers in January and December of 1999. The manual count sheets are included in Appendix A. The peak hour volumes were collected with Southwestern College in session. Figure I shows the existing traffic volumes for AM, Midday, and PM periods. Figure 2 shows the existing intersection lane configurations. Table 1 shows that LOS D or better operations is'calculated at each of the four intersections during the three time periods under existing conditions. Appendix B includes the LOS calculations. BASELINE CONDITIONS The "baseline" scenario was determined by adding the remaining Rolling Hills Ranch unit traffic up to the current 1,137 unit cap (about 737 units) onto existing conditions. Table 2 shows that LOS D or better intersection operations is maintained during each time period. Figure 3 shows the baseline traffic volumes. RAISING CAP FROM 1,137 UNITS TO 1,850 UNITS ~'~' The East H Street seqment analysis indicated that the unit cap could be raised from "~i ~ ~;/ 1,137 units to 1,850 units. The addition of 713 Rolling Hills Ranch units equates to 92 . ;..,'~-...~:,,~ ~ direction trips on East H Street, as shown in Table 3. Figure 4 shows-t'n-~- · assignment o~ Ranch unit traffic. Figure 5 shows the basetine plu-s "~'~/,~ 713 Rolling Hills Ranch units traffic volumes. Table 4 shows the results of adding 713 '~'~-' ' Rolling Hills Ranch units to the baseline conditions. This table shows that LOS D or · ¥~'~ ~_ - 5e~e~ operations-iS rna. intaineo~during each-time p~riod~' CUMULATIVE ANALYSIS As previously discussed, there are several other "cumulative" projects which will add traffic to East H Street in the next few years. Based on projections for these projects, it was determined that the East H Street segment would fail to meet TMP standards some ;time within the Year 2004. Therefore, the key intersections along East H Street were analyzed with the addition of four years of cumulative project, traffic (including Rolling Hills Ranch traffic). Future intersection volumes were forecasted from existing counts by adding trips generated from the cumulative projects to the eastbound and westbound through movements and factoring up all other turning movements by 1% per year to account for background growth. The East H Street Capacity Analysis Study documented the AM, Midday, and PM peak periods to each have 231-trips added to East H Street from the cumulative projects. These 231 vehicle trips were divided into eastbound and westbound trips based on directional splits from 24-hour tube counts. The forecasted intersection movement volumes for 2004 are included in Figure $. Table 4 shows the results of this analysis. This table shows that LOS D or better operations are o~loutmed m each intersection with the exception of the East H StreetJHidden Vista Drive intersection during the AM peak period where LOS F is o~loulmed. In order to maintain LOS D or better operations m this intersection, one of three mitig~ion measures would be necessary. 1) Provide an additional westbound thru lane at the East H street/Hidden Vista Drive intersection] or 2) Ensure Olympic Parkway is extended eastward to at least East Palomar street~ or 3) Ensure SR 125 is constructed. The provision of an additional westbound thru lane at the East H Street/Hidden Vista Drive intersection would mitigate impacts at this intersection by providing additional capacity in the westbound direction, the peak direction in the morning. The extension of Olympic Parkway will enable commuters to divert from East H Street · and Telegraph Canyon Road to Olympic Parkway, thereby decreasing through traffic on East H Street at the Hidden Vista Drive intersection. This extension would serve to mitigate East H Street/HFdd~n Vista Drive intersection impacts. The provision of SR 125 would substantially, decrease traffic on East H Street, thereby mitigating- impacts at the East H Street/Hidden-Vista Drive interSection. It is desired to ascertain at what point in time the East H Street/Hidden Vista Drive intersection will degrade to LOS E. In order to determine this, the total traffic from the Rolling Hills Ranch project and the other cumulative projects was forecasted on an annual basis and assigned to East H Street. Appendix C (Table A-l) shows the detailed calculations. The annual traffic volumes were first assigned to eastbound and westbound East H Street and then added to the baseline traffic volumes to obtain yearly peak hour volumes. Appendix C (Table A-2) shows the peak hour turning movement volumes at the East H Street/Hidden Vista Ddve intersection. Peak hour analysis at the East H Street/Hidden Vista Drive intersection indicates that this intersection deteriorates from LOS D to LOS E in about 2002. This corresponds to about 330 Rolling Hills Ranch units. Therefore, the cap on Rolling Hills Ranch could be raised from 1,137 units to 1,467 units at which time one of the three mitigation measures listed above would need to be implemented. At this time the cap could be raised to 1,850 units. RAMP METER ASSESSMENT According to a letter from Caltrans to the City of Chula Vista dated November 19, 1999; Caltrans plans to install ramp meters at several locations along 1-805 in 2001, including the westbound to northbound on-ramp at East H Street. Caitrans states that the metedng rate will be approximately 1,450 vehicles per hour, 85% of the current AM peak hour demand of about 1,700 vehicles per hour. The westbound to northbound on- ramp is a one lane ramp which may be widened for an HOV lane. Assuming the AM peak hour volume on this ramp increases by 2% by Year 2001 to 1,730 vehicles per hour, the following delay and queue calculations would result. Demand = 1,730 vehicles/hour Rate = 1,450 vehicles/hour Excess Demand = 280 vehicles/hour Average delay = 280 x 60 minutes = 11.6 minutes 1,450 hour Average queue = 280 vehicles x 25 feet = 7,000 feet vehicle The above calculations assume an HOV ramp lane is not provided. The distance on the ramp between the approximate placement of the ramp meter and East H Street is approximately 800 feet. The distance between- the northbound on-ramp and Hidden Vista Drive is about 1,400 feet. Therefore, based on the above assumptions, the queue 1rom ~h_b_ r_a_mp_i meter would extend past the East H Street/Hidden Vista Drive intersection and will negatively impact operations on East H Street. If in fact a 7,000 foot queue did develop, the queue would extend eastward from 1-805 to approximately halfway between Del Ray Boulevard and Paseo Del Ray. However, it should be noted that the impact of the installation of ramp meters by Caltrans is not a project impact. CONCLUSIONS the following four "key" intersections along East H Street were analyzed in this report. · East H Street/Hidden Vista Drive · East H Street/Paseo Del Rey · East H Street/Paseo Ranchero · East H Stree;t/Otay Lakes Road The analysis indicated that adequate intersection operations could be maintained with the addition of Rolling Hills Ranch traffic only assuming a raise in the Rolling Hills 5 [ N G I N F E R $ Ranch cap trom 1,137 units to 1,850 units (92 AM peak hour westbound trips). However, with the addition of all cumulative project traffic, mitigation would be necessary at the East H Street/Hidden Vista Drive intersection. One of three measures would be necessary. 1) Provide an additional westbound thru lane at the East H Street/Hidden Vista Drive intersection; or 2) Ensure Olympic Parkway is extended eastward to at least East Palomar Street; or 3) Ensure SR 125 is constructed. The analysis shows that the cap on Rolling Hills Ranch units could be raised to 1,467 units with no mitigation. One of the three mitigation measures listed above would need to be implemented before the 1,467 unit cap could be exceeded. At this time, the cap could be raised to 1,850 units. There are many assumptions that need to be made in this type of analysis, including the distribution of Rolling Hills Ranch and cumulative project traffic, the timing of cumulative projects and the future ramp meter rates. For this reason, a 10% "factor of safety" could be applied to the ultimate 1,850 unit cap, resulting in an overall cap of 1,665 units. Based on assumptions provided by Caltrans, it is possible that the installation of a ram~ meter on the westbound to northbound on-ramp will result in traffic queues extending past Hidden Vista Drive, thereby negatively impacting East H Street operations. 955.doc EAST H STREET CAPACITY A-N.~LYSIS TA3~LE 1 z EXISTING ANALYSIS PERIOD SCENARIO Existing Delay I LOS East H Street/ltidden Vista Drive AM 32.0 sec. D MIDDAY 24.2 sec. C PM 27.6 sec. D East H Strc, c~JPaseo DM Rey AM 15.2 sec. C MIDDAY~ 18.1 sec. C PM 17.6 sec. C E~t H StrecffPaseo l~nchero AM 16.3 sec. C MIDDAY 14.6 sec. B PM 16.3 sec. C East H Street/Otay lakes Road ,~vI 20.0 sec. C MIDDAY 19.9 sec. C PM 20.9 sec. C Delay is meam.u'ed in seconds. LOS = Level of Sc~rvice NtB = Northbound DELAY LOS 0.0 to 5.0 A 5.1 to 15.0 B i5.1 to 25.0 C 25.1 to 40.0 D 40.1 to 60.0 E > 60.0 F EAST H STREET CAPAC'I fY ANALYSIS TABLE 2 PERIOD S(~ARIO Existing B~seline* DelayI LOS Delay[ LOS East H Street/Hidden Vista Drive AM 32.0 sec. D 32.6 sec. D /vHDDAY 24.2 sec. C 24.6 $~c. C PM 'l 27.6 sec. D 27.7 sec. D East H Street/Paseo Del Rey A_M 15.2 sec. C 15.2 sec. C /v~DDAY 18.l sec. C 18.7 sec. C PM 17.6 sec. C 18.2 sec. C East H StreetfPaseo Ranchero AM 16.3 sec. C 16.4 sec. C ivlIDDAY 14.6 sec. B 14.8 sec. B PM 16.3 sec. C 15.6 sec. C East H Street/Otay lakes Road - AM 20.0 sec. C 20.2 sec. ' C M]I)DAY 19.9 sec. C 20.4 sec. C PM 20.9 sec. C 21.4 sec. C * Baseline represents eX~nn£ volumes with the balance of Rollln£ Hills P,~nch built out to 1,137 units. Delay is measured in seconds. LOS = Level of Service NB = Northbound DELAY LOS 0.0 to 5.0 A 5.1 to 15.0 B 15.1 to 25.0 C 25.1 to 40.0 D 40.1 to 60.0 E > 60.0 F TABLE 3 GENERATION/DISTR.[BUTiON OF 713 ADT = 7130 (713 Unlts* I 0 ADTFUrtit) Additional ADT on "Ir' Street = 1640 (23% vtili~e East "IT' Strut per prior Traffic Study) PERIOD PERCENT PEAK HOUR SPL1T OF ADT TRIPS PERCENT TRIPS EB I Vv'B EB [ WB ~ 8% 131 0.30 0.70 39 92 Midday 7% 115 0.52 ~.48 60 55 PM 10~ 164 0.70 0.30 115 49 Source: SA_NDAG. EB = Eastbound V,~ = Westbound EAST H STREET CAPAL:I 1 Y A-NAJ~YSIS TABLE 4 PERIOD SCENARIO l~.ri*fing Baseline * Baseline + 713 Units Delay[ LOS Delay[ LOS Delay[ LOS East H StreegHidden V'~ta Drive AM 32.0 sec. D 32.6 sec. D 34.7 sec. D MIDDAY 24.2 see. C 24.6 sec. C 24.9 sec. C PM 27.6 sec. D 27.7 s~c. D 28.1 sec. D East H Stree~rPaseo Del Re3, AM 15.2 sec. C 15.2 sec. C 15.3 sec. C MIDDAY 18.1 sec. C 18.7 sec. C 19.1 sec. C PM 17.6 sec. C 18.2 see. C 18.6 sec. C East H Street/Paseo Ranchero AM 16.3 sec. C 16.4 sec. C 16.7 sec. C MIDDAY 14.6 sec. B 14.8 sec. B 15.1 sec. B PM 16.3 sec. C 16.6 sec. C I7.1 sec. C East H Street/Otay lakes Road AM 20.0 sec. C 20.2 sec. C 20.9 sec. C MIDDAY I9.9 sec. C 20.4 sec. C 21.1 sec. C PM 20.9 sec. C 21.4 sec. C 21.5 sec. C · Baseline zepresenm existing volumes with the balance of Ro)li~£ Hills Ranch built out to 1,137 units. · * Baseline + 713 Units represents an add/fiona~ 713 uits of Kolli~E HilJs Ranch built out for a total of 1,850 umts. Delay is meastu'ed in seconds. DELAY LOS LOS = Level of Service 0.0 to 5.0 A NB = Northbound 5.1 to 15.0 15.1 to 25.0 C 25.1 to 40.0 D 40.1 to 60.0 E > 60.0 F . EAST Et STREET CAPACITY AN.4ZYSIS TA.BLE 5 PERIOD SCENARIO Existing Baseline Baseline + 713 Units Year 2004 East H Street/Hidden Vista Drive AM 32.0 sec. D 32.6 sec. D 34.7 sec. D 61.2 sec. F MIDDAY 24.2 sec. C 24.6 sec. C 24.9 see. C 25.9 sec. D PM 27.6 sec. D 27.7 sec. D 28.1 sec. D 31.1 sec. D East H Street/Pasco Del Rey AM I5.2 sec. C 15.2 sec. C 15.3 sec. C 16.7 see. C MIDDAY 18.1 sec. C 18.7 sec. C 19.1 sec. C 20.2 sec. C PM 17.6 sec. C 18.2 sec. C 18.6 sec. C 19.9 sec. C East H Street/Paseo Ranchero AM 16_3 sec. C 16.4 sec. C 16.7 sec. C 20.5 sec. C /vI1DDAY 14.6 sec. B I4.8 sec. B 15.1 sec. B 15.7 sec. B PM 16.3 sec. C I6.6 sec. C 17.1 sec. C t8.1 sec. C Eas~ gl' Street/Otay lakes Road d~M 20.0 sec. C 20.2 sec. C 20.9 see. C 22.7 sec. C ~m~2)DAY 19.9 sec. C 20.4 sec. C 21.1 sec. C 21.6 sec. C PM 20.9 see. C 21.4 sec. C 21.6 sec. C 25.0 sec. C Delay Js measured in seconds. DELAY LOS LOS = Level of Service 0.0 to 5.0 A NB = Northbound 5.1 to 15.0 B 15.1 to 25.0 C 25.1 to 40.0 D 40.1 to 60.0 E > 60.0 F ATTACHMENT (a Mitigated Negative Declaration Mitigated Negative Declaration PROJECT NAME: An amendment to Rolling Hills Ranch Tentative Subdivision Map 92-02 Conditions of.Approval 1. and 3 of Section 7 to ~m-ant an increase in the building cap from 1,137 dwelling units to a maxkmma of 1,665 equivalent dwelling units (]~I)U's) prior to the completion of $R-125. PROJECT LOCATION: Rolling Hills Ranctg east of San Mi=one] Road, north and south of Proctor Valley Road PROJECT APPLICANT: Pacific Bay Homes CASE NO: IS-00-05 DATE: Mazch 30, 2000 Proj ec~ Semng The project site is vdthin the 1,197-acre Rolling ~ilt~ ~ch (~& S~t Creek ~ch) m~ plied commmW on ~e ~em ~ni~ng ~ge of~e CiB~. ~e ~prov~ Secfio~ Pl~nning .~ea pl~ (SPA) ~ctudes 2,095 ~e family, _ 61 s~e fmfly a~h¢~ ~d 390 m~fiple f~mi~y dwe~g m~. It ~o ~cludes ~o elem~ schoob, a ~e ~fio~ ~o co~nni~ p~os~ facilities, ~,o pubhc p~, ohs pfivatep~k ~d n~ open ~e. ~e project k re~onslly lozat~ m ~e so~ foothilt~ ofS~ ~el no~ of E~e B~ess Cmt~ ~d no~we~ ofUpp~ Omy L~e. ~e r~ently approved 738-~e S~ hS~el ~ch m~ p]~nned comm~D, is lozamd imme~ety no~we~ of~e project site ~d ~e proposed State Route 125 (SR-125) toe rom is planned ~proxim~ely 2 ~es e~. Much of ~e s~o~ding ~ea is develop~ ~ s~gle family homes..~ of J~mD' 1, 2000 appro~ely 400 homes ~ve be~ co~cted ~ Rotl~ng ~s R~ch ~ a p~ of Pha~e I. T~ ~ ~e project ~ea co~' of g~fly rolling hil1~ ~fi~ ~stofic ~c~ ~es. ~ g~ ~e ~developed po~o~ of Rolling Hill~ R a~h ~ of opm ~mely vegemt~ ~ ~ some ~ ~ by ~ofic ~c~ ~es, r~ ~sc~g ~d ~mcfion B~ on ~e c~t phas~g pl~ ff~e b~g c~ ~ ~e~ed ~e ~fio~ 528 EDU's wo~d be ~cted ~ poffiom of Nei~bo~oo~ 1, 4k 7 k ~, ~d 8. Nei~bo~ood 1 com~ of 93.9 ~es on ~e no~ side of~octor V~ey Roa~ we~ ofH~m P~k~'ay. Nei~bo~ood 4 ~m of 18.7 ~res locat~ ~ · e ~e~in~ of Mt BS~:l Road ~d sou~ of McKe~e Creek Roa& Neighborhood 7a congis~ of ] 5.5 acres. Neig_hbor'nood 75 ~nsis~ of 59.9 acres ]ocmM on ~e no~ side of Pro~lor V~]~, Road e~ ofH~le P~k~'av; ~d Nei~bo~ood 8 is 74 4 ~es ~ ske ~d is located ~ediately sou~ ;f NeiDhborboo~ 7a & ~ on ~e sou~ side of Prostor V~]ey Road, e~l of H~te P~km'av. B. Pro_iec! Description Tkis Initial Study has been pre-pared to provide additional information and analysis of potential environmental impacts as a result of the proposed amendment to the Tentative Subdivision Map covered under the Salt Creek Ranch Annexation/ General D~elopment Plan/Pre-Zone Final E~vironmental Impact Report ('FEIR~ 89-3) and the Salt Cre~ Ranch Sectional Planning A_rea (SPA) Plan Final Supplemental Enviromental Impact Report ('FSEIR-91-3). The proposal is an amendment to Conditions of Approval 1 and 2 Section 7 of Tentative Subdivision Map 92-02. The condition, 0dcn{:ified as a mitigation mm) in FSEIR 91-3, limits development in phase I to 1,137 dwelling units prior to the cor_,o-wac~on of SR-125 in order to mitigate potenfikl significan{~c impacts at the intc:rsecfion of East '%-I" Srreet/I-Iidden Vista Drive. Specifically, Section 7, Item 1 specifies that the Pubhc Facilities Financing Plan (PFFP) shall be morii~ed to indicate a reduction in Phase 1 to 1,137 units. Section 7, Item 2 spezifies the sequence of transportation improxremenrs are required to corresoond to any future eastern Chula Vista Transportation Phasing Plan, as amended ~y final SR-125 Financing Study (It]N/B, May 1993). The PFFP ~ill be amended to reflect the increase accordin~y. The proposed amendmmat ~411 allow Rolling _Hill.~ Ranch to increase the limit on _ development by 528 EDU's and initiate construction ora portion of Phase II for a total of 1,665 EDU's. The 528 EDU's : 7a, 7b, and 8 in accordance ~Sth the approved Tentative Subdi~5~on Map. The amendment constitutes a change in the phasing of residential developmem and an amendment to a previous traffic mitigation measure and does not result in a net increase in the total number of approved dwelling ma/rs or density. C. Compatibility with Zonina. General Pisa_ and Sectional Planning .Area Pla,, The subject property is currently zoned for residential uses. Neighborhoods I and 7a are zoned LM, Low Medium Residential. Ne/?v. hborhood 4a is M, Medium Res/dential and Neighborhoods 7b & 8 are zoned {~, Low Residential. The Genera/Plan designation/s LMR, Low Medium Residential. The proposed project is in comphance with the approved Sectional Area Plan zoning designations, and the General Plan D. Identification ofEmjro .nmenta] Eff0cts An Initial Study eondtmted by the City of Chula V/sm (including an attached · Emironmental Checklist form) determined that the proposed project will not have signi6¢ant environmental effect, and the Dreparafion of an Environmental Impact Report will not be require& lqxis Mitigat~ Neg~Sve Declaration has been prepared in azcordance ~i~h Section 15070 of Cns Stmz CaJifo,'vfia Enxiro~'xnental QualiD, Ac~ (CEQA) Guidelines. !. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCLrLATiON/TRAFFIC THRESHOLD STAN~DARD ?he proposal would result in the amendment to a prexSous mitigation measure in FSEIR 91-3 (page 3-106, Scrams 2) thai was required in order to reduce traffic impa~ts at the intersection of East "H" Street and H/dden Vista Dr/ye to a level below sJ~i6cance. The mitigation measure im FSEIR 91-3 limits the mount of development in Rolling Hills Ranch to 1,137 dwelling units [Phase !9 pr/or to the construction of SR-125. According to the Engineering Div/sion the basis for the requested amendment stems from the followhag: 1. The recent traffic studies are fosused analysis which were done with actual counts for the existing conditions and growth rates from the various projects throughout the City based on historical data and a shorter proje~ed furore year scenario analysis, whereas the prey/cue studies/n the EIR were long range forecasts; 2. The uniform growth rate of development assumed over the last decade did not occur due to an economic slow do~m m the early 1990's resulting in a reserve of anticipated nips on the roadways; ~. The se~omcnt improvements m the City's cirsuladon system have continued beyond ~hose improvements anticipaled in the original traffic stud3, such as the widening of Bonita road at the interchange with 1-805, Om3, Lake Road and, Telegraph Canyon Road; and 4. im~secfion improvements to add additional mm'lanes and/or through lanes to the major intersections have also been completed, some of which are beyond wha~ was originally anrisipated to be sonsn-Us~ed at build'out at: · ~,ast ~ 3'a-est at: _74_jj]~.op ' * ~ ' .... Drive, i-haaen \ ~sra Drive, Mourn hi/g-eel Road, Pasco Del Re},, and Ticrra Del Re)'. ·Stay Lakes road at: Bonita Road,. East H Street, East. Lake Parkway, and Telegraph Canyon Road. · Tele_m-~ph Cmayon Road at: Medical Center Drive, Pasco Ranchers and the almost complemd improvements in the v/¢iniry of the 1-805 imerch~nge with Halecrest Dr/ye. To d¢term~ne how mush capacity street capaci~D, was available on East "IF' the CiD, re.q. ,~sd ~he ap. pSzant to enter into a 3-party a~eement ~fith the City to hire a U-affic consultant to ¢ondust a traffic study. Linscort, Law and Greens'pan ~ngineers (LLG) pr~ar~:l both a se_mnent analysis and intersection analysis. Th~ Ci~ of Chula V/eta Land Development Section of the EmMneerin~ Division re~aewed and concurred with th~ fmdino_s and conclusions of[he LLG-tmffis s'~Jud~es (En__*ineering D/vision memorandum da~ed _March 29, 2000 on file in the Planning DhSsion). The fmdin~ and conclusion of thc East "Il" street Sem~nt Analysis and hr~*~rseczion Analysis conducted by LLG are discussed in more d~tail below: East H Street Intersection Anal)'si~. March 2000 (Intersection .~ual)'sis) The initial building cap of 1,137 was cstabhsh~ bas~ upon an int~?secfion mna}vsis. Therefore, a fog}mM inlerssction analysis was condugled to cn~uee that levels ofserx'ice m the most critical interse, c~'ions along East "n TM Sweet ~411 not deteriorate beyond limits setby FSEIR 91~0,.' at the "San "II" Street Lm~rsection Analysis Chu]a' Vista, CaLifornia", dined March 8, 2000, to determined the available traffic capacity al four intea's~¢tions of East "IF' Strut These intersections were al Hidden Vista Drive, Paseo Del R~-y, Paseo Rauchero, and Otay Lakes Road. The most critical location found in the study was the intersection of East "IT' Sweet/Hidden V~sta Drive. This stndy concluded that an additional 330 EDU's (Cumulative 1,467 EDU's) can be added by the project before a cumulative impact is indicated at the subject intc~rsecfion. The smd3, further concluded thai ffone of the follou,ing hnprovements is constructed the threshold limit can be in~u'~ased by another 19g EDU's in acldi~on to the above-noted 330 EDU's (Cumulative 1,665 EDU's): ]. Provide additional westbound thru lane at the East "II" Sh'eet/HJdden Vista Drive in~c~'s~c~on; or 2. Ensure Oiym~,ie Parkway is extended eastward to at leaa Eaa Paloma~ Street. AccornmS lo me En=cd_ue~g D~vision the ~ua_nmg of=as~ _~ Street has no~ evaluated (scheduled) for improvement and therefore is no~ considered feasible at this .. trine. The ex-tensien of Olympic Parkway ~o Eas~ Paloma Street is considered Mgh]y feasible and is currently undue:way md scheduled for completion by the end of December 2001. Based on the com~a-aints at the in~rs~ction of East "Iff" Street and t-Lidden Vista Drive no - building p~amits will be approv~ beyond an initial 3.30 EDU's (project cumulative 1,467 EDU's) unless one of the two hnprov~ments noted-above i~ th~Inters~sti6n .analysis is completed. AfiHgaZion: ]) .Pro~4dm:t bioio~cal mitigation is complied with, the buJJdiuS cap sb. z11 be incr~assd zrom 1,1.7 dw~llin__ units to allow bui]aiu~ psztmit i~suance for up to 1,467 EDU's (am additional 330 EDU's) and Final Map approval up m 1,665 EDLT'~ (an additiona] 528 EDU's). 2) ~]ding pezmit~ shall be _m-amed beyond L457 EDT_T's to a m~'~mum of 1,665 EDU's ~-ith the completion ora tea~t on~ ~fthe follo~4ng improvements: a_ Complet~ th~ extc-nsion of O])~apic Parkway to Earn Paloma Street; or b. V~ ~d~n East ~ Street to provid~ an additional w~stbound thru lan~ at the East '5-I" Street/Hidden Vi~m Drive inters~ctio~ . East "H' Street Capaein.' Analysis ]999-2005, May 1999 (Segment Analysis) The May 1999 report titled '%as~ ' .'H'~' _~tree~ Cap. aciry .~na]ysis 1999-2005" included conserxmfi~Ve assumpfibns thal all oth~ pr0j~ m the Ci~, would also conlzibme ~eir share of tra~c to this corridor (TaMe 3 of Segment Analysis). The Ea~t "H" Street Capacity Analysis concluded thai there is additional ~gment capacity based on the existing ¢ireniatitm dement and the Traffic Monitoring Program (TMP) guidelines for the East "II" Street corridor to allow for a maxfimum of 1,665 EDU's prior to the completion of SR-125-ap inoTe, ase of 525 EDU's beyond the kfifial 1,137 dwelling units. Al thi~ time, the construction of SR-125 is considered feas~le, but not under the direct . control of the City. SR-125 is currently scheduled fox construction to commence later this year and is anticipated to open by the end of December 2003. Mitigaz~on: 1) Final Map approval shall not exceed 1,665 EDU's without the completion of SR-125. 2. B]OLOGJC.~L RESOURCES ~n~ hab~lats, bio]o~zal reso~oes, and sensim,e ~esies occurring onsite have been derailed in both FEER-89-3 mad FSEIR-9 I-3. Final EIR~89-3 evaluated the project's approved General Development Plan (GDP) and F/hal Subsequent EIR-91-3 addressed additional impacts to habitats f~om the Sectional Planning ~4a-ea (SPA) plan. Since the preparation of these emSronm~--utal documents, the Quino Checke~pot butterfly (Euj>hyd~as edita quino) has been listed as Federally E~angered (t997); the Omy m~plaut (Hern~onia conjugens) has been listed as Slate Endangered and Federally - Tm-eatened (1998); and the bm-rowing owl (S]~eo~o cunicularia) has been Federally i/smd as a Species of Special Concern. As a result, biolo~cal surve~s were required to afidress these adfdfional s~nsi~x,e biolo~cal resommes. 2-[ELIX Enxfronmenla] Planning, Inc. was re]a/ned by the applicant to identify any add/tional biolo~calty sensitive resources and potential impaCts to those resources (AttachznenI "A", t-I[ELIX, Letters Summariv/ng su~ey ~nflings, November 21, 1999, September 29, 1999 September 23,1999). These surveys covered the majority of Neighborhoods 1, 7a, 7b, ~nd 8. The boundar/~ of the su~ey area are identified in Attachment "B". Neighborhood 4a was not covered by the surveys since it was pre,lonely ~m-Me& Enx4ronmental Planning sr. affand the City's biologist have rex4ewed the above-not~ surYeys. The findings ofth~se smweys, potential impaCts to biolo~oal resources, mad required mitigation to reduce potential impaCtS to a level below s/gnif~¢mace are discussed below. NEIGHBOR_HOOD I Twenty (20) individtud Ot~y tarplants were observed/n the mid-eastern portion of Neighborhood 1. The tarplants are surrounded on three sides by unconsolidated soft stockpiles and on the fourth side by a modea-ately traveled, hard packed, dirt road used Io access the Otay Water Dis~iet property to the north. Due to the presence of Otay tarplan! take anthoriT~fion is required by the California Depa~uent offish and Game and the U.S. Fish and Wfldlife Service. Therefore, grading permits and Final Map approval shall not be approved by the City until the applicant has obtained take authorization for the iden6:fied Om), tarplants ha Neighborhood 1. The remainder of the surveyed portions of Neighborhood 1 is highly disturbed by decades of farming-related a~fivifies including discing, cultivation, and cattle gra~.g. The soil hwe been arnended by adding sludge as fertilizer to knprove the land for grazing and dfiscing typiealJy oeettrs three or more times a year. According Helk, the probability of Otay tarplant occurring in the remaining surveyed portions of neighborhood 1 is very ]ow because 1 ) no Otay mrplan~ was obszrved during surveys conducted during the pt~mt's flowering per~od (e×cep~ for the 20 ind/vidua~ tarplants observed in the mid- eastern p~rfion of NeigJaborhood 1); and 2) the long history of frequent ag~xq~es has sex ~e]y altered me pot~tml habitat, likely rendering n masuimble for the The approval of F~n~] Maps and the issuanse of ~mmf~ing pernfits for Neishborhood l sha]] not be ~ted until the applicant has obtained take authorization fr-om the Cati~%rn~a Depa~lu~ent offish and Game and the U.S. Fish and tVild]~fe S~ndce for any idenchS~d b~o]o~¢a~ sensitive resoarce including C~y mrplant .ks shown on AW~ehment '~" the 1999 Spring ~u~,ey for Otay ~arp. la~ did not include all the areas %6~h~= the boundaries of Neighborhood 1. According to the City's bio]o~st, the un~urveyed area at the soufae~c~Tn property line is highly disturbed and has a low pot~atia] for Ohay tarplant The unsurv~yed area at the western property line h~ a kigh 'notemial for Otay mrplant since ha the past several years the City's biolo~st has observed Om3, u~p]an~ ha this are~ A rare plant survey shaI] be conducted for the -n~urveyed ~,-eas of Neighborhood i. Mm'gan'on: Potential impacts to Otay tm~lant v4H be mitigated to a level below sLo~fi~an~e by the £ollowing mitigation measures: ~) .tua Otay tarplant sm'vey shall be ebnducted in the unsurveyed portions of Neighborhood ] ~co determine the presence o£Ot~y tm-plant; and 2) The approv~j ofFinaJ Ma?s and the issuance of_~ading pc,,--mira for Nei?-hborbood shall not be ~m-ant~ until the applic~ml has obtained take author/?~rJon [~om the California D~m'-tmcnl offish and Game and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife S~'/ce for any idenrifi~ biolo~cal Sensitive resource including OhTV tarplant. Qnino Checkerspot Butterlly Habitat The spring survey for Quino habitat found that due to decades of a.om-icultural operations and pm sto¢lq>ile amir/ties, there is a low potential for Quino checkerspot habitat within the surveyed area of Neighborhood 1. Mitigation: The following mitigation measure ~ serve to reduce any potential/mpacts to Quino check=l~pot butterfly and Quino cheekerspot habitat to below a level of si?ificance: 1)A qualified biolo~st shall be retained by the applicant to ensure that sensitive areas are not disturbed during the grading of Neighborhood 1. Ursurveved Area ~ne smweyed area ofNeig2aborhoocl I colll~in~ open, sparsely vegetated areas, wkich may support mod~'~-are Quino checkers'pot habitat. Due to the moderate potential for Quino checkm~pot habitat, the CiD' shall not authorize grading perm/ts or Final Map approval for Ne/ghborhood 1 unfi/a sm--roy is conducted for all areas ~fith/n the botmdaries of NeigJaborhood 1 to dme~,,ine the presence of Quino check=~?ot buaerfly and Quino check~,xrspot habita~ ]drm~o-a~on: ?or:urial impa~rs *o Qumo check,spot bunerfiy and Qumo habita~ in the unsurveyed po~on ofNeigJaborhood 1 ~dll be reduced to below a level ofsi?ificance_by_the follo~fing mitigation measure: ]) Prior to the approval of Final _Maps and the issuance of~m-ading permits for Nei52aborhood 1 the applicant sh~l! be required to conduct a protocol level sun,ey to determine the presence of Quino check~,~pot butterfly and Qu. ino cheek**~pot habitat 2) In the evenl that biolo_~cally sensitive resources including Quino cheekerspot bulterfly and/or Quino checkerspot habitat is found, the approval of Final Maps and the issuance of grading permits shall not be granted until the applicant has obtained take authorization fi'om the California Depmtment offish and Game and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service'. --'ne 1999 S?ing sm,ey did not include Neighb3rhood !. ~o ~ndu~1 a protocol lex,el pre~ons~cfion pr~smcc ofb~o~mg ow] ~d active b~o~4mg owl bmTows. Mm~ation: ~e fo~o~g ~figafion m~e wfl] sz~,e to reduce pot~fi~ ~pac~ to b~o~g owl to b~low a level of 1) ~e app~t s~ be mq~d to conduct a protocol lew] to d~t~ia',ine ~e pres~ze ofb~o~g owl ~d ~five b~ow~g owl b~ws. 2) ~ ~e ~,ent ~t biolo~z~y s~i6ve reso~zes mz]u~g b~o~g owl b~g owl b~ows ~e fo~ ~e ~p~v~ ofF~ M~s ~d ~e issuance of ~g p~ s~ not be ~t~d ~fil aa~o~e~fon ~om ~e C~o~a D~t ofF~h ~d ~e ~d ~e U.S. Fish ~d WfldH& S~dc~. 3) A quM~fi~d biolo~st shall be returned by the apphcant to ensure that sensitive areas are not disturbed during the ~-ading of NeifZnborhood ]. h-EIG]~BORHOODS 7a, 7b, and 8 Otav Tarplan/& Omo Checke~spo/ Surveyed Area lu the mn-veyed portions ofNei_?~hborhoods 7a~ 7b, and 8 the biolo_~cal surveys d~d not End the presence of Otay tarplank Quiuo chcck~spo~ buucrZty, or Quino habkat The 5&wcyed areas have been ~suu'-bed by d~zades 0£ a_~zulrm-a2 operations and past sxozkpii¢ actixddes. Due 1o the iow potential for Otay ta~piant and Quino ch¢ckcrspot to occur only in the surveyed portions o£Ncighborhoods ?a, To, and 8 _minding ~411 be ellowCd to occur in the stun,eyed areas based on compliance ~dth the follo~dng mitigation measureS. 7zfLqgation : Grading shall be limited to the su_weycd w~ch scm,e to r=ducc potcnd~ ~p~ to be]ow a levct of sJ~En~ce: 1) A q~l~ bio]o~ shM1 be re~cd by 2) ~or to ~e is~ce of ~g pc~ for ~e s~,cycd ~c~ ofNci~bo~hoo~ 7~ To, ~d 8 ~e ~p~c~t s~ mb~t a f~c~g pl~ to ~¢ ~figafion mo~tor for ':- 5it~ prepm~afion acti~Stics, spscJfical]), sm~in~ ~ options ~d mmntsn~c~ rows for h~x~' m~, sh~ be r~m~ ~o ~ sm'~),~ ~ ofN~i~borboo~ 7m No c]~g ofb~h sh~ be ~lowed ~ ~e ~jac~l ~sm,e),ed s~ifive h~iml pl~t ~ ~ ~nduc~ ~d ~e ~pfi~t ~ obm;n~ n~es~ ~e au~o~fion ~m ~¢ ~o~a D~m~t offish ~d ~¢ ~d ~¢ U.S. F~h ~d Wil~fe g~¢¢ for ~y idm~M biolo~cM s~fiv¢ resole ~clu~g ~y ~1~ Qmo ch~k~,~pot ba~y, or ~o h~imt Un~ed .~ sho~m on Am~t '~", ~¢ Sp~g Sm,~y for ~ay ~l~t ~d Qmo ch~sk~ot ~d not cov~ s~ po~o~ ofN¢i~borhoo~ 7~ ~, ~d g. A ~ shv¢ of ~ely vegetated ~imt ~b~, may ~o~ mod~¢ Qmo ch~k¢rspot habitat ooc~ ~ong ~e ~ ~e ofN~bo~ood 7a ~d ~. ~eyCd po~om ofN¢i~bo~oo~ 7a ~, ~d 8 m below a level of~i6c~c¢: ] ) Prior to the ~ssuau¢¢ of_m-aam= pe~,,,,~s ~or the unsu~,eycd areas of N~ighborhoods Tm. 7b, and g. a rare plan~ surwy shall b~ conduct~t for th~ un~n'v~yezl argms of Neighborhoods 7a, 7b, and 8; and 2) In th~ event *b~ s~,m~sifive biolo~¢al resources including Otay 'm.rplaut, Quiuo :heck~spot butterfly and Quiuo habitax is presCn~ in Zhe unsurvcyed areas of Neighborhoods 7a, 7b, and 8, grading permim for the affected areas shall not be issued unfi] fi~e appTdcam has obtained take authorization from the California D¢pmumenz oflZish and Game and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Sei-x4ce for any identified bio]o~cal sensitive resource including Otay tarplau~, Quiuo chegk¢,spo~ buu~ffty, or Quino habitat. 3) Upon the ismmnc¢ of ~m'adiug permits, a qualified biologist shmll be retained by the applicant to erasure tJ~ sensitive areas ave not disturbed during the ~m-ading of NeigJaborhoods 7a, 7b, and 8. Surveyed Area Neighborhoods 7a, To and 8 were surveyed for burrowing owl burrows. The survey efforts concentrated on the areas in each neighborhood ~-hat have the hi~_hest 3otenti for buzrows and thru were not disturbezl in appro×~mately May 1999 by dis'~ing. No sign of burrowing owls or their bm-rows wa~ obServ~ in Neighborhoods Thc fol]o~Sng mJtigalSon measures shall stm'e to reduce potential [mpac'.s Io tbs bmrowing owl to below a level of significance: l) A qualified biologist shall be returned by the applicant to ensure thai sensitive areas are not disturbed dm-ing thc grading ofNe/ghborhoods 7a, 7b, and 8; 2) Prior to the issuance of grarli~g peimits the applicant shall submit an approved fencing plan to'protect the nnmrveyed areas from disturbance; and 3) Site preparation act/v/ties, specifically staging area operations and ma/ntenance rows for heaxT machint-ry shall be restricted to the surveyed areas of Neighborhoods 7a, 7b, and 8. Unsurveyed Area The 1999 Spring Survey Area boundary, as shoam on '"B", excludes some areas to the east and west of Neighborhoods 7a and 7b and also excludes the most eastern portion of Neighborhood 8. Th~efore, there remaine a potential for the presence ofburro~4ng owl in the ,mmm,-vcyed areas of Neighborhoods 7a, 7b, and 8. In order to address any pmential impacts to burro~dng owls or their burrows the City will not authorize grading in the nn~um,eyed areas of Neighborhoods 7a. Tu, ~md 8 until a protocol level pre- construction smwey is conducted for burro~fing owl aud active burrows and any necessary take 2.11tho~?~fioll is obtained from the CMifornia Depmtment offish and Game and the U.S. Fish and Wildl/I"e Set,fee. The follov~Sng m/figation measures shall serve to reduce potential impacts to the bra'-row/ne owl to below a level of sS~ficance: l) ?riot ro the issuance of_marring p,~mJrs for the areas outside the bioto¢cal survey botmdary the unsm-veyed portions of Neighbothoods Ya, 7b, and 8 shall be surveyed for the presence ofburro~fng owl and activ~ burrowing o~q burrows; 2) In the event that scmsifive biolo~cal resources including bm-rowing owl or active burrow/ne o~q burrows are present in the un~n-veyed areas of Neighborhoods 7a, 7b, and 8, _marling permits for the affected areas shall not be issued until the applicant has obta/n~ nmessary take autho,fizafion fi.om the California Depaztment of F/sh and Game and the U.S. Fish and x2rildliz~e S~'cTtfce. E. Midgat-Joz~ Necessary to Avoid Si?ificant Effects Specific project mitigation measures are required to reduce potential enviro~mLmtal impacts identified in the Initial Study to a level below si?i6¢ance. The mitigation measures will be made a condition of approval and shall be incorporated in the approved Mkig~ion Monitoring Pro_m-am (Attachment "C") t0 TRA}'TqC/CIRCR_,-LATIONFFRAFFJC THRESHOLD STANDARD ] ) Provided biolo~cal mitigation is complied with, the building cap shall be increased from t ,137 dwelling units to allow building permit ismmnce for up to 1,467 EDITs (an additional 330 EDU's) and Final Map approval up to 1,665 EDU's (an additional 528 EDU's). 2) Building permits shall be granted beyond 1,467 EDITs to a maximum of 1,665 EDITs ;vith the completion ofat least one of the following improvements: a_ Complete ;he extension of Olympic Park~ay to East Palomar Sweet; or b. Widen East "Ir" Sleet to provide an additional westbound thru lane at the Earn "I-'F' Street/Hidden Vista Drive intcrsec-tion. 3) Final Map approval shall not exceed 1,665 EDITs ad;hour ;he completion of $R- 125. BIOLOGIC_aL RESOURCES ] ) The approval of Final Maps and the ismm~ce of grarii~g pr&mits for Neighborhood ] shall not be ~m-anted tmtil ;he applicant has obtained take authorization from the California Depar~n~nt offish and Game and ;he U.S. Fish and WDdlife Ser~fce for any idmlified biolo~cal sensitive resource including Otay tarplant. 2) .4m Otay tarptant survey shall be conducted in the tmsurveyed portions of Neighborhood 1 to determine the presence of Otay tarplant; and 5) T'ne approval o£Final Maps and ~e issumace o£ ~m-ading perm/rs for Neighborhood t shall not be =s?anted until ;he applicant has obtained lake au;horizarion from the Californ/a Dep. arkmenI offish and Game and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for an5' identified biolo~cal sons/five resource inclufimg Om5' tm'plant 4) A qnaqi~qed biologist shall be remlned by the applicant to ensure that sensitive areas are not disturbed durkng the _minding of Neighborhood 1. 5) Prior to the approval o£FinM Maps and ;he issuance of~m-adiag permits for Neighborhood 1 the applicant sha~ be required to conduct a protocol level survey to determine the presence of Quino cheekerspot butterfly and Q. ino check~;spot habitat. 6) tn the ex,mt thai biolo~cally sensitive resources including Quino checkerspot butterfly and/or Quino oheek,~pot habitat is found, the approval of F4nal Maps and the issuance o£ glading p~mits shall not be granted until the applicant ~ obtaine~l take au;horizafion ~om the California D~a,tment offish and Game and ;he U.S. Fish and Wildlife Sm-wice. 7) The applicant shall be required to condu~t a protocol level survey o£Nei_ffaborhood 1 to de;~,,fine the presence o£burro~hng owl and a~tive bm-roaring owl burrows. $) In the event that biolo~cally sensitive reso~ces including burrowing owl a.od active burro~hng owl bmrrows are found, the approval of Final Maps and the issuance of grading peri,its shall not be ~ranted until th~ applicant has obtained I~J:e authorization fi.om the Califora/a D~arrment offish and Game and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Sc'~hce. 9) A qualffied biologist shall be retained by the applicant to insure ~ha~ stmsifive areas are not disturbed during the grading of Nc'ighborbood 1. l 0) A qnalifled biologist shall be retained by the applicant to ensure that sensitive areas are not disturbed during the grading ofNeigJaborhoods 7~, To, and 8. 11 ) Prior to the issu;mce of ~m-ading permits for the sum,eyed areas of Nei*~.hborhoods 7a, W0, and 8 the applicant shall submit a fencing plan to the mitigation r~onitor for ~pproval to protect the unsurveyed are~ from distu~anoe; 12) Site preparation acfiv/fies, specifically ~ng area operations and m~intenance rows for hmx2~ machinery shall be restrictod to the surveyed areas ofNe55hborhoocls 7~, To, mad 8; 13)No clem-ing of brash shall be allowed in the adjacent nnmrveyed sensitive habilat ~eas (as identified In Attachment '~B")ofNeig2abo~oods 7a, To, and 8 until a rare plant sun,ey is conducted a~d the applicant has obtained necessary take authorization from the California D~a~tment offish and Game and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for any identified biolo~cal sensitive resource including Omy tarptant, Qu/no checked'spot buttc-rfty, or Quino habitat. 14)Prior to the issuance of grading p~,~rdrs for the unsm'veyed areas of Neighborhoods 7a, 7b, and 8. a rare plant sm-roy shall be conducted for the unsurveyed areas of NeigJaborhoods 7a, 7b, and 8; mad !5)in the event thai sensitive biolo~cal resources/ncludin~ Otav tarplant, Quino check~rspm buuerfiy and Quino habitaI is present in rh2~ uns[u-ueyed areas of Neigfabo~oods 7a, To, and 8, _mind/rig. permits for the affected areas shall not be issued tmfil th~ applicant ha~ obta/ned take authorization :from the California De~pmtment offish a~d Game and the U.S. Fish and W-fid/fie Serxfice for any identified biolo~cal sensitive resource including Otay tm-plant, Quino oheckerspoi butterfly, or Quino habitat. 16) Upon the issuance of _m'ading permits, a qu~lihed biologist shall be retained by the applicant to ~'msure that sensitive areas are not disturbed during the grading of Nei_mhborhoods 7~, To, and 8. 17) A quali2ed biolo~st shall be retained by the applicant to ensure that sensitive areas are not disturbed during th_e grading of Neighborhoods 7a, 7b, and 8; 18) Prior to the issuance of grading pmmits the applicant shall submit an approved fencing plan to protect the unsm-veyed areas from disturbance; and ] 9] SiI~ prcpm'~tion activiti=s, spcc.;fica[Iy sm~ ~r~ op~o~ ~d m~t=n~c~ rows for h~V m~bin~, sh~ bt rs~ci~ to ~e ~'~yed ~ of~ei~borboods Vm ~, ~d ~. riO)Prior to ~ is~c¢ of~g p~ for ~¢ ~ ou~id¢ ~¢ biolo~c~ smwey bo~d~, ~e ~'~M po~ons ofNd~borhoo~ 7~ ~, ~d 8 sh~l be ~,eved for ~e presmce ofb~g owl ~d active b~a~g o~q b~ows; 21) ~ ~e ~ ~ s~ifive biolo~cM resom~ ~clu~g b~g owl or'~five b~o~g owl b~ows ~ preset ~ ~e ~ ~ ofN~borhoo~ 7~ ~, ~d g, ~g prom for ~ ~tM ~ ~ not be ~med ~E ~e apphc~t h~ obtain~ n~ ~e ~o~on ~m ~e C~fo~a D~m~ent offish ~d Gme ~d ~e U.S. F~ ~d ~fl~e S~ce. , F. Summary of Public Comments A Notice of Initial Study was circulated on Deco'tuber 7, 1999 to all property owners a/thin 300-foot radius. The comment pexSod ended on December 16, 1999. The d~a,'tmumt received co,,,.,ents from a total of 4 pmp~ly o~mers. Three owners verbally ~.'~x-pressed their conccu-ns with the additional traffic generated from the proposal prior 'to me completien of SR-125 and the timing of approved men/ties for their respective nei_~Jaborhoods. The tm65c concerns were in regards to the impa~ts on Olay Lakes Road and Proctor Valley :Roach and East "IT' Stree;. One oxamer proxSded written comments conceraing traffic impacts and potential safety h~7~rd oi1Bomla Road. The property owner was particularly concerned about the current h.~axW trafiSc volumes, which make it rti~cult lo aacess Bonita :Road from Dory Drive and the concern thai the proposed project ~411 exacerbate this current congestion. The property owner requests assurance from the rexSew board that traffic volume will not - incm~ase as a result ofthi~ building project. Consultation 1.Indixfduals and ()rgani?atlonq CiD' of Chula \;ism: Marilsm P,_F. Ponseg~, Environmental Planning Sm Donn, Community Planning Luis Hernandez, Communi~ Planning Anne Moore, Cily Attorney's Office Peggy McCarberg, City Attorney's Office George Y,.remple,, City Manager's Office Frank R/vera, Land Development, En~neering Sohm'b "Alex" Al-Agra, Land Development, Engineering Cliff Swanson, En_~iueering P-~lph Le)u,a, Traffic Engineering' Dave Kaplan, Land Development, E=~ne~,sring Samir Nuhaily, Advance Planning/Wastewater F. ngineering Beverly Blessent, Development Planning ~3 Gary Will/arm, Developmzni Pla-truing Rick Rosa]m, Commullit3, Plann/ng Doug Pen-y,/:/re Marshall Rict~rd Preuss, Ponce Crime PrcvemSon Brad Rzmp, Building Duane B~zzel, Advance Planning Chula Vista Eleanentary School Dislrict: Dr. Lowell Billings Swcetwalcr Union High School District:Katy Wright Applicant's Agent: Dave Gatzke, Rolling Plill~ Ranch Kim Baranek, Hel/x Environmental 2. Documents Chula Vis-'ta Genre'al Plan (1989) T/tle 19, Chula V'm~ta Municipal Code Salt Creek Ranch Annexation/GDP/Pre-Zone FEIR-89-3 (1990) Salt Cre~ Ranch SPA FSEIR-91-3 (1992) Salt Creek P, mnch SPA M/figafion Monitoring Program Eas~ H Stre~ Capacity Analysis 1999-2005 (Linscor4 Law & Greenspan, May 17, 1999) EasI H Strut Intersection .~ualysis (Linscort, Law' & Greenspan, March 8, 2000) Results of Bio]o~cal Surveys (HELIX, Letters ct~d 11/11/99, 9/29/99, and 9/23/99) 3. Irfitial Study T'nis cnvironm~tm, tal dete~,,,;nation is based on the attached Initial S'ct~y, any commclltS r~hved on the Iuifial Smd), and any comments received during the public re,flew perSod for th/s Negative Declaration. ?ne report redects the ind~-~endent.judgement of the CiD' o£ Chula Visu~ Punher/nformafion regarding the emironmenm/rexfiew o£this projec~ is available from the Chula Vista Pl~nn~ng and Building D~,~parmaent, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91910. ~/Vmrit~m3>._F. Pome~ EmSronmem Re,Sew Coordinator CA:~ome'xplaxafin~e~alim~zheckti~tES_00..0~.-NID.fi cz ) ATTACI=I3IENT "A" HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. Biolo~cal Survey Results /~ (~) ~s2 NOV 1 5 iN~~ 276 4~ Av~e ~ffia V~ ~ 91910 Su~e~ P~ for ~y ~t ~d ~o ~e~'s~ ~), ~ N~borhoo~ ~, 7 ~d 8 ~ ~e Ro~g Hi~ ~ g~ a po~t ~ r]~fi~ m ~ sFr~ 1999, ~ ~ed ~e c~ ~d ~e ho~ p~t ~ ~ ~o ~ ~y ~m~ ~). ~ a~fl fi~ ~m ~ ~ ~t w~ ~eyed. Two ~ ~, 13.7 a~m, ~t ~ ~ ~va~ed by ~ d~m~t w~ not ~eye~ 1) ~ ~m w~ ~ ~e ~ ~ ~ce ~d ~y Wa~ ~ road ~nood ~ ~d ~ ~o~ed ~ a ~ r~d ~o~fled soft ~d or,ge ~e po~ of ~ n~hoo~ ~ed for ~o ~c~pot ~y ~d 8 cov~d ~ ~ ~e r~e p~t ~ey ~ve a low v~ ~ ~e o~no ~i~i flue ~ demfi~ ~ a~ o~fio~ ~d p~ ~o~fle ac~vifi~ ~e 15.7 ~ ~,eved ~ ~ ~i~o~noo~ n ~S 7 ' ' moS~ ~3t~ for Projec~ l~nager ~xc]c, su_~ 1999 Sp.~.hag S~ ~ cc Dave G~, Pa~c Bay Homm T~ H~ ~ Septemb:z 29, 19~9 ' phone (6~) ~62-25~5 PLANNING Ci~ of Ch~ Vis~ 276 ~ Avcnue Ch~ ~ CA 9!910 ~bje¢~ Po~ for Q~o ~e~o~ bU~ ~ ~0~ ~ n~borhoods D~ Ms. Pons~ (QCB) (E~ ~less ~ ~'. ~m~ ~ ~o~ m harbor mo pa~ for ~¢ Q~. A pom~ for a si~ ~ ~o~ ~e QCB. ~e US~S ~s for a more s~oie habit: does ~d !999 for a pa~on of ~d no fo~s¢d QCB ~'s m~es to ~e ~u~-~u~ of ~e p~e~t ~m) ~e~ is ~e ~o~n~ for ~e QCB m o~ ~e p~pos¢d ~a~ m of ne~b~h~o~s 1, 7 ~d 8. The ~¢a of ~y v~r~t~ ~s, ~ may su~ modm~ QCB h~himL ~e mjofi~ 6f N~rhood 7 ~d ~ of N~borh~ 8 ~ a low ~ for my n~d US!m~S 1999. Su.rv~, Protocol for the Endm~gered Quino Checkm~pot Butt~ (Euph~3ci~3c~ ed/~ha .razinG) for the 1999 Fiald S~as~n. ,~le~ £".vd., $~i~ 530 ~ ~2~1-6452 4624552 ~. ~6 4m Av~e (639) 462-3535 ~ ~h~ ~, 7, ~d 8. snow ~ ~ ~ed ~ ~e ]o~fi~ ~ ~ ~o~ ~eyed ~e ~fl p~ ~ n~hoo~ 7 ~d sew~ ~e ~o~ of S~t ~t (no~ ~d sou~ of ~o~or V~ev Road, ~y T~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~M ~e ~ road ~ N~orbod l ~ ~ w~t=xt b~. He ~d n~ ~ow ~t ~ w~ not ~e w~ m~n~Q~ of ]q~ofnDod 1. ~ ~ date, ~ co'~ed appro)~t~y ~6 Lu~d~ ~y ~m m ~ ~o~m md ~ ~ ~. ~F~ ~ ~ lMay ~, 1999 f~ ~hoo~ 1, 7, N~ood l w~ n~ ~ ~a~ it w~ d~oid ~5q]~ ~ ~m, so ~ ~ ~,~ ~d not ~ ~ov~d ~y ~ ~e ~ ~ for'NM~orhood ~ ~t~ w~ of ~ f~a ~, ~ ~ w~ ~ ~ o~ ~ w~ n~ ~ed ~ ~97 or ~Y ~ ~ O~,ed m ~ ~ ~eyed ~ ~av~e~, ~d pa~e~, ~ road ~ ~ acc~s ~e ~)' Wat~- ~ ('D~, ~ ~i~ ~ ~d ~ M~ ~ d~dm ~ ~-r~amd a~fim ~ v~ ~ ~d ~o~bly ~ ~ ~ ~ cover ~ compm-ab]e. ~d 1 ~d n~& 7 ~ o~ dung ~ ~u~d d~ ~e~ ~5~ ~eyed N~o~ 7 ~d 8 ~ J~y 6, 19~9 to look for a~ve ~e ~ m ~ay aamd m ~ ~ Pm~ ~ ~o~ ~ ~t wm not ~d ~Rr~) ~ow ~don w~ ~e~ ~eye& A~ve ~o~ owl ~ w~ not Wi~ ~ m~e r~ ~ ~ ~, Parc Bay Hom~ shoffid ~ ~owed With veEzm~ m au~o~g ~ ~ ~ ~y ~ p~ m N~b~rh~d 1, · e ~ ~d ~d e~d ~e ~t ~ ~ ~A ~ d~t ~ed ~ ~ ~ ~ for ~ p~. ~ ~ le~ ~ p~d ~ ~ ~ G~ ~ U~. ~ ~ ~e ~ ~d not ~.~d am~e ~fi~ ~ C~]~m ~d 5~ A~) m ~fi~ ~or ~pa~ ~ ~e from I-iarold WSer, Dude_k and A~soziates, ~o Mmrityn Ponseg~ City '%r~, dated A,I~3- BO, 1.a~7. HELIX Pac~2c Bay Homes ATTACH~qKNT "B' HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. Biological Sur~,ey Boundaries Case ENVIRON.'MEN~FA~L CHECKLIST FORM 1. Name of Proponent: Pacific Bay Homes 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 3. Address and Phone N,,mber of Proponent: 2300 Boswell Road, Suite 209 Chula Vista, CA 91914 4. Name of Proposal: An amendment to Rolling Hills Ranch Tentative Subdivision Map 92- 02 Conditions of Approval 1 and 3 of Section 7 to grant an increase in the building cap from 1,137 dwelling units to a maximum of 1,665 equivalent dwelling units (EDUs) prior to the completion of SR-125. 5. Date of Checklist: March 30, 2000 I. LAND USE ANtl) PL4.NNING. Would rite proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or '~ rn [] ~ zoning? b) Conflict with applicable em, izonmenmI plans or ~ ~ n ¢ policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? c) Affect agriculmrai resources or operations 2 D m ~ (e.g., impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? d) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of m m m ~ an established community (including a low- income or minority commun/ty)? ~omments: The proposal constitutes a change in development phasing and does not result in a change in general plan desig-nafion or zoning. The proposal is in conformity with the Salt Creek Ranch General Development Plan (GDP), Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan, and the Chun Vista General Plan. Land use impacts were adequately addressed in the Salt Creek Ranch Annexation/ General Developmenv Plan/Pre-Zone Final Environmental Impact Report-89-3 (hereafter referred to as FEIR-89-3) and in the Salt Creek Ranch Sectional Planning Area Final Subsequent Envizonmental Impact Report-91-3.(hereafter referred to as FSEIR-91-3). 12I. POPULATION .kND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? b) Induce substantial gro~ in an area either D [] ~ z directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastrucmte)? c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable m r3 ~n m housing? Comments: Growth inducing impacts were adequately addressed in FSEIR 91-3. The proposal affects the phasing of development and does not result in any additional dwelling units beyond those addressed in FEIR-89-3 and FSEIR-91-3 IlL GEOPItYSICAL. Would the proposal result in or ex-pose people to potenzial impacts involving: a) Unstable earth conditions or changes in m rn [] geologic substructures? b) Disruptions, displacements, compaction or [] ~ m overuovering of the soil? :) Change in tupography or ground surface relief n n [] features? d) The destruction, covering or modification of [] r~ [] any unique geologic or physical features? e) Amy increase in wind or water erosion of soils; [] [] [] either on or offthe site? f) Changes in deposition or erosion of beach D m ~2 sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify' the channel of a river or s~ea.m or the bed of the ocean or any bay kdet or lake? g) Exposure of people or property to geologic [] rn [] hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mud slides, gTotmd failure, or similar hazards? Co/~ments: The proposed amendment to Tentative Map 92-02 does not result in any additional geophysical changes in that geolo~, and soils issues were adequately addressed in FEIR-89-3. IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patmrns, or the rate and amount of_ surface runoff?.. b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding or tidal 'Waves.9' c) Discharge into surface waters or other a]teradon of surface water quality/e.~.. temperature, dissoh,ed oxygen or turbidity)? d) Changes in the mount of surface water in any [] ,~ [] water body? e) Changes in currents, or the course of direction [] ~2 = of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either [] rn [] through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or ex~vafioI1s? g) Altered direction or rate of flow of '~ [] [] groundwater? h) Impacts to groundwater quality? [] r~ [] i) Alterations to the course or flow of flood r~ r~ [] waters? ]) Substantial reduction in the amount of water r~ [] [] o~erwise available for public wa~r suppli~? Comments: T~e proposed amendment to Tentative Map 92-02 does not result in any additional impa~s to water. Water quality and hydrology were adequately addressed in FEIR 89-3 and FSE~[R 91-3. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality sumdard or contribute to [] [] [] [] an existing or pr~ected air quails' violation? b) Ex'pose sensitive receptors to pollutants? [] [] [] [] :) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, ~ [] [] ~ or cause any change in climate, either locally or regionsl~y? d) Create objectionable odors? [] [] [] ~ e) Create a substantial increase in stationa~"): or [] = '~ ~ non-stationary sources of air emissions or the deterioration of ambient air quality? Comments: The proposal does not result in additional impacts to air quality. Impacts to air quality ~mpacts were adequately addressed in FEIR-89-3. Xrl. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? [] ~ [] [] b) Hazards to safety from design fealures (c.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? e)Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting [] m m [] alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle mc'ks)? g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? m m rn [] h) A "large project" under the Congestion rn a rn [] Management Program? (.am equivalent of 2400 or more average daily vehicle trips or 200 or more peak-hour vehicle trips.) Comments:. The proposal would permit the development of Rolling Hills Ranch to proceed beyond me 1.!37 clwelling unit cap imposed as a condition of approval on the Tentative Map. Development would ~ allowed to proceed to an initial 1,467 EDU's (330 additional EDU's)prior to the construction of the extension of Olympic Parkway to East Palomar Street or the widening of East "H' Street and to a maximum 1,665 EDU's (528 additional EDU's) prior to the construction of SR-125. The proposal could result in potentially si=m~ifican/traffic impacts to East "H' Street ur~ess mitigation. Potential impacts and mitigation to redt!ce those impacts to a level below si!mificance are ddscussed in detail in the attached Mitigated Negative Declaration. X~tI- BIOLOGIC_iL RESOURCES. I~buld the proposal result in impaas co: a) Endangered, sensitive species, species of [] ~ m m concern or species that are candidates for listino~ b) Locally desig~aated species (e.g., heritage ,~ [] [] [] : trees)? c) Locally desi=~aated natural communities 'n D [] 2 (e.g., oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? d) Wetland habitat (e.g., msrsh, riparian and rn [] [] m vernal pooI)? e) Wildlife dispersal or m{gration corridors? ,-n rn ~ [] f) Affect regional habitat preservation planning [] rn ~ [] efforts? Comments: The proposal could result/n potential]), sig-nificant impacts to t_he Federal]), Endangered Quino Checkerspot butterfly (Euphydryas edita quino), the State Endangered and Federally ?0 ~'L'eamed Omy mrp]anl (Hemizonia conjug~s), and to the Burrowing owl Federally listed as a Species of Special Concern. Bioto~ca] survey's w~re required lo address polenlin] sig-nificant impacts lo these sensitive biological resum-ces. }-Iae findings and conclusions of the reccnl biological surveys and mitigation lo Teduce potengal impacts to below a ]eve] of significance are discussed in detail in the attacbM Mitigated Negative Declaration. VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation r~ [] [] plans? b)Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? c) If the site is designated for mineral resource [] r~ [] protection, will this project impact this protection? Comm~.t~: The proposal does not result in additional impacts to energy and mineral resources. Impacts to gas, elec~iciry, and energy were adequately addressed in FEIR-89-3. HAZA1LDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of [] [] [] [] hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: pen-oleum products, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? b) Possible interference with an emergency [] [] [] [] response plan or emergency evacuation plan? c) The creation of an3, health hazard or po~enfia] health d) Exposure of people to existing sources of [] [] [] [] potential health hazards? e)Increased fire hazard in areas with fl~mm~ble brash, grass, or trees? C'ommet~ts: The proposal is a request to amend the phasing of residential development and does nol involve the use of hazardous substances or will not result in the exposure of the public to potential health or safe~y hazards. IX. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) 5acreases in existing noise levels? [] [] [] [] b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? [] [] tn [] Commellts: The proposal would not result in any additional noise impacts. Noise impacts were afle.waately addressed FEIR-89-3 and FSEI~-9]-3. ?! X. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would ~he proposal have an effect upon, or resulI in a need for new o? altered government services in any of the following a) Fire protection? [] r~ [] [] b) Police protection? rn 12 [] [] c) Schools? m 12 [] [] d) Maintenance of public facilities, including 12 12 r: [] roads? e) Other governmental services? 12 rn o [] Commellts: The proposal would not result in any additional impacts to public services other than those previously iflenfifi~ and addressed in FEIR-89-3 and FSEIR-91-3. [] 12 12 [] Thresholds. ~?ll zhe proposal adversely impact the Ci? ' s Threshold Starulards ? As described below, the proposed project does not adversely impact any of the seen Threshold Standards. - a) Fire/EMS m 12 , 12 [] The Threshold Standards requires that fire and medical units must be able to respond to calls within 7 minutes or less in 85 % of the cases and within 5 minutes or less in 75 % - of the cases. Comments: The Fire Threshold Standard was adequately addressed k~ FEIR-89-3. b) Police The Threshold Standards require that police units must respond to 84 % of Priority calls within 7 minutes or tess and maintain an average response time to all PrioriB, calls of 4.5 minutes or less. Police unks must respond to 62.10% of Priority 2 calls within 7 minutes or less and maintain an average response time to all Priority 2 calls of 7 mlnut~s or less. The proposed project complies with this Threshold Slandard. Co¢nments: The Police Threshold Standard was adequately addressed in FEIR-89-3. c) Traffic [] o o [] The Threshold Standards require fl~at all sig~allzed arterial segments operate at a Level of Service (LOS) "C ~ or better, with the exception that Level of Service (LOS) "D" ma), occur during the peak two hours of the day. Those signalized intersections west of 1-805 which do not meet the standard above standard may continue to operate at their current 1991 LOS, but sh~ll not worsen. No intersection may reach LOS "E" or "F" during the average weekday peak hour. Intersections of arterials with freeway ramps are exempted from this Standard. The proposed project would comply with this Threshold Standard. Comments: -Fne signalized arterial segment on East H Street Prom Om), Lakes Road to Hidden Vist~ is anticipated to function at LOS C or better. 'I-ne Hidden Vista/East H Slzeet, Pasco Del Rey/E,~ H Street Pasco RancheroW~st H Street. and Otay Lakes Road/East H S.rreet intersections are forecasted to operate at LOS C with the an additional 330 EDU's (total 1,467 EDU's). These intersections would also continue to operate w/thin the Threshold Standard w/th the addition of up to 528 EDU's (total 1,665 EDU's) as long as the construction of Olympic Parkway to East Palomar Street or with the w/alerting of.East H Slzeet are completed prior to SR-125. Olympic Parkway to East Palomar Street is anticipated to be completed by December 2001. Mitigation has bern incorporated that would allow Final Map approval up to 1,665 EDU's, and would w/tkhold building pemiit approval at 1,467 EDU's until either l ) Olympic Park's,ay to East Palomar Street is constructed or 2) an additional westbound lane on East H Street is constructed. Traffic impacts and mitigation to reduce potential traffic impacts to a level below significance is d/scussed in more detail in the attached Mitigated Negative Dcclaratio~ under Trmuspom. tion/Ci~ulation/Traffic Threshold Standard. d) Parks/Recreation -n rn [] [] The Threshold Standard for Parks and Recreation is 3 acres/1,000 population. The proposed project complies with this Threshold Standard. Comments: Parks, Recreation, and Open Space were adequately addressed in FEIR 89-3. e) Drainage The Threshold Standards require that storm water flows and voinmes not exceed City Engineering Standards. Individual projects will provide necessary knprovements consistent with the Drainage Master Plan(s) an~ City Engineering Standards. Tan proposed project complies with this Tl~-eshold Sremdard (page 3-102). Comments: The Drainage Threshold Standard was adequately addressed in FEIR-89-3 and FSEIR- ~ Sewer [] [2 rn The Threshold Standards requ/ze ~at sewage flows and volumes not exceed City Engineering Standards. Individual projects will provide necessary improvements consistent with Sewer Master Plan(s) mad City Engineering Standards. The proposed project complies with this Threshold Smdard. Comments: The Sewer Threshold Standard was adequately addressed in FEIR-89-3 and FSEIR-91- g) Water o o rn The Threshold Standards require that adequate storage, rrearmem, and mmsmission facilities are nonstrucmd concurrently w/th planned growth and that water quality standards are not jeopardized during growth and consm~ction. Applicants ma)' also be required to participate in whatever water conservation or fee off-set program the CiD, of Chula Vista has in effect at the time of building permit issuance. Comments: FEIR-89-3 adequately addressed the Water Threshold Standard. DrlLITI3ES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new syxtems, or substantial altera~ons ~o the following utilities.. a) Power or natural=~as~. 2 m rn [] b) Communications systems? r~ m m [] c) Local or regional water rreamaem or distribution facilities? d) Sewer or septic tanks? r~ m rn [] e) Storm water drainage? 2 r~ rn [] f) Solid waste disposal? m [] [] [] Comments: Increase m demand and impacts on uriikies were adequately addressed i~ FEIR-89-3 and FSEIR-91-3. X~I. AESP, TICS. WouJd the proposaL. a) Obstruct any scenic vista or view open to the [] D rn [] public or wil/the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? b) Caus~ the destruction or modification of a -- [] scenic route? c) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? [] [] m [] d) Create added light or glare sources that could ~ D m [] increase the level qf sk3' glow in an area or cause this project to fail to comply with Section ,, 19.66.100 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, Title e) Reduce a~ additional amount of spill Iiohr9= . D m ;n [] Comments: The proposal would not result in any additional aesthetic impacts. Landform and aesthetic impacts were adequately addressed in FEIR-89-3 mad FSEIR-91-3 XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would zhe proposal: :: a) Will the proposal result in the alteration of or m m ~ [] the destruction or a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? b) Will the proposal result in adverse physical or :n D D aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure or object? c) Does the proposal have the potential to cause a c~ o o physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? d) Will the proposal restrict existing religious or s rn rn sacred uses within the potential impact area? e) Is the area identified on the City's General Plan r~ rn rn EIR as an area of high potential for archeological resources? Comments: The proposal would not result in any additional impacts to Cultural Resources than those that were adequately addressed in FEIR-89-3 and SFEIR-91-3. XW. PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOIYRCES. l~qll the rn rn [] ~ proposal resul~ in the alteration of or the deszruc~ion of paleontological resources ? Comments: Impacts to prehistoric resources were adequately addressed in FEIR-89-3 and FSEIR- --' 91-3. The proposal does not result in any additional impacts to paleontological resources. RECREATION. Would the proposa/: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or r~ rn o ~ regional parks or other recreational facilities? b) Afl~cr existing recreational oppot-mnkies? 2 2 ~ ~ c) Interfere with recreation parks & recreation n [] D ~ plans or programs? Comments: Impacts to recreation were adequately addressed in FEIR-89-3. The proposal does not resuh in an increased demand for par~ or recreational facilities. X~rlI. MAN~DATORY FINrDINGS OF SIGNII'ICA~NCE: See Negazive Declaration for rna,dr~mry findings of significance' lf an EIR is needed, this section should be completed. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal communi~, reduce due number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plato or animal or eliminate nnPortant examples of the major periods or : - California histo~, or prehistory? Comments: Sensitive and endangered plants and animals have been addressed in Section VII, Biology. Mitigation has been incorporated to reduce potential biologi~l impacts to a level less than significant. b) Does the project have the potential to achieve D ~ D ~ short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? Comments: The scope and nature of the project would not result in the curtailment of any long- term environmental goals. c) Does the project have impacts that are n D D ~ individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project ~re considerable when viewed in connection with the e~ects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the eft%ets of probable furore projects.) Comments: Cumulative .impacts were previously addressed in Both FEIR-89-03 and FSEIR-91- 03. The proposed project does not result in any additonal cumulative project impacts. d) Does the project have em,ironmental effect m u m ~ which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either d/reztly or indirectly? Cornrnellts: The project is a change in development phasing that results in an umenclment to a previous traffic mitigation measure and therefore does not have the potential to cause substantial adve~e direct or indirect effects on human beings. X~E~. PROJECT R.EVIglONS OR MITIGATION MEAb-'TIRES: The following project revisions or mitigation measures have b~n incorporated into the project and will be implemented during the desi~, construction or operation of the project: TRAFFIC/CIRcULATION/TRAFFIC TI-[RESHOLD STANDA_RD - I ) Provided biological mitigation is complied with, the building cap shall be increased from 1,137 dwelling units to allow building permit issuance for up to 1,467 EDU's (an additional 330 EDU's) and Final Map approval up to 1,665 EDU's (an additional 528 EDU's). 2! Building permits shall ~ Craned ~yond 1.467 EDU's to ~ maximum of 1.665 EDU's with t,hz completion of a: least one of the following improvemems: a. Complete the extension of Olympic Park's'ay to East Palomar Street: or b. Widen East "H' Street to provide an additional westbound flu-u lane at the East "H" Su-eeffHidden Vista Drive intersection. 3) Final Map approval ~hall not exceed 1,665 EDU's without the completion of SR-125. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES l) The approval of Final Maps and the issuance of grading permits for Neighborhood 1 shall not be granted until the applicant has obtained take authorization from the California Department of Fish and Gm-ne and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for any identified biological sensitive resource including Otay tarplant. 2) An Otay mrplant survey shall be conducted in the unsurveyed portions of Neighborhood 1 to determine the presence of Otay tarplant; and 3) The approval of Final Maps and the issuance of grading permits for Neighborhood 1 shall not be granmfl until the applicant has obtained rake authorization from the California Deparnnent of Fish and Game and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for any identified biological sensitive resource in:iuding Otay tm'plant. 4) A qualified biologist shall be retained by the applicant to ensure that sensitive areas are not · dismzbed during the grading of Neighborhood 1. 5) Prior to the approval of Final Maps and the issuance of grading permits for Neighborhood 1 the applicon ~batl be required to conduct a protocol level ~rvey to determine the presence of Quino checkerspot butmrfly and Quino checkerspot habitat. 6) ~ the event that biologically sensitive resources including QuLno checkerspot butterfly and/o~' Qumo checkerspot habitat is found, the approval of Final Maps and the issuance of grading permits ~h~ll not be __,granted until the applicant has obtained take authorization from the California D~artrnent offish and Game and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 7) The applicant shall be required to conduct a protocol level survey of Neighborhood 1 to deterrrfine the presence of burrowing owl and active burrowing owl burrows. 8) "In the event that biologically sensitive resources including burrowing owl and active burrowing owl burrows are found, the approval of Final Maps and the issuance of gTading permits shall not be _m-anted until the applicant has obtained rake author2ation from the California Depmtment of Fish and Game and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 9) A qualified biologist shall be retained by the applicant to ensure that sensitive areas are not disturbed during the grading of Neighborhood 1. 10) A qualified biologist shall be retained by the applicant to ensure that sensitive areas are not disturbed during the grading of Neighborhoods 7a, 7b, and 8. ! 1) Prior to the issuance of grading permks for the surveyed areas of Neighborhoods 7a, 7b, and 8 the applicant shall submit a fencing plan to the mitigation monitor for approval to protect the ?? unsurveyed areas from disturbance; I2) Site preparation activities, specifically staging area ot~rations and maintenance rows for heavy machinery' shall be restricted to the sun,eyed areas of Neighborhoods ?a, 7b, and 8: 13) No clearing of brash shall be allowed in the adjacent unsurveyed sensitive habitat areas (as identified in Exhibit "A~ of the Mitigation Monitoring Program) of Neighborhoods 7a, 7b, and S until a rare plant survey is conducmd and the applicant has obtained necessary take authorization from the California Depa~ uuent offish and Game and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for any identified biological sensitive msuurce including Otay mrplant, Quino checkers'pot butterfly, or Quino habitat. 14) Prior to the issuance of grading permits for the unsurveyed areas of Neighborhoods 7a, 7b, and 8. a rare plant survey shall be conducted for the un~arveyed areas of Neighborhoods 7a, 7b, and 8; and 15) in the event that sensitive biological resources inclu~ling Otay tarplant, Quino checkers'pot butterfly and Quino habitat is present in the unsurveyed areas of Neighborhoods 7a, 7b, and 8, grading permits for the affected areas shall not be issued until the applicant has obtained take authorization from the California Department offish and Game and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for any identified biological sensitive resom-ce including Otay mrplant, Quino checkerspot butterfly, or Quino habitat. ] 6) Upon the issuance of grading permits, a qualified biologist shall be retained bv the applicant to ensure that sensitive areas are not disturbed during the grading of Neighborhoods 7a, 7b, and 8. 17) A qualified biologist shall be retained by the applicant to ensure that sensitive areas are not disturbed during the grading of Neighborhoods 7a, 7h, and 8; 18) Prior to the issuance of grading permits the applicant shall subm/t an approved fencing plan to protect the unsurveyed areas from disturbance; and 19) Site preparation activities, specifically staging area operations and maintenance rows for heavy m~zhine~- shall be restricted to the sun, eyed areas of Neighborhoods 7a, 7b, and 8. 20) Pr/or to the issuance of grading permits for the areas outside the biological survey boundary the unsurveyed portions of Neighborhoods 7a, 7b, and 8 shall be surveyed for the presence of burrowing owl and active burrowing owl burrows; 21) In the event that sensitive biologi~al resources including burrowing owl or active burrowing owl burrows are present in the unsurveyed areas of Neighborhoods 7a, 7b, and 8, grading permits for the affected areas shall not be issued until the applicant has obtained necessary take authorization from the California Depa~m~ent of Fish and Game and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Sen, ice. X.'X. AGREEMENT TO IMPLEMENT MITIGATION .M[EASU'RES By signing the line(s) provided below, the Applizam(s) and/or Operator(s) stipulate tho! they have eazh read, understood and have their respective company's authority to and do agree to the rmtigation measures conmin~ herein, and will implement same to the satisfaction of the Environmental Review Coordinator. Failure to sign the line(s) provided below prior to posting of this [Mitigated] Negative Declaration with the County Clerk shall indicate the Applicants' and/or Operator's desire that the Project be held in abeyance withom approval and that Applicant(s) anclfor Operater(s) shall apply for an Environmental Impact Report. Printed Name and Title of Authorized Representative of [Property Owner's Name] S~gnatm, e ~f ~thonzed Representauve of Date [Proper~h~er's Name] Printed Name'~nd T~fle of [Operator if different from Property O'~mer] ~hg~ature of Authormed Reprgc~muve of Date [Operator if different from Property O~mer] XXT ENWIRON~M~ENT.4i, FACTORS POTEN*TI_Ai,LY AFFECTED: The em'iromenraI factors checked below would be pomntially afr~cmd by this project, invoh, ing at least one impacz that is a "Potentially Significant hnpacff or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated," as mdicam, d by the checklist on the following pages. [] Land Use and Planning [] Transportation/Circulation [] Public Sen,ices ~, Population and Housing [] Biological Resources [] Utilities and Service Systems ~ Geophysical ~ Energy and Mineral Resources [] Aesthetics [] Water [] Hazards [] Cultural Resources [] Air Quality [] Noise [] Recreation [] Mandatory Findings of Significance X..W/II. DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: ?q I ~-mci that the proposed projecl COULD NOT have a signifir, am environment, and a NEGATFVE D£CLARATION will be prepared. I fred that although the proposed project could have a significanl efl~ct on the environment, there will not be a significan! effect in [his case because the mitigation measures described on an anachecl sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLAR.ATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a si~m~icant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONI~NTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a siznificant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect: 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impacts" or .... o ' potentially si,mficant unless mkigated." ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the envh'onment, there WIIJ. NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially si~m3fficant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. An addendum has been prepared to provide a record of this determination. Environmenm/Review Coordinator CiD' of Chula Vista r~ ATTACHMENT "C" .MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP) .ROLLING HILLS RANCH MASTER PLANNED COMMUNITY (IS-00-05) MMRP REQUIRElVlENTS The environmental analysis in Sections VI, VII, and XI(c) of Rolling Hills Ranch Environmental Chec 'klist - IS-00-05 indicates that the proposed project, has the potential to create significant adverse impacts in relation to traffic and circulation, biological resources, and the City adopted growth management traffic threshold. A number of mitigation measures in the IS-00-05 Mitigated Negative Declaration are recommended to reduce and/or avoid the potentially significant adverse impacts of the project. These mitigation measures shall be adopted by the Chula Vista City Council, in conjunction with the adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration for IS-00-05.' Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code requ/.res a public agency to adopt a monitoring and reporting program for assessing and ensuring the implementation ofreqnired mitigation measures apphed to proposed developments. Specific reporting and/or monitoring requirements, which will be enforced during project implementation, should be adopted coincidental to the final approval of the project by the responsible decision maker(s). In accordance with Pubhc Resources Code (PRC) Section 21081.6, the City of Chula Vista has developed this Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the proposed Amendment to the Rolling Hills Ranch Tentative Subdivision Map 92-02 project. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program shall be incorporated into the existing Salt Creek Ranch Mitigation Monitoring Program on file in the Planning and Building Department. The purpose of the M/qiRP is to ensure that the proposed development project complies with all applicable environmental mitigation and permit requirements. M O.NTI'ORING PROGRAM Due to the nature of the environmental issues identified, the Mitigation Monitor shall be the Emqronmental Review Coordinator or her designee for the City of Chula Vista. It shall be the responsibility of the appellant to ensure that the conditions of the Mitigation Monitoring Pro,am are met to the satisfaction of the Environmental Review Coordmater. Evidence In written form confirming compliance with the m/figafion measures specified in Mitigated Negative Declaration No. IS-00-05 shall be provided by the biological monitor and applicant as identified in the attached Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Checklist to the Environmental Review Coordinator as stipulated by each mitigation measure. The Environmental Review Coordinator will thus provide the ultimate verification that the mitigation measures have been accomplished. Table 1 1/sts the mitigation measures listed in Section E, Mitigation Necessary to Avoid Significant Effects, of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and which will be implemented as part of the project. In order to determine if the applicant has implemented these measures, the method and tim/rig of verification are identified, alon~ with the City department or agency responsible for monitoring/verifying that the applicant has completed each mitigation measure. Space for the signature of the verifying person and the date of inspection is provided in the last column Attachment 7 Salt Creek Ranch PFFP Section 3.2.9 and 3.2.10 Strikeout = Deleted text Underlined ='Added text 3.2.9 Adequacy Analysis The adequacy of traffic is based upon a detailed study performed by Willdan Associates, Traffic Impact Study for Salt Creek Ranc~ dated November 18, 1991. The following information is an excerpt from that study. (1992) Throughout the traffic impact study for this project, a distinction is made between Existing Conditiom, Base Conditions, Scenario 1 and lA Conditions, and Scenario 2 Conditions. The following is a description of each condition and 'the methodology and tasks undertaken in forecasting the travel demand. (1992) ~. The ex/sting traffic and roadway conditions were established based on information obtained from the City of Chula Vista and the 1990 Growth Management Intersection Monitoring Program prepared by JI-tK and Associates. 2. .Base Conditionq The base conditions were established based on /-rfformafion contained in the ECVTPP. These conditions assume construction of all approved developments and related roadway ~mprovements as documented m the ECVTPp, except for the setwnent of "I~ Street just west of the project site, which was assum~ed to consist of a two-lane paved road2 3. .Scenar/o l and lA Conditi0nn, The Scenario 1 conditions assume the completion of Phase I of the Salt Creek Ranch, in addition to the base condition described above. Th/s condit/on was estab/ished as follows. Daffy and peak hour trip generation rates for Phase I were developed based on SANDAG's Traffic Genewaion Marvaal (see Table ~ page 28). b. The Phase I traffic was assigned to the surrounding roadways and added to the base condition resulting in Scenario 1 trane volumes. The trip distribution and assig'nment 'of the Phase I traffic was estimated based on the TR.ANPI_AN model software. c. After the results of the analysis indicated unmifigable impacts at the intersection of H/dden Vista Drive/East 'TI". Street, Phase I traffc and the corresponding development were reduced to establish Scenario IA. 3.2-10 ~ Sa/t Oeek Ranch Public Facilitiex I~mance Plan TRAFFIC d. h should be noted that the Ckculafion network assumed for Scenario ] and Scenario LA are different Scenario ] assumes that a segment of East "H" Street will remain as a dirt mad while Scenario lA assumes that Proctor Valley Road will remain as a two lane dirt road and t~ast "II' Street west of the site w~ll be paved as a two lane road. Scenario 2 Conditions. The Scenario 2 conditious assume the ultimate development of Salt Creek Ranch and the implementation of a four-lane at-grade roadway along the State Route 125 corridor. The methodology used to establish the projected traffic volumes for thk scenario is Similar to Scenario 1 above, using the total traffic generated by Salt Creek Ranch. Based on the analysis contained herein, major improvements to the surrounding roadway networks have been identffied to mitigate the tr~c impact of this project and other approved 'projects in the area and to improve existing operational conditions as well These improvements include: (1992) Base Condition l. Interconnect all traffic signals in the eastern territories and synchro- nize the signal timing tO provide a suitable progression for through w~ff~c along the major circulation sweets..4, cenu-~llzed computer- system should be installed to more efficiently monitor and coordinate the traffic signal operation in the eastern terr/tories and to optimize the tr~-~c signal fmlngs at aL! intersections to prov/de for an efficient franc operation and reduce delays. (1992) 2. The intersection of Te]e_m'apb Canyon Road/Eas~l~ke Parkway will require the following improvements in order to operate at level of serv/ce (LOS) D or better during the peak hours. (1992) a. Widen the southbound approach of East!~ke Parkway to provide a channel/zed fight turn lane with an acceleration lane. Restripe to allow the follow/ng lane configuration: Eastbound- two left, two through, and two right Westbound-- two left, two through, one through/right, one fight 'Northbound -- two left, one through, and one through/fight Sa/t Caw. ek Rand~ 3.2-11 Pubic Facil~_~ Fuu~ce PLan Southbound-- one left, ~'o through, and one channelized right b. Construct a driveway (with acce]erat/on/deceleration lanes) along Telegraph Canyon Road west of conjunction with the proposed shopping center in the northwest comer, in order to divert a portion of the fight mm and left turn volumes from the southboUnd and eastboUnd approaches of this intersection, respectively. Proh/bit the left tram move- ment from the driveway. 3. The intersection of East ~I" Street/Hidden Vista Drive, will require the following/improvements in order to operate at LOS D or better during the peak hours. (1992) ' a. Widen the eastbound and westbound approaches of East 'TI" Street to provide an additional through lane in each direction. Provide the following lane corff~guration: · Eastbound- two left, four through~ and one right * Westhound- two left, three through, and one -- through/fight * Northbound- one left, one left/through, a~d one right * Southbotmd-- one left, one left/through, and one r/ght 4. The intersection of.East "I-I~ S~reet/Otav Lakes Road will requ/re the- follow/rig/mprovements to provide LOS D or better during the peak hours. (1992) .......... a~ Widen the eastbound and westhoUn~_~p_proaches of E~t "H" Street to. promde a~ addinonal through/mae in each dire~i~-~ ......... · Eastbound- one left, three through and one right Westbound- one left, three throughlY, and one right Northbound-- two left, two tl~-ough, and a free right Southbound- two left, two through, and one right b. Widen the northbound approach of Otay Lakes Road to provide an additional left turn lane. C'~nBelize the right mrn move- menL e. Widen the southbound approach of Otay Lakes Road to provide an additional left tufa lane. Public Facilities Finance Plan TRAFFIC 5. The intersection of.Bonita R0ad/Otay Lake$ Road will require the following improvements to provide LOS D or better during the peak hours. (1992) a. Widen the westbound approach of Bonita Road to prov/de an additional left mm lane. Provide the following lane configura- tion: Eastbound- two through, one right Westbound- two left, two through Northbound- two left, and one right 6. The intersection of Otay Lakes Road/Elmh,.urst Drive. will require the following improvements to provide LOS D or better during the peak hours. (1992) a. Widen the northbound and southbound approaches of Otay lakes Road to provide an additional through lane in each direction and dual left turns northbound. 7. Since the ADT along Otay Lakes Road exceeds the City's ttn-eshold for LOS C, three through lanes in each direction should be provided between Telegraph Canyon Road and north of East "H" Street. (1992) Scenario 1/Scenario lA (Phase I) ' Reduce the development potential of Phase I by 120 dwellSng units to attain LOS D at the intersection o£ Hidden Vista Dr/ye/East "H" . ._ Street ................. 2. Construct East "H~ Street through the project (Phase I boundaries) to ultimate four-lane mQor street standards, consistent with the City of Chula Vista design criteria. Consumct a two-lane roadway connecting East "H" Street from the western limit of Phase I development to Salt Creek I to City standards. (1992) 3. Construct Hume Parkway to ult/m~te four-lane m~jor street slzudards through the project and off. site south to Telegraph Canyon Road, consistent w/th the City of Chula Vista des/ga criteria. (1992) 4. Construct J-ane Avenue as a Class rl collector from F.a~t "H~ Street to meet existing improvements at i/s current term~nns in the Traffic The fo]lowing are additional text thai reflects the amendments to Section 3.2.9 and 3.2. ] 0 of the Salt Creek Ranch PFFP: Business Park, consistent with the City of Chula Vista's design criteria. (1992) 5. At the discretion of the City Tr~f~c Engineer, install traffic signals or bond for future installation at the following intersections: (t992) · East "H" Street/Lane Avenue · East "H" Street/Hunte Parkway · Lane Avenue/Telegraph Canyon Road Hunte Parkway/Telegraph Canyon Road 6. Implement transportation demand management s~ategies, including provisions of transit service and bus stops in order to reduce the peak hour demand on the street network. (1992) 7. Provided biological mitigation in IS-00-05 is complied with, the building cap shall be increased to allow building permit issuance for up to 1,467 equivalent dwelling units. $. Buildin¢ permits shal~ be granted beyond 1.467 EDU's to a ma~'~m~)m of 1.665 EDU's with the completion of at least one of the following improvements: Complete the extension of Olympic Parkway to East Palomar Street; or Widen East ~H' Street to provide an additional westbound thru-lane at the East ~H' Street / Hidden Vista Dr~ve intersection. 9. No final Maps containin¢ a Proiect cumulative total of more than 1565 EDU's shall be subiect to approval v~thout SR-125 from Olympic Parkway to SR-54 bein¢ o~)en for public access. Scenario 2 [Plmse I, II~ a_ud l~I and State Route 125) 1. Implement all the measures described under Scenario 1 above. (1992) 2. Construct State Route 125 as a four-lane roadway between East ~H" Street and State Route 54 with enhanced geometries at the intersections. (1992) 3. Construct ~H~ Street as a four-lane major street from the western boundary of the site to the existing terminus of ~H~ Street. (1992) Salt Creek Ranch 3.2-14 Public Facilities Finance Plan Tr~ ft~c 3.2.10 Threshold Compli=,~ce. Threshold compliance will continue to be monitored Cmrough the amnual intea'sec'tlon monitoring program and the Eastern Ch~lm Vista Transportation Phasing Plan updates. (1992) Based upon the traffic analysis by Linscott, Law & C-reenspam {LLG) prepared for the Salt Creek project, threshold compliance is projected to be mmintained with implementation of the improvements idenii~ed in the ~base condition' amd "Scenario l/lA" of the Traffic Impact Smdyi_'es__ '~*~--.~_ ..~. ~_. ~ ..... ~--- ,~,~ ,m~. ~. . (1992) May ]7, 1999 and March 8, 2000. (2000} Provided biological mitigation in IS-00-05 is complied with, the building cap shall increased to allow building permi~ issuance for up to !,467 equivalent dwelling uniis. Building permits shall b~ granted beyond 1,467 EDU's to a ma~mum of 1,665 EDU's with the completion of at least one of the following improvements: Building permits shall be granted beyond 1,467 EDU's to a maximum of 1,665 EDU's v~th the completion of at least or~ of the following improvements: - Complete the ex-tension of Olympic Park~vay to East Palom~r S~eet; or W~den East "H' S=eet m provide am additional westhomud thru-lane at the East 'H' S~-eet/ Hidden Vista Drlve intersection. : No final Maps containing a Project cumulative total of more than 1665 EDU's shall be subject to approval without SR~125 fi-om Ot)umpic Parkway to SR-54 SaI~ Creek Ranch 3.2 - 18 Public .FaciliZie~ Finance Plan Futur= development w~thin Salt Cr~k Ranch wilt be required to pay T~c Si~ Fets ~ accord~ce ~ Ch~a Vis~ Co.cfi PoS~ No. 475-01. T~c Si~ Fees, ~spomfion DIF F~s, Intern ~-125 D~ Fees ~d ~ o~ appS~ble f~cs sh~ b~ p~d at ~¢ mt~ ~ ~ffe~ at ~e ~me ~e bufl~g pe~ts ~ issued. (1996) ~¢ S~t Creek R~ch project con~s rcsidan~ s~eets ~d si~s ~at, by CiD, po~w, ~e not eS~bl¢ for DIG credit. These s~eets ~d si~s ~ ~ funded by ~e d~elopm~t. (1992) Salt Creek Ranch - - 3.2 - 19 PubZic Facilities Finance Plan ATTACHMENT g Disclosure Statement THE CF~ _ OF C~ ~,rlSTA DIS~SU~,~ b--fA _ --MENT all olhmr o~aa] b~di~. ~t follo~ng relocation 1. ~ [he nam~ of all p=mo~ ha~n~ ~ finanzial inmrml i~ th= prop=~'which ~ thc subj.[ of the appli~tJo~ ~ntmck ~.~., o~r, appli~m, ~mramor, PACIFIC BAY PROP~TJEB 2300 BOS~J. RO_~, SUITE C~A ~STA. CA If any p:mon' i~m~ pumuam m more ~han ]0% of [b~ shar~ in ~hc corporation or oam~n~ amy pamncmh~p inmr~ in rhm pamncmhip. 3. If any person' iciemifi~cl pumuam ,o (I) abo~ is non-profi! or,auction or a tru.~k I~! the nam= of any perzv servin_o ~ ciire.,.'uor of the non-profi~ or~an/zation or ~ trusmc or benefi~ary or trvzmr of the trusL yOU had more than $250 womb of busin~-.t~ t,"~rmam~ wi[h any m=mbzr of thc Ciu stuff, B~, ~io~ ~in~ ~d ~un~l ~thin tb~ p~t twa)vc mom~? PJ~ id~nti~, ~:b ~na ev~, p~mon, inzlu~in~ any a~:n~, ~m~ov~, ~p~ul:ams. or independent ~nt~clo~ who .~v. ~ign~ to r~pr~nt you b~fore :b~ Ci~v in :~ matmr. -~0 - PACIFIC BAT G. H~;ve you andjor your offic.~rs or a~nt~, in 'the af~_-regmc, contrJbmecl more than $1,000 Io currem or pre. c~Sin~ et~.fion period? Y~ No X If yes, stm~ ~vhizh Counzilmember(s): * * * (NOTE: An:*~ addi~onaJ pages ~:s ~--~x-t~,y) * - - ~ Sig~am~ of ~ntmmor~pp~t . ~ A Pml or D~ name of ~ntm~or/app~l ._ RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ADOPTING MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM ISSUED FOR THIS PROJECT, AND APPROVING ' AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONS No 1 AND 3 OF THE SALT CREEK RANCH TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP, CHULA VISTA TRACT 92-02, AND SECTION 3.2 OF THE SALT CREEK RANCH PUBLIC FACILITIES FINANCING PLAN TO ALLOW AN INCREASE IN THE NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS THAT MAY BE BUILT PRIOR TO SR-t25 FREEWAY FROM OLYMPIC PARKWAY TO SR-54 OPENING FOR PUBLIC ACCESS. I. RECITALS A. Project Site WHEREAS, the area of land which is the subject matter of this Resolution is dia r .... ' ...... g aromatically represented ~n Exhibit A , attached hereto and mcorporated hereto by this reference, and commonly known as, Rolling Hills Ranch, and for the purpose of general description herein consists of approximately 1,200 acres located east of the future SR-125 freeway, and north of the existing Eastlake Business Center ("Project Site"); and, B. Project; Application for Discretionary Approval WHEREAS, a duly verified application was filed with the City of Chula Vista Planning and Building Department on December 18, 1998 by Pacific Bay Homes ("Developer") requesting approval of amendments to conditions 1 and 3 of the Salt Creek Ranch Tentative Subdivision Map, Chula Vista Tract 92-02 and Section 3.2 of the Salt Creek Ranch Public Facilities Financing Plan to allow an increase in the number of dwelling units that may be built prior to SR-125 opening for public access ("Amendment"); and, C. Prior Discretionary Approvals WHEREAS, the development of the Project Site has been the subject matter of various entitlements and agreements, including: 1) a General Development Plan, Salt Creek Ranch · ,~ General Development Plan ("GDP"), previously approved by City Council Resolution No. 15875; 2) a Sectional Planning Area ("SPA") plan, Salt Creek Ranch Sectional planning Area (SPA) plan; 3) Air Quality Improvement Plan (AQIP), Salt Creek Ranch Air Quality Improvement Plan; 4) Water Conservation Plan (WCP), Salt Creek Water Conservation Plan; 5) Design Guidelines, Salt Creek Ranch Design Guidelines; 6) Public Facilities Financing Plan (PFFP), Salt Creek Ranch Public Facilities Financing Plan; and 7) Planned Communities District Regulations, Salt Creek Ranch Planned Cormmunity District Regulations all previously approved by City Council Resolution No. 19275, and Ordinance 2765 on March 24, 1992 (referred to collectively herein as "Project"); and, Page 2 D. Planning Commission Record on Application WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held an advertised public hearing on the Project on April 12, 2000 and, after hearing staff presentation and public testimony, voted 4-2q (Commissioners Hall and Castaneda opposed, Conunissioner Ray excused) to recommend that the City Council approve the Amendment in accordance with the findings and subject to the conditions listed below. E. City Council Record of Applications WHEREAS, a duly called and noticed public heahng on the Amendment was held before the City Council of the City of Chula Vista on May 2, 2000, on the Amendment and to receive the recommendations of the Planning Commission, and to hear public testimony with regard to same; and, WHEREAS, the city clerk set the time and place for a hearing on said Amendment application, and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the City, and its mailing to property owners within 500 ft. of the exterior boundary of the project at least 10 days prior to the hearing; and, WHEREAS, the heating was held at the time and place as advertised, namely 4:00 p.m. May 2, 2000, in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the City Council and said hearing was thereafter closed. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby find, determine and resolve as follows: II. PLANNING COMMISSION RECORD The proceedings and all evidence introduced before the Planning Commission at their public ~, hearing on the Amendment application held on April 12, 2000, and the minutes and ; resolutions resulting therefrom, are hereby incorporated into the record of this proceeding. III. PREVIOUS FEIR-89-03 AND FSEIR-91-3 REVIEWED AND CONSIDERED; FINDINGS; APPROVALS The City Council of the City of Chula Vista has previously reviewed, analyzed, considered, and certified FEIR 89-03. and FSEIR-91-03 for the Project. Page 3 IV, COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA WHEREAS the Environmental Review Coordinator prepared an Initial Study and determined that, although the proposed Amendment could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because mitigation measures have been incorporated and agreed to by the project proponent. A Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program were prepared; and, V. INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT OF CITY COUNCIL WHEREAS the City Council finds that the Mitigated Negative Declaration, IS-00-05 has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista; and, WHEREAS The City Council finds that the Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgment of the City Council of the City of Chula Vista and hereby adopts the Mitigated Negative Declaration. VI. ADOPTION OF SPA In light of the findings described herein, the amendment to the Salt Creek Ranch Public Facilities Finance Plan, in the form attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit "B", is hereby approved. VII. SPA FINDINGS/APPROVAL A. THE SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN FOR SALT CREEK RANCH (AS AMENDED) IS IN CONFORMITY WITH TIIE SALT CREEK RANCH GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND THE CHULA VISTA GENERAL PLAN. The amended Salt Creek Ranch Public Facilities Finance, which is a component of the Salt Creek Ranch Sectional Planning Area (SPA) plan, is consistent with the adopted Salt Creek Ranch General Development Plan (GDP) and the Chula Vista General Plan B. THE SALT CREEK RANCH SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN, AS AMENDED WILL PROMOTE THE ORDERLY SEQUENTIALIZED DEVELOPMENT OF THE iNVOLVED SECTIONAL PLANNING AREAS. The Salt Creek Ranch Public Facilities Finance Plan, as amended is consistent with the Air Quality Improvement Plans, and Water Conservation Plans and will, therefore, Page 4 promote the orderly sequentialized development of the involved Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan areas. C. TH~ SALT CREEK RANCH SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN, AS AMENDED WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT ADJACENT LAND USE, . RESIDENTIAL ENJOYMENT, CIRCULATION OR ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY. The land uses are not proposed to be changed within the Salt Creek Ranch Sectional Planning Area (SPA) plan and therefore will not adversely affect adjacent land use, residential enjoyment, circulation, or environmental quality. D. IN THE CASE OF PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL USES, THAT SUCH DEVELOPMENT WILL BE APPROPRIATE IN AREA, LOCATION, AND OVER~ ALL DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ARE SUCH AS TO CREATE A RESIDENTIAL ENVIRONMENT OF SUSTAINED DESIRABILITY AND STABILITY; AND, THAT SUCH DEVELOPMENT WILL MEET PERFORMANCE STANDARDS ESTABLISHED BY THIS TITLE. The amendments do not invo]ve modifications to the adopted land use plan and therefore do not affect the overall design and development standards adopted for the Rolling Hills Ranch planned community E. IN THE CASE OF RESIDENTIAL USES, THAT SUCH DEVELOPMENT WILL BE APPROPRIATE IN AREA, LOCATION AND OVER-ALL PLANNING TO THE PURPOSE PROPOSED, AND THAT SURROUNDING AREAS ARE PROTECTED FROM ANY ADVERSE EFFECTS FROM SUCH DEVELOPMENT. The Public Facilities Finance Plan provides mitigation measures to insure the installation of all necessary public facilities and amenities prior to or in conjunctions with development. Thus, the additional development authorized before SR-125 is open for public access will not adversely affect the surrounding developments. · F. THE STREET AND THOROUGHFARES PROPOSED ARE SUITABLE AND · ,, ADEQUATE TO CARRY THE ANTIC~ATED TRAFFIC THEREON. The amendments do not involve amendments to the planned circulation system depicted on the General Plan Circulation Element and therefore, the circulation system will be improved in accordance with the General Plan concurrent with the proposed development. Page 5 G. ANY PROPOSED RESDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT CAN BE JUSTIIrlED ECONOMICALLY AT THE LOCATION (S) PROPOSED AND WILL PROVIDE ADEQUATE HOUSING UNITS OF THE TYPES NEEDED AT SUCH PROPOSED LOCATION (S). The proposed amendments to the Salt Creek Ranch Public Facilities Finance Plan do not involve new residential development. However, The adopted residential uses reflect the adopted Chula Vista General Plan and will provide needed housing to future residents in the area. H. THE AREA SURROUNDING SAD DEVELOPMENT CAN BE PLANNED AND ZONED IN COORDINATION AND SUBSTANTIAL COMPATIBILITY WITH SAD DEVELOPMENT. The proposed amendment does not involve changes in the land use plan VIII. ADOPTION OF AMENDMENTS TO TENTATIVE MAP In light of the findings described herein, the City Council does hereby approve amendments to Conditions 1 and 3 of the Salt Creek Ranch Tentative Subdivision in the form attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibits "C". All remaining conditions of Tentative Map No. 92- 02 not modified by this Resolution shall remain in full force and effect. IX. CONSEQUENCE OF FAILURE OF CONDITIONS If any of the foregoing conditions 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 revoke or modify all approvals herein granted, deny, or further condition issuance of all future building permits, deny, revoke, or further condition all certificates of occupancy issued under the authority of approvals herein granted, institute and prosecute litigation to compel their compliance with said conditions or seek damages for their violation. No vested rights are gained by Developer or a successor in interest by the City's approval of this Resolution. X. INVALIDITY; AUTOMATIC REVOCATION It is the intention of the City Council that its adoption of this Resolution is dependent upon the enforceability of each and every term, provision and condition herein stated; and that in the event that any one or more terms, provision, or conditions are determined by a Court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable, this resolution shall be deemed to be automatically revoked and of no further force and effect ab initio. /0- Page 6 Presented by: Approved as to form by: Robert A. Leiter John M.Kaheny Director of Planning & Building City Attorney H:\HOM E\PLANNING\LUIS\RHR PCS-9906.CCR.wpd CHUtA V1SFA Department of Pla~nlqg and Buiidiqg Date: April 28, 2000 To: The Honorable Mayor and Council From: Robert A.Leiter, Director of Planning and Building ~ Subject: PCS-99-06; Salt Creek Ranch Tentative Subdivision Map (ITEM #I0) Enclosed are two items that were not included in the Council packet that was distributed on Thursday. One item is the Planning Commission minutes for the April 12, 2000 meeting in which they discussed this item. The second item is a letter that was received today, Friday, April 28~, relating to this item which we are including for your review. Thank you. April 25, 2000 Stan Donn City of Chula Vista Planning and Building Department 276 Fourth Avenue Chula X, qsta, CA 91910 Dear Mr. Dorm: This letter serves as written documentation of my opposition of case number PCS 99- 06. Unfortunately I will not be able to attend fine hearing on May 2, but still wish to document my opposition to Pacific Bay Homes' amendment to build additional homes than proposed for before the SR 125 freeway opening. Truthfully, when my husband and I purchased a new home at Rolling Hills Ranch in the _Madison lane section, we were concerned about being able to get to and from the freeway. However, our sales person insisted that Pacific Bay Homes' building would not surpass the proposed amount of housing before the new freeway opened. We have lived in our house for 10 months no~; and have experienced a remarkable increase in traffic congestion since our move-in. We realize the demand for housing in San Diego is greater fiaan the suppl); but current east Chula Vista streets do not accommodate the amount of cars on the road. Pacific Bay Homes along with a dozen other builders must be realistic about the traffic situation in east Chula Vista. Moreover, SR425 has not been officially approved yet what if it is not? Keep in mind that we must share the road with long-term residents, and new Eastlake and Otay Ranch homeowners as well. Thank you for 5,our 'kind consideration Sincerely, Jeep. err ,Kourda Rollm-~'Hills Ranch Homeowner 2489 EAGLE VALLEY DRIVE · CHULA VISTA, CA ° 91914 PHONE: 619_216.8702 ' MINUTES OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA Council Chambers 6:00 p.m. Public Services Building Wednesday, April 12, 2000 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista ROLl CA/U MOTIONS TO EXCUSE: Present: Chair Willett, Commissioners Castaneda, Hall, Ray, Thomas, Cortes and O'Neill Staff Present: Jim Sandoval, Assistant Director of Planning and Building Elizabeth Hull, Deputy City Attorney Klm Vander Bie, Associate Planner Leilani Hines, Community Development Specialist Luis Hernandez, Senior Planner Alex AI-Agha, Senior Civil Engineer PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/SILENT PRAYER INTRODUCTORY REMARKS: Read into the record by Chair Wi[lett ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: No public input. 3. PUBLIC HEARING: PCS 99-06; Consideration of an amendment to Conditions I and 3 of the Salt Creek Ranch Tentative Subdivision Map, Chula Vista Tract 92-02, and Section 3.2 of the Salt Creek Ranch Public Facilities Financing Plan to allow an increase in the number of dwelling units that may be built prior to SR-125 freeway opening for public access. Pacific Bay Homes. Commissioner Ray excused himself from the dais due to a previously scheduled engagement. Background: Luis Hernandez, Senior Planner, reported that Rolling Hills Ranch, a master planned community formerly known as Salt Creek Ranch consists of 1,200 acres located north of the existing Eastlake Business Center. It is accessed primarily from East H Street, with secondary access from Lane Avenue and Hunte Parkway via Otay Lakes Road. In 1990 the City Council approved the General Development Plan with 2,800 dwelling units and other support land uses which include: a) two school sites (middle and elementary s~hools) b) a fire station site c) two park sites (1 neighborhood and 1 community park) d) two community purpose facility sites; and e) approximately 450 acres of open space. In 1990 the City Council approved the Salt Creek Ranch SPA with basically the same land use components, minus 200 dwelling units less than the General Development Plan. Planning Commission Minutes ~ 2 - April 12, 2000 The adopted SPA Plan and its regulatory components (the Planned Community District Regulations and the Public Facilities Financing Plan) outline more specifically the development of the Master Planned Community and established development parameters that. insure that all on-site and off-site public facilities needed to support the project are provided in conjunction or in advanced of development. The SPA requires several on-site and off-site improvements, including a facility connecting the project to SR-125 located to the north. The SPA limits the development of Rolling Hills Ranch to the first 1,257 dwelling units (Phase I), until SR-125 is constructed and open for public access. Subsequently, in 1992, the City Council approved the Tentative Subdivision Map for 2,616 dwelling units subject to certain conditions of approval. One of the conditions required that Phase I of the project be reduced from 1,257 to 1,137 dwelling units in order to mitigate traffic impacts identified in the traffic report prepared for the Tentative Map. The development phasing has been modified, as required by the Tentative Map conditions of approval. With the exception of the construction of SR-125, most of the public facilities prescribed in the Public Facilities Financing Plan have been completed or bonded. Presently, Rolling Hills has obtained Final Maps for the entire Phase I of the project, and has obtained 765 building permits and sold approximately 500 homes. It is important to note that due to more precise engineering of the site and the inclusion of some neighborhood amenities, Phase I has lost approximately 170 dwelling units for a total of 963 instead of 1,137 dwelling units at the end of completion of Phase I. The applicant has requested that the cap imposed on Salt Creek Ranch be deleted and that they be allowed to proceed subject to the Growth Management threshold standards adopted for the entire eastern territory. Traffic Analysis Alex AI-Agha, Senior Civil Engineer, reported that the proposed amendment is to revised the Salt Creek Ranch Tentative Map Condition of Approval No. 1 and 3. These conditions limited the project development to 1,137 dwelling units. The proposed amendment to the Tentative Map conditions and to the related section of the Public Facilities Financing Plan will increase the development limit to 1,665 equivalent dwelling units. The traffic studies conducted in 1990 identified the proiect's Phase Traffic demands and recommended that the development scenarios adopted by the GDP and SPA Plan be modified to reduce the number of dwelling units that may be built prior to SR-125 opening, from 1,257 to 1,137 (reduction of 120 units). The intent of the building cap and the recommended reduction was to insure that the Level of Service (LOS) at the intersection East H Street and Hidden Vista Drive not exceed Level of Service D. Lindscor~ Law and Greenspan Engineers conducted t~vo studies to determine if and how much Planning Commission Minutes - 3 ~ April 12, 2000 street capacity is available on East H Street. The initial study was to analyze the short-term impact of all on-going land development projects on the East H Street roadway section as defined by the City GMOC standard. The second study was to identify the impacts of the proposed amendment on various intersections along East H Street in order to ensure that the existing building cap would not be violated. The study concluded that by July 2004 with anticipated growth, East H Street will not meet the City's Traffic Monitoring Program standards. By July 2004, East H Street was forecasted to degrade to 3 hours of LOS D. Based on the anticipated growth rate, Rolling Hills Ranch would have built 1,150 EDU by July 2004. However, staff recommended development limit for the project to be at only 1,665 EDU's. The Consultant also conducted an intersection analysis on four key intersections along East H Street. The study concluded that the intersection of East H Street and Hidden Vista Drive would degrade from t~vo peak hours of LOS D and one peak hour of LOS C to t~vo peak hours of LOS D and one peak hour of LOS E if more than an additional 330 EDU's are added to the present 1,137 development cap without improvements. The segment and intersection analysis reports concluded that Rolling Hills Ranch development can be allowed to proceed beyond the 1,137 to 1,467 EDU's at this time without significant traffic impacts at the above mentioned intersections and segment. However, to mitigate potential impacts beyond the 1,467 EDU's and be able to increase the development to the maximum of 1,665 EDU's recommended by staff, one of the following improvements needs to be constructed and open for public access: o Provide an additional westbound thru lane at East H Street/Hidden Vista Drive intersection; or o Olympic Parkway is extended eastward to at least East Palomar Street. Mr. AI-Agha stated that is should be noted that if SR-125 is constructed from Olympic Parkway north to SR-54, the project could develop beyond the 1,665 EDU's threshold cap to accommodate project build out. Staff recommendation: : ~ 1. Based on the Initial Study, adopt the attached Mitigated Negative Declaration issued for IS-00- 05 and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program issued for this project. 2. Adopt attached Resolution PCS-99-06, recommending that the City Council approve the proposed amendments to Conditions 1 and 3 of the Salt Creek Ranch Tentative Subdivision Map and Section 3.2.9 and 3.2.10 of the Salt Creek Ranch Public Facilities Financing Plan in accordance with the findings and subject to the conditions contained in the Draft City Council Resolution. Planning Commission Minutes - 4 - April 12, 2000 Commission Discussion: Commissioner Hall question why the traffic analysis focused on traffic segments that were east of 1-805 and up H Street, excluding the west segment toward Hilltop Drive. Mr. AI-Agha responded that the scope of the study considered the project-direct impact and genera[ cumulative impact. The critical intersections that will be directly impacted by the project are the intersections at 1-805 and East H Street and some key intersections along East H Street. Commissioner Hall further stated that he is not convinced that the traffic pattern that is now causing the blockage on East H Street has a significant percentage that is coming from Otay Ranch, and clarified that what is being discussed now is the East H Street traffic problem and the future cumulative effect of all of the other developments. Commissioner Thomas asked Mr. AI-Agha to elaborate on the Level of Service E that is contained in staff's report. Mr. AI-Agha stated that if more than 330 EDU's are added to the present 1,137 development cap without improvements, the section of East H Street, between Hidden Vista and 1-805 would be at a Level of Service E during one peak hour (AM). This is based on a look-up table standard for comparing volume on a standard street. The look up table is very conservative and is only used for initial assessment but not for actually measuring the level of service. Presently the volume on East H Street is approximately 63,000. Once you go beyond 60,000 you are in bevel Of Service D. The study is predicting approximately 3,300 ADT's, therefore, at one point in the year 2004 it will get close to 77,000, which translates into a Level Of Service E. Mr. AI-Agha further clarified that there are two limits which are being recommended. The initial cap, which is 1,467 DU's and the pre-SR-125 limit, which is 1,665 DU's. The developer cannot exceed the 1,467 initial cap unless Olympic Parkway is constructed. Once Olympic Parkway is constructed, then the development can proceed to an additional 198 units and shall stop at 1,665 dwelling units until the construction of SR-125. Therefore, the limit is phased into two stages. Commississioner Thomas asked what measures has the City considered if these projections occur before the year 2004. : · Mr. AI-Agha responded that the Growth Management Oversight is applied fairly and equally to all developments and would stay on top of these projections. It could also recommend a moratorium be imposed. The City is conducting traffic studies on an annual basis for the years 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004 in order to avoid reaching the conditions in the year 2004 which would make a moratorium inevitable. Commissioner Thomas inquired if the City is consistent in its restrictions across the board to other developments i.e. San Miguel Ranch. Planning Commission Minutes - 5 - April 12, 2000 Mr. AI-Agha responded affirmatively i.e. for San Miguel Ranch, the development will be limited to 675 to pre-SR-125 and will likely do the same for future developments. Commissioner O'Neill stated that although the City could impose a m~ratorium on development, it has no control over student enrollment populations for Southwestern College and was a bit disconcerted to learn that although the traffic studies do factor in, on an aggregate basis, the traffic generated by the College, it does not, however, address the student enrollment number sfor evening classes. Jim Sandoval, Assistant Planning Director, stated that through discussions with the College on another issue, they have indicated that they are moving toward capping their enrollment and establishing satellite campuses at different sites away from the main Campus on Otay Lakes Road. Commissioner Hall inquired if the signal lights along East H Street and Telegraph Canyon Road are synchronized to allow optimum traffic flow and if so, is it included in the traffic study. Mr. AI-Agha responded that they are synchronized on both roadways. The Caltrans segment may not be in synch with the Cities system, however, they are, as well, synchronized to operate optimally with their system on their segment of the interchanges. This information was included in the traffic study. Public Hearing Opened 8:35 Dave Gatzke, 2300 Boswell Road, Suite 209, applicant, thanked staff and the Commissioner for their time in considering this proposal and gave a brief overview of the project. Mr. Gatzke indicated that they are thoroughly aware of community concerns regarding increased traffic congestion. They made a significant investment in traffic studies and have worked with staff for over a year to fully analyzing the impact of this proposal. The traffic studies do indicate that sufficient capacity exists to support this proposal and strongly urge the PLanning Commission to adopt staff's recommendation. Public Hearing closed 8:50 COMMISSION DISCUSSION Commissioner Castaneda expressed concern with the myopic view on this whole issue of traffic problems on East H Street and some of the mitigation measures. The whole picture is that these are regional issues and $R-125 will need to be constructed and in service to alleviate some of the gridlock on 1-805, therefore, he does not support granting any density or increases in DU's and he does not support staff's recommendation. Chair Willett asked for clarification on the widening 0f East H Street/Hidden Vista Drive. Marilyn Ponseggi, Environmental Review Coordinator, stated that the Mitigated Neg Dec offers one of two alternatives for mitigation: 1) either the additional lane, or 2) the completion of Olympic Parkway from 1-805 to where Palomar will be extended. Planning Commission Minutes - 6 - April 12, 2000 The Mitigated Neg Dec goes on to find that the widening of East H Street is infeasible, therefore, the mitigation that is included is that prior to those additional units being allowed, Olympic Parkway would need to be opened from the Sunbow boundary to what will be the future Palomar intersection. Commissioner Castaneda stated he did not agree with Ms. Ponseggi's statement because before those improvements are even built, we're granting a 330 increase in units. Ms. Ponseggi responded that they can go to 330 additional units (for a total of 1,467) at this this time without any impact, and they cannot exceed 1,665 until SR-125 is opened. Mr. AI-Agha stated that it is important to note that the project won't reach the original cap of 1,137 until another year and a half from now based on their current building plan. Olympic Parkway is financed and under construction and should be completed up to east Palomar by that time. Commissioner Castaneda stated that if that's the case, why don't we allow them to build the 1,137 and then if the improvements are completed, they can build the additional 330 units PUBLIC HEARING RE-OPENED Liz Jackson stated that part of that request is due to the fact that it takes a considerable amount of time to plan and to implement infrastructure improvements prior to actually pulling a building permit. Prior to proceeding with Phase II grading for the property, their business partner would need some type of financial assurance that prior to spending 8 million dollars in improvements, there is the ability to proceed with construction in the future. While we may not actually pull the building permits, it takes approximately a year or so to map the project and then it takes time to construct the improvements, design the product and build the houses themselves. Ms. Jackson pointed out that Olympic Parkway is bonded for in its entirety. Public Hearing closed. Commissioner Hall stated that he does not oppose and developer or development, but is not convinced with that Olympic Parkway or any other arterial improvement is going to resolved the long-term issues and he would like to see it happen first before he approves anything more than what is already on the books. MSC (Thomas/O'Neill) (5-1-0-1) based on the Initial Study, adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration issued for IS-00-05 and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program issued for this project along with the clarification on Page 4 of the Negative Declaration to read, "ensure Olympic Parkway is extended eastward to where it intersects East Palomar Street. Motion carried with Commissioner Hall voting against it. Planning Commission Minutes - 7 - April 12, 2000 MSC (Thomas/O'Neill) (4-2-0-1) that the Planning Commission: a. Adopted Resolution PCS 99-06 recommending that the City Council approve the proposed amendments to Conditions 1 and 3 of Sal Creek Ranch Tentative Subdivision Map and Section 3.2.9 and 3.2.10 of the Salt Creek Ranch Public Facilities Financing Plan in accordance with the findings and subject to the conditions contained in the Draft City Council Resolution; b. Include the clarification on Page 4 of the Negative Declaration to read, "ensure Olympic Parkway is extended eastward to where it intersects East Palomar Street, and c. Removing the language contained in the Public Facilities Financing Plan regarding the H Street improvements. Motion carried with Commissioners Castaneda and Hall voting against. COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item // Meeting Date $/2/00 ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing: On Assessment District 97-01 for improvements to Oxford Street from Fourth Avenue to Fifth Avenue in the City of Chula Vista Resolution Confirming the Engineer's Report by the City Engineer on the cost of construction and spread of assessments for Assessment District 97-01 Resolution Adopting a Notice of Lien to levy and collect assessments for Assessment District 97-01 SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public Works ~/ REVIEWED BY: City Manager ~l;3? (4/5ths Vote: Yes No X ) On October 28, 1997, pursuant to the Improvement Act of 1911, also known as the 1911 Block Act, the City Council by Resolution No. 18759 (Attachment A) awarded a contract in the amount of $328,708 for Oxford Street improvements from Fourth Avenue to Fifth Avenue to MJC Construction. The work is now completed and improvements have been accepted by the City Manager. On March 21, 2000, Resolution 2000-091 was approved to accept filing of the Engineer's report on the cost of construction and to set the public hearing on the assessments, and Resolution 2000-092 approved the deferral of liens and setting deferral criteria. RECOMMENDATION: That Council: 1) Open the hearing, take testimony, and close the hearing; 2) Adopt a resolution confirming the Engineer's Report by the City Engineer on the cost of construction of the improvements to Oxford Street and the spread of assessments; 3) Adopt a resolution for Notice of Lien to levy and collect assessments BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable. DISCUSSION: On April 22, 1997 by Resolution No. 18645 the City Council accepted a petition signed by the affected property owners to form a special assessment district (1911 Block Act) for the construction of improvements on Oxford Street between Fourth Avenue and Fifth Avenue. The public improvements included widening the existing street to Class II Collector standards, pedestrian ramps, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, driveways, traffic signal modifications, roadway striping and miscellaneous appurtenant structures. The original estimate for total project costs was $496,858, with the Page 2, Item Meeting Date 5/2/00 construction costs at $361,858. Funding for this project was to be from the Transportation Development Act (TDA) and the Gas Tax. TDA funding would only be available for the construction of an asphaltic concrete (AC) sidewalk on the north side of the street only. At the property owners meeting on January 30, 1997 the City stated that it would be willing to construct concrete curb, gutters and sidewalks on both sides of the street, providing that the property owners pay the difference between constructing the AC and concrete sidewalks and participate in the formation ora special assessment district. This amount was estimated to be $31,858. In June 1997 a ballot process was held in accordance with the requirements of Proposition 218, and 88.52 % of the property owners' weighted vote supported the formation of the assessment district. On July 22, 1997 Council held a public hearing and directed City staff to commence with construction of the improvements per Resolution # 18740. The construction contract was awarded to MJC Construction in the amount of $328,708 plus $32,670 in contingencies on October 28, 1997 by Resolution # 18795. MJC Construction Company has completed the construction of the improvements. A final inspection was made, all work was found to be completed in accordance with the contract plans and specifications and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Staff has now received, and the City has paid, all the contractual invoices for this project. The amount paid to the contractor, including adjustments to contract quantities and change orders, totals $337,966.23. Additional water line relocation and soils testing bring the total construction cost to $385,696.57. Staff has completed the accounting of the expenditures and apportionment to property owners, as shown in the Engineer's Report (Attachment A). Since the difference between the estimated cost of the AC sidewalks and related improvements and the actual construction cost is higher than the original estimate, each property owner will be assessed at the amount shown on the June 1997 ballot or their share of the actual construction cost, whichever is less. If the assessments are approved by Council, the City will be reimbursed $30,809 of the construction cost by the various property owners over a 10-year period. The filing of the Engineer's Report was accepted by Council on March 21, 2000 through Resolution 2000-091 (Attachment B). The improvements were financed by the City and AD 97-01 was formed pursuant to the 1911 Block Act to obtain reimbursement for the improvement and other miscellaneous costs in accordance with Council Policy Number 505-01. The Act is a financing mechanism which authorizes local agencies to impose assessments on benefitting properties to fund the construction of public improvements. The property owners have an option of paying local assessments during the 30 day pay-off period following confirmation of assessments. If the assessments are not paid during that time or are deferred, the City will collect the unpaid balance in semiannual installments over a period of ten (10) years at an interest rate of 7% per annum. Property owners may pay the balance of their assessments at any time during the ten year repayment period without penalty. In response to property owner's concerns, Council approved Resolution 2000-092 (Attachment C), establishing the criteria to qualify for deferral of the payment of their assessments to lessen the financial impact for low income property owners. Qualifying property owners who request deferred payment and meet the criteria of Resolution 2000-092 must enter into a deferral agreement with the Page 3, Item Meeting Date 5/2/00 City. It is planned that staff will receive and review deferral applications during May and June 2000. Should any property owner within the district meet one of the following criteria, a deferral agreement will be prepared and brought before City Council for consideration. 1. An income less than or equal to the HUD Very Low Income Standards as contained in the City's Master Fee Schedule; 2. A demonstrated financial hardship approved by Council (For example, a senior citizen, retired, and unable to pay the assessment). Notice was given in accordance with the 1911 Block Act. All property owners within this assessment district have been mailed copies of tonight's report to the City Council. Property owners have until May I to file a written appeal with the City should they wish to do so. Other future actions anticipated to be taken by the City are outlined below with estimated dates. These dates are approximate only and may change. ACTION DATE 1. Council Meeting 5/2/00 a). Public Hearing on Engineer's Report b). Adopt Resolution Confirming Engineer's Report c). Adopt Resolution for Notice of Lien 2. File Assessment Diagram 5/5/00 a). City Clerk b). County Recorder 3. Deferral period for qualifying property owners begins 5/8/00 Notice of Assessment & Begin 30 day pre-payment period 4. End deferral period for qualifying property owners 6/9/00 End 30 day Pre-payment period 5. Council Meeting (for property owners qualifying for deferrals, if any) 7/11/00 Adopt Resolution approving deferral agreements 6. Due Date of First Billing 12/10/00 Page 4, Item__ Meeting Date 5/2/00 FISCAL IMPACT: The following is a breakdown of all costs associated with the project: CIP # STL-229 Budgeted Conl~act Amount Award Actual Cost Funded By Construction $355,000 $328,708 $337,966 TDA/Gas Tax (Property owners' ($31,858) ($30,809 + (Gas Tax + Trunk share) $17,640 sewer Sewer Fund) laterals) Miscellaneous $50,500 $32,670 $47,730 Gas Tax (contingency) * Staff $160,778 $94,000 $176,453 Gas Tax/ Transportation Partnership Fund Project Total $566,278 $455,378 $562,149 * Staff costs (AY-091 ) includes engineering design and inspection costs. Total appropriations are from the following funds: Gas Tax: $358,500 TDA: $141,500 Transportation Partnership Fund: $22,278 Trunk Sewer Fund Loan: $44,000 TOTAL $566,278 Since the amount appropriated is more than the total cost, it is recommended that the difference of $4129 be returned to the Trunk Sewer Fund as a partial repayment of the loan. Only $30,809 of this amount will be payable by residents through the Assessment District (as shown on Attachment D). This is slightly lower than the amount of $31,858 estimated originally based on revisions in the method of apportioning costs. In addition to the cost summarized above, the City will maintain the street improvements. An additional $17,640 was expended to provide sewer laterals to four properties. Staff included these improvements at this time to avoid digging up a brand new street in the future. The work is financed by the Trunk Sewer Fund. The property owners will pay the fund back when they pay their fees to hook up to the system. Attachments: A. Engineer's Report B. Resolution 2000-091 C. Resolution 2000-092, Agenda Statement, and all attachments D. Assessment District 97-01: Ballot Amount vs. Actual Assessment H:\HOM E\ENGIN EER~AGENDA~AD9701A.EMC FILE: 0725- l 0-AD9701 ENGINEER'S REPORT ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 97-1 Oxford Street Improvements from Fourth Avenue to Fifth Avenue No. 30304 ' March 8, 2000 ~,, On April 22, 1997 by Resolution No. 18645 the Chula Vista City Council accepted a petition signed by the affected property owners to form a special assessment district per the 1911 Block Act for the construction of street improvements on Oxford Street between Fourth Avenue and Fifth Avenue. The street improvements included widening the existing street to Class II Collector standards and construction of pedestrian ramps, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, driveways, traffic signal modifications, roadway striping and miscellaneous appurtenant structures. Funding for this project was originally obtained from the Transportation Development Act (TDA) and from the gas tax. The original project was to include asphaltic concrete (AC) sidewalks on only the north side of the street. Staff proposed that Portland Cement Concrete (PCC) sidewalks be constructed on both sides of the street. The assessment district would fund the difference in cost between the construction of AC sidewalk on one side of the street and PCC curb, gutter and sidewalk and driveway aprons on both sides of the street. This amount was estimated to be $31,858. A balloting process was conducted in June 1997 in accordance with Proposition 218, which apportioned the $31,858 among the property owners based on front footage on Oxford Street. A weighted vote of 88.52% (based on financial responsibility) supported the formation of the assessment district. The original project estimate, which was performed on March 23, 1995, assumed that an AC sidewalk would be constructed on only one side of the street and included the following items which related to the assessment district: TABLE 1 COST ESTIMATE FOR AC SIDEWALK AND RELATED WORK Bid Item I Quantity I Unit Price [ Total Cost 5-foot wide AC Sidewalk 800 LF $15.00/LF $12,000 Pedestrian Ramps 3 EA $1,100 EA $3,300 PCC Driveways 1,500 SF $5.00/SF $7,500 Curb and Gutter 800 LF $12.00/LF $9,600 AC Berm 400 LF $7.00/LF $2,800 TOTAL $35,200 Note that there are other cost items which would relate to the sidewalk area, such as removal of existing improvements and grading. These are not being included for the comparison because: 1) The bid items in the contract were done on a lump sum basis and included areas outside the boundaries of the sidewalk, therefore making them not directly comparable; and 2) The use of PCC sidewalk vs. AC sidewalk would not be relevant in determining the cost for these items. 2 TABLE 2 FINANCIAL STATEMENT Oxford Street Improvements, Between Fourth and Fifth Avenues I. Appropriated Funds Total I ............. $566,278.00 II. Contract Amount as Awarded on Council Agenda Statement a) Award Amount $328,708.00 b) Contingencies $ 32.670.00 Total II ............ $361,378.00 III. Actual Expenditures Construction: a) Contract work (MJC Construction) · 1) Original Contract $328,708.00 2) Adjustments to Contract Quantities $ 5.365.00 Adjusted Contract Amount ..................... $334,073.00 3) Change Orders $ 3.893.23 Total Paid to Contractor ........................ $337,966.23 b) Other Expenses 6) City's share of Relocation Costs of Water Main/Laterals (To Sweem~merAuthori~') - $ 47,217.84 7) Testing Expense (Soils) $ 512.50 Other Expenses Total ...... ;, .................. $ 47,730.34 Construction Cost Subtotal .................... $385,696.57 c) Staff Costs $176.452.58 Inception to 6/30/99 (latest available report) Total III ............ $562,149.15 The above items were part of an estimate which assumed a total budget of $310,000, with a construction contract cost of $222,000. The revised estimate, performed in December 1995, used an estimated contract amount of $343,068, a total contruction amount of $405,500, and a total project cost of $500,000. In addition to the PCC sidewalk, this estimate included additional roadwork, traffic signal and utility relocation costs not in the original estimate. The construction contract was awarded to MJC Construction in the amount of $328,708 plus $32,670 in contingencies on October 28, 1997 by Resolution # 18795. The final financial audit for this project is shown in Table 2, Financial Statement, finalized in January 2000. As shown in the Table, the total amount paid to the contractor for this project was $337,966.23. However, the total construction cost was $385,696.57 due to the cost to relocate water mains and laterals. The total project cost was increased to $562,149.15 due to the high cost of design and construction (by City staff) on this project. The increased water line relocation costs and City staff costs does not affect the assessment district, since these kinds of costs are paid by the City in accordance with the City's policy on participating in 1911 Block Act Assessment Districts, No. 505-01. The last progress report prepared by the construction contractor for this project is included as Table 3, Monthly Progress estimate dated September 10, 1998. The following items (no. 6 through 10) should be used for comparison with the original estimate relating to AC sidewalks: TABLE 4 COST SUMMARY FOR PCC SIDEWALK AND RELATED ITEMS Bid Item I Quantity I Unit Price [ Total Cost 6" PCC Type G Curb and Gutter 1,164.50 LF $12.00/LF $13,974.00 4" PCC Sidewalk and Slabwork 9,796 SF $2.25/SF $22,041.00 6" PCC Driveway Approach 13,280.75 SF $3.25/SF $43,162.44 Pedestrian Ramp Type A 2 EA $975.00/EA $1,950.00 Asphalt Concrete Pedestrian Ramp 2 EA $400.00/EA $800.00 TOTAL $81,927.44 The difference between the total actual cost of $81,927.44 related to the construction of curb, gutter and sidewalk and the estimated cost of $35,200 for constructing the asphaltic concrete sidewalk originally included in this project is $46,727.44. This is somewhat higher than the original estimated difference of $31,858. It is recommended that each property owner be assessed for the lesser of the amount on the June 1997 ballot or their share of the cost difference, with the amounts on individual ballots as a maximum. This course of action is recommended because the difference ($14,869.44) is a relatively minor amount for the City to absorb compared to the total project cost of $562,149.17 and because going through the balloting process again would probably be controversial and have an uncertain outcome. One additional item which needs to be addressed is the sewer lateral cost, which totals $21,630. Out of the total 309 linear feet (LF) of laterals, 57 LF (or $3990) was required to replace existing laterals, while 252 LF ($17,640) was expended to provide laterals for properties without sewer service. During the design process City staff proposed that the cost of new sewer laterals for properties without sewer service be included with the assessment district payments. However, the cost of these laterals was not included in the amounts on the ballots, and no written agreement was entered into with any of the property owners. Therefore, the cost of the five laterals (on four parcels) cannot be included in the District. It is recommended that this cost be recovered through the customary sewer lateral fee charged at the time that a building permit or plumbing permit is obtained. Based on the purpose of this assessment district, it is recommended that the cost be distributed among all property owners based on the front footage of the property owners on Oxford Street. The improvements provided by this project are along the frontage of these properties along Oxford Street. It would not seem equitable to assess properties with improvements included in Table 1 at a lower rate than residents which were not scheduled for improvements according to the original design. Since it can be argued that each resident will benefit by the improvements provided by the entire project (street widening and repaving; curbs, gutters and sidewalks; driveway aprons) based on the length of the property facing Oxford Street, this method of apportionment is recommended. The apportionment rate was derived by by dividing the total linear footage of full improvements (1913.7 linear feet) into $46,727.44. This results in a rate of $24.4173 per linear foot. The resulting amount associated with each property is shown in Table 5 for the parcels indicated on Exhibit A. Each property has only been assessed for the length of full improvements, not necessarily for the width of the lot. This is particularly relevant for comer properties. These figures are given in the column labelled "Total Cost". This column was then compared to the amounts included on the ballots, as shown in the column, "Ballot Assmt Total". Each property owner will be assessed for a value which represents the lower of the two columns. This value is shown in the column labelled "Actual Assessment". For most properties the amount shown on the ballot was the lower of the two. However, for three properties the amount in the "Total Cost" column was lower. The total assessment to properties was therefore reduced from $31,858 to $30,809. Two additional columns have been included to provide information on new sewer laterals installed as part of the Capital Improvement Project. The length of each sewer lateral is shown in the "Sewer Lateral" column. Note that "N/A" is indicated under the entries for 459 and 465 Oxford Street. In these situations, existing laterals which were damaged or interfered with the new improvements needed to be replaced. These property owners should not be held responsible for financing the cost of these laterals. The other laterals serve properties that did not previously have sewer service. As previously stated, the cost of these laterals cannot be recovered through the assessment district. Most 4 of these expenditures can be recovered through the collection of sewer connection fees. The charge for lateral installation is currently $3,015 plus an additional $86 per foot where distance to the property line is greater than 35 feet. (A:ENGRSRPT.EMC) 5 LU 0 RESOLUTION NO. 2000-091 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING FILING OF ENGINEER'S REPORT BY THE CITY ENGINEER ON THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION AND SETTING MAY 2, 2000, AT 4:00 P.M. AS THE DATE AND TIME FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 97-01 FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO OXFORD STREET FROM FOURTH AVENUE TO FIFTH AVENUE IN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA WHEREAS, on October 28, 1997, pursuant to the Improvement Act of 191 I, also known as the 1911 Block Act, the City Council by Resolution No. 18759 awarded a contract in the mount of $328,708 for Oxford Street improvements fi.om Fourth Avenue to Fifth Avenue to MJC Construction; and WHEREAS, the work is now completed and improvements have been accepted by the City Manager; and WHEREAS, a resolution must now be approved to accept filing of the Engineer's report on the cost of construction and to set the public hearing on the assessments; and WHEREAS, accepting the Engineer's Report and setting a date for public hearing on the assessments is the first step in finalizing the project and setting the assessments. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby accept the filing of the Engineer's Report by the City Engineer on the cost of construction as set forth in Attachment E, a copy of which shall be kept on file in the office of the City Clerk. BE IT FU~RTHER RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby set May 2, 2000, at 4:00 p.m. as the date and time for public hearing on the proposed assessments for the improvements to Oxford Street from Fourth Avenue to Fifth Avenue. Presented by Approved as to form by John P. Lippif{ : lot~ M. Kaheny ~ l~ablic Works Director ~C~ty Attorney Resolution 2000-091 Page 2 PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista, California, this 2 lS' day of March, 2000, by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers: Davis, Moot, Salas, and Horton NAYS: Councilmembers: None ABSENT: Councilmembers: Padilla ATTEST: S , 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. 2000-091 was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council at a regular meeting of the Chula Vista City Council held on the 21 s~ day of March, 2000. Executed this 21 ~ day of March, 2000. Susan Bigelow, City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. 2000-092 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING THE DEFERRAL OF ASSESSMENTS AND ESTABLISHING CRITERIA TO QUALIFY FOR DEFERRAL FOR ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 97-01 WlIEREAS, the improvements for Assessment District 97-01 were financed by the City and AD 97-01 was formed pursuant to the 1911 Block Act to obtain reimbursement for the improvement and other miscellaneous costs in accordance with Council Policy Number 505-01; and WHEREAS, the Act is a financing mechanism which authorizes local agencies to impose assessments on benefitting properties to fund the construction of public improvements; and WHEREAS, the property owners have an option of paying local assessments during the 30 day pay-offperiod following confirmation o f assessments and if the assessments are not paid during that time or are deferred, the City will collect the unpaid balance in semiannual installments over a period often years at an interest rate of 7% per annum; and WHEREAS, property owners may pay the balance of their assessments at any time during the ten year repayment period without penalty; and WHEREAS, in response to property owner's concerns, staff prepared three payment alternatives which were presented to Council on July 15 and July 22, 1997: Alternative 1 is the standard plan most property owners use to spread payments over 10 years at 7 percent interest. Alternative 2 provides for semi-annual payments of interest only over 10 years, with the principal due at the end of 10 years or when the property changes ownership. Alternative 3 provides for one balloon payment of both principal and interest at the end of 10 years or upon change of ownership. WHEREAS, it is recommended that Alternatives 2 and 3 be offered only to property owners meeting the criteria set forth below; and WHEREAS, if approved, staff will receive and review deferral applications during May 2000 and if any property owner within the district meets one of the fmancial criteria, an Alternative 2 or 3 deferral agreement will be prepared and brought before City Council for approval; and WHEREAS, in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 13 of the Improvement Act of 1911 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California, any deferral of assessments shall be approved by a Council Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby approve the deferral of assessments for Assessment District 97-01 for improvements to Oxford Street from Fourth Avenue to Fifth Avenue in the City of Chula Vista. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby establish the following criteria to qualify for an Alternative 2 or 3 deferral: Resolution 2000-092 Page 2 1. An income less than or equal to the HUD Very Low Income Standards as contained in the City's Master Fee Schedule; or 2. A demonstrated financial hardship approved by Council (For example, a senior citizen, retired, and unable to pay the assessment). Presemed by Approved as to form by Jo~a/M. Kaheny ~ t~blic Works Director /C'i'ty Attomey PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista, California, this 2Pt day of March, 2000, by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers: Davis, Moot, Salas, and Horton NAYS: Councilmembers: None ABSENT: Councilmembers: Padilla ATTEST: 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. 2000-092 was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council at a regular meeting of the Chula Vista City Council held on the 2 l't day of March, 2000. Executed this 21~ day of March, 2000. Susan Bigelow, City Clerk° COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item Meeting Date 3/21/00 ITEM TITLE: Resolution Accepting fi[hag of E~neer's Report by the City Engineer on the cost of construction and setting May 2, 2000 at 4:00 p.m. as the date and time for a public hearing on Assessment District 97-01 for improvements to Oxford Street fi-om Fourth Avenue to Fifth Avenue in the City of Chula Vista Resolution Approving the deferral of assessments and establishing criteria to qualify for deferral for Assessment District 97-01 / SUBMITTED BY: DirectorofPublic Works/~ City Manager ~t~¢~-~ (4/5ths Vote: Yes No X ) REVIEWED BY: On October 28, 1997, pursuant to the Improvement Act of 1911, also known as the 1911 Block Act, the City Council by Resolution No. 18759 (Attachment A) awarded a contract in the amount of $328,708 for Oxford Street improvements fi.om Fourth Avenue to Fifth Avenue to MJC Construction. The work is now completed and improvements have been accepted by the City Manager. A resolution must now be approved to accept filing of the Engineer's report on the cost of construction and to set the public heating on the assessments. RECOMMENDATION: That Council adopt resolutions: 1) Accepting filing of Engineer's Report by the City Engineer on the cost of construction of the improvements to Oxford Street from Fourth Avenue to FiSh Avenue. 2) Setting May 2, 2000, at 4:00 p.m. as the date and time for public heating on the proposed assessments for the improvements to Oxford Street from Fourth Avenue to Fifth Avenue. 3) Approving the deferral of assessments and setting deferral criteria BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable. DISCUSSION: On April 22, 1997 by Resolution No. 18645 (Attachment A) the City Council accepted a petition signed by the affected property owners to form a special assessment district (1911 Block Act) for the construction of improvements on Oxford Street between Fourth Avenue and Fit'rh Avenue. The '- Page 2, Item /~ Meeting Date 3/21/00 public improvements included widening the existing street to Class II Collector standards, pedeswian ramps, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, driveways, traffic signal modifications, roadway striping and miscellaneous appurtenant structures. Ttie original estimate for total project costs was $496,858, with the construction costs at $361,858. Funding for this project was to be fi:om the Transportation Development Act (TDA) and the Gas Tax. TDA funding would only be available for the construction of an asphaltic concrete (AC) sidewalk on the north side of the street only. At the property owners meeting on January 30, 1997 the City stated that it would be willing to construct concrete curb, gutters and sidewalks on both sides of the street, providing that the property owners pay the difference between constructing the AC and concrete sidewalks and participate in the formation of a special assessment district. This amount was estimated to be $31,858. In June 1997 a ballot process was held in accordance with the requirements of Proposition 218, and 88.52 % of the property owners' weighted vote supported the formation of the assessment district. On July 22, 1997 Council held a public hearing and directed City staff to commence with construction of the improvements per Resolution # 18740 (Attachment B). The construction contract was awarded to MJC Construction in the amount of $328,708 plus $32,670 in contingencies on October 28, 1997 by Resolution # 18795 (Attachment C). MJC Construction Company completed the construction of alley improvements. A final inspection was made, alt work was found to be completed in accordance with the contract plans and specifications and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Staffhas now received, and the City has paid, all the contractual invoices for this project. The amount paid to the contractor, including adjustments to contract quantities and change orders, totals $337,966.23. Additional water line relocation and soils testing bring the total construction cost to $385,696.57. The improvements were accepted by the City Manager on January 7, 2000 (Attachment D). Staff has completed the accounting of the expenditures and apportionment to property owners, as shown in the Engineer's Report (Attachment E). Since the difference between the estimated cost of the AC sidewalks and related improvements and the actual construction cost is higher than the original estimate, each property owner will be assessed at the amount shown on the June 1997 ballot or their share of the actual construction cost, whichever is less. If the assessments are approved by Council, the City will be reimbursed $30,809 of the construction cost by the various property owners over a 10-year period. A public hearing is proposed to be set for April 25,-2000 at 6:00 p.m. to take testimony on the assessments after which the actual assessments may be levied on the various parcels. Funds for this project were included in the FY96/97 budget for project STL-229. The improvements were financed by the City and AD 97-01 was formed pursuant to the 1911 Block Act to obtain reimbursement for the improvement and other miscellaneous costs in accordance with Council Policy Number 505-01. The Act is a financing mechanism which authorizes local agencies to impose assessments on benefitting properties to fund the construction of publid improvements. The property owners have an option of paying local assessments during the 30 day pay-offperiod following confirmation of assessments. If the assessments are not paid during that time or are deferred, the City will collect the unpaid balance in semiannual installments over a period often (10) .. JO '2. Page 3, Item_I/) Meeting Date 3/21/00 years at an interest rate of 7% per annum. Property owners may pay the balance of their assessments at any time during the ten year repayment per/od without penalty. In response to property owner's concerns, staff prepared three payment alternatives which were presented to Council on July 15 and July 22, 1997 (Attachment F). Alternative I is the standard plan most property owners use to spread payments over 10 years at 7 percent interest. Alternatives 2 and 3 involve the deferral of any payment of the principal and therefore require further Council action. Alternative 2 provides for semi-annual payments of interest only over 10 years, with the principal due at the end of 10 years or when the property changes ownership. Alternative 3 provides for one balloon payment of both principal and interest at the end of 10 years or upon change of ownership. It is recommended that Alternatives 2 and 3 would only be offered to property owners meeting one of the following criteria: 1. An income less than or equal to the HUD Very Low Income Standards as contained in the City's Master Fee Schedule; 2. A demonstrated financial hardship approved by Council (For example, a senior citizen, retired, and unable to pay the assessment). A similar policy was established for Assessment District No. 93~01 when the City Council approved Resolution # 17980 (Attachment G) on July 25, 1995. If approved, it is planned that staffwill receive and review deferral applications during May 2000. Should any property owner within the district meet one of the criteria under Alternatives 2 and 3, a deferral agreement will be prepared and brought before City Council for consideration. In accordance with the provisions fChapter lo of the Improvement Act of 1911 of the Streets and O '~ Highways Code of the State of California any deferral of assessments shall be approved by a Council Resolution. Accepting the Engineers Report and setting a date for public heating on the assessments is the first step in finalizing this project and setting the assessments. Other future actions anticipated to be taken by the City are outlined below with estimated dates. These dates are approximate only and may change. ACTION DATE i. Council Meeting (tonight's agenda) 3/21/00 a). Accept filing of Engineer's Report b). Set Public Hearing on Engineer's report c) Approving policy for payment deferral 2. Notice of Public Hearing to Property Owners mailed out 3/24/00 3. Council Meeting 4/25/00 a). Public Hearing on Engineer's Report ' Page 4, Item / ~ Meeting Date 3/21/00 b). Adopt Resolution Confirming Engineers Report c). Adopt Resolution for Notice of Lien 4. File Assessment Diagram 4/28/00 a). City Clerk b). County Recorder 5. Deferral period for qualifying property owners begins 5/1/00 Notice of Assessment & Begin 30 day pre-payment period 6. End deferral period for qualifying property owners 5/31/00 End 30 day Pre-payment period 7. Council Meeting (for property owners qualifying for deferrals, if any) 6/27/00 a). Adopt Resolution approving deferral agreements 8. Due Date of First Billing I2/10/00 All property owners within this assessment district have been mailed copies of tonight's report to the City Council. FISCAL IMPACT: The following is a breakdown of all costs associated with the project: CIP # STL-229 Budgeted Contract Actual Funded Amount Award Cost By Construction $355,000 - $328,708 $337,966 TDA/Gas Tax (Property owners' ($31,858) ($30,809 + (Gas Tax + share) -- $17,640 sewer Trunk Sewer laterals) Fund) Miscellaneous $50,500 $32,670 $47,730 Gas Tax (contingency) *Staff $160,778 $94,000 $176,453 Gas Tax/ Transporta-tion Partner-ship Fund Project Total $566,278 $455,378 $562,149 * Staffcosts (AY-091) includes engineering design and inspection costs. · Page 5, Item / 0 Meeting Date 3/21/00 Total appropriations are fi-om the following funds: Gas Tax: $358,500 TDA: $141,500 Transportation Partnership Fund: $22,278 Trunk Sewer Fund Loan: $44,000 TOTAL $566,278 Since the amount appropriated is more than the total cost, it is recommended that the difference of $4129 be returned to the Trunk Sewer Fund as a partial repayment of the loan. Only $30,809 of this amount will be payable by residents through the Assessment Distr/ct. This is slightly lower than the amount of $31,858 estimated originally based on some differences in the method of apportioning costs. An additional $17,640 was expended based on verbal discussions with residents in order to provide sewer laterals for four parcels. Since the lateral cost has not been included in the assessment district and there have been no written agreements with property owners, most of this expense will be reimbursed through collection of sewer lateral fees when a plumbing permit or building permit is obtained for sewer lateral connection. In addition to the cost surranarized above, the City will maintain the street improvements. Attachments: A. Resolution No. 18645 B. Resolution No. 18740 C. Resolution No. 18795 D. Memorandum to the City Manager dated January 7, 2000 E. Engineer's Report F. Payment schedules for Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 G. Resolution No. 17980 H 5HOME~ENGINEER~AGENDAXAD9701 .EMC FILE: 0725-10-AD9701 /0 -* RESOLUTION NO. 18645 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING PETITION FOR FORMATION OF A SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT ON THE 400 BLOCK OF OXFORD STREET FORTHE CONSTRUCTION OF STREET IMPROVEMENTS BETVVEEN FOURTH AVENUE AND FIFTH AVENUE (CIP NO. 0735-10-STL229) WHEREAS, the City Engineer has received a petition from property owners in the 400 block of Oxford Street between Fourth Avenue and Fifth Avenue requesting that special assessment proceedings be commenced in accordance with the Improvement Act of 1911 for the construction of missing street improvements such as curb, gutter, and sidewalks; and WHEREAS, in accordance with the requirements of Proposition 218, the "Right To Vote On Taxes Act," a ballot has been mailed to the affected property owners and more than 60 percent of the property owners are in favor of the district; and WHEREAS, upon acceptance by the Council, the petition will be filed in the City Clerk's office; and WHEREAS, approval of this resolution will permit staff to begin assessment district formation proceedings. _ NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby accept the petition for formation of a special Assessment District for the construction of street improvements on the 400 block of Oxford Street between Fourth Avenue and Fifth Avenue and directs staff to proceed with the assessment proceedings as required by the Improvement Act of 1911 and Proposition 218. Presented by Approved as to form by DOh~. Lippitt Ji~h.,~'M, Kahen¥ Resolution 18645 Page 2 PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista, California, this 22nd day of April, 1997, by the following vote: · - AYES: Councilmembers: Moot, Padilla, Rindone, Salas, and Horton NAYES: Councilmembers: None ABSENT: Councilmembers: None ABSTAIN: Councilmembers: None Sh~ey Horton, Mayor ATTEST: Beverly A/Authelet, City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO ) ss. CITY OF CHULA VISTA ) I, Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk of the City of Chula Vista, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 18645 was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council at a regular meeting of the Chula Vista City Council held on the 22nd day of April, 1997. Executed this 22nd day of April, 1997. Beverly A. ~uthelet, City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. 18740 RESOLUTIQN OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA MAKING FINDINGS AT PUBLIC HEARING PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 27 OF THE "IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1911"TO FORM ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 97-01, O N OXFORD STREET BETWEEN FOURTH AVENUE AND FIFTH AVENUE WHEREAS, the City Council approved Resolution of Intention No. 18664 ordering the installation of street improvements on Oxford Street from Fourth Avenue to Fifth Avenue pursuant to the "Improvement Act of 1911"; and WHEREAS, all owners of property within the proposed assessment district were mailed notice of the public hearings and the estimated assessment to their property; and WHEREAS, the Resolution of intention was published twice in the Star News on Saturday, June 28, 1997 and Saturday, July 12, 1997 with the first publication being at least ten days prior to the public hearing date; and WHEREAS, each property owner within the proposed district was notified on May 13, 1997 to construct the improvements abutting their property within sixty (60) days after notice is given. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE, ORDER AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 7. Findinqs: The City Council does hereby find as follows: A. The City Council of the City of Chula Vista, California, has instituted proceedings pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 27 of the "improvement Act of 1911" being Division 7 of the Streets and Highway Code of th~ State of California for the construction of certain authorized improvements in a special assessment district known and designated as Assessment District No. 97-01 (AD No. 97-01). B. Notice has been given in the manner and form as required by law and specifically Article II, Part 3, of Division 7 of the Streets and Highway Code, and a Certificate of Compliance is on file in the office of the Superintendent of the Streets (0725-10-AD9701). C. A public hearing has been held and all testimony and evidence heard relating to the work of improvement as proposed for the Assessment District, and the legislative body is desirous at this time to proceed. Section 2. That all protests of every nature are hereby overruled and denied. Section 3. The Superintendent of Streets is hereby directed to proceed and cause the construction of the works and improvements in said Assessment District if said construction is not commenced within sixty (60) days after notice is given to the property owner (by 7/12/97) to cause the work to be done. Resolution 18740 Page 2 Section 4. The w....,orks of the Lmprovement shall be done and carried through and financed pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 27 of the "Improvement Act of 1911" and for all particulars as to these proceedings, reference is made to the Resolution ordering the installation of the public improvements and instructing the Superintendent of Streets to give notice. Section 5. The works of improvement and project shall be financed pursuant to the provisions of said Chapter 27, and the City shall collect each assessment remaining unpaid following the expiration of a 30 day cash collection period. Said balance shall be payable over a period of 10 years at an interest rate of 7% per annum. The City shall collect the unpaid balance of any assessment on the district properties semi-annually in conjunction with the collection of City taxes, excepting those properties for which a payment deferral has been approved. The collection of assessments on these properties shall be in accordance with the payment schedule stipulated in their deferral agreement. Section 6. The City has complied with the requirement of Proposition 218, the "Right To Vote On Taxes Act", by mailing out ballots to all property owners subject to an increase in their property taxes and has counted the ballots returned and found that based on financial obligation, that 88.52% of the property owner's share, voted in favor of forming the assessment district. Presented by Approved as to form by Public Works Director C,~¢'Attorney Resolution 18740 Page 3 PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista, Cah'f~rnia, this 2~nd day of July, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers: Moot, Rindone, Salas, and Horton NAYES: Councilmembers: None ABSENT: Councilmembers: Padilla ABSTAIN: Councilmembers: None Shirley Holt/on, Mayor ATTEST: Beverly A.(Authelet, City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO ) CITY OF CHULA VISTA ) I, Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk of the City of Chula Vista, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 18740 was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council at a regular meeting of the Chula Mista City Council held on the 22nd day of July, 1997. Executed this 22nd day of July, 1997 Beverly /~. Authelet, City Clerk COL'.~CIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item Meeting Date 7f22/97 ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing on the Resolution of Intention to form Assessment District 97-01, on Oxiord Street ~tween Fourth Avenue and Fifth Avenue, pursuant to the Improvement Act of 1911. Resolution M 'ak/ng findings at public hearing pursuant to chapter 27 of the "Improvement Act of 1911" SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public Wor-l,:s~,/~c/ REVIEW'ED BY: City Manager (4/Sths Vote: Yes_No.X ) On May 13, 1997, Council adopted Resolution No. 18663 approving the boundary map for AD97- 0 I. At the same meeting, Council also approved Resolution of Intention No. 18664 (see Exhibit A) order/ng the installation of street improvements on Oxford Street from Fourth Avenue to Fifth Avenue pursuant to the Improvement Act of 1911 (a/so known as the 1911 Block Act) and setting the public heatings for July 15 and 22, 1997. The public hearings are being held to receive public tesri~nony on the pi'oposed disuict improvements. ~Fne first public hearing was held on July 15. One property owner spoke in favor of the assessment disu-ict. RECOMM~NI)ATION: It is recommended That the Council: i). Hold the pubSc hearing; 2). Receive testimony; 3). Close the public hearing; 4). Approve the resolution m 'aking find/ngs at public heating pursuant m Chapter 27 of the "Improvement Act of 1911 ". BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable. DISCUSSION: On April 22, t 997 by Resolution # 18645, Council accepted a petition, for the formation of an assessment disu-ict (1911 Block Act) for the consumcfion of street improvements, such as curb, ~m~tter sidewalk and pavement on Oxford Street between Fourth Avenue and Fifth Avenue. The Act is a '%~-ncing mcc~,~nism wh/ch authorizes local agencies to impose assessments bn benefiued property Page 2, Item Meeting Date 7,22/97 to finance th"ff'coasumction'ofpublic infrastracmm facilities. The public improvements proposed to ~ financed through Assessment District (AD) 97-01 include widening the existing street to Class II Collector standards of 40 feet with widening to 52 feet near the intersections of Fourth Avenue and Fifth Avenue, pedes~an ramps, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, driveways, traffic signal modifications, roadway striping and miscellaneous appurtenant stracmres. Completion of the improvements is projected for the end of the first quarter of 1998. Staff has estimzted the total project costs at $496,858 w/th the construction costs at $361.858. .~ppro 'x/matety $3_I:858ofthe eshmated $361,858 cost of construction is to be reimbm-sed from the p[~pe.cr~?_.o~wn?s- upon successful fo .r~.afion o.f the assessment district. This project is part of the ox emll s~ e~aik safety pro~m'~m~ which promdes for the construction of sidewalk facilities in the Montgomery are2. As or/gin~lly budgeted in the FY96/97 Capital Improvement Pro,am (CIP 0735-10-STL-229), the City proposed to build asphalt concrete sidewalks on the north side of Ox_qord Street only, to prov/de a safe walkway to the children in the area. Funds for thi~ project were obtained from the Transportation Development Act (Ti)A) thro _ugh the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). However, since TDA funds will pay only for the sidewalk and not related hems such as curb and ~mraer, additional Cio gas tax funding was hacluded. The conslraction of the missing s'a-eet improvements is included in the Capital Improvement Pro_m-am (CIP) for Fiscal Year 1997/1998. All owners of property within the proposed assessment disWict (see Ex.h/bit B) were mailed notice of the two public hearings and the estimated assessment to their properties. The boundary map of .~D97-01 was filial in the County Recorder's Office on Tuesday May 13th, 1997. Also, as required by' the Act, the Resolution of Intention was published twi,.ce in the ST.d.R ~EWS news,oaper on Sa~day June 28th and on Saturday July 12, 1997, with the nrst publication being at leas~ ten (i 0) o2ys prior to the Public Hearing date. In compliance Mth the Act, each property o~mer within the proposed dislrict was also notified to construct the improvements ~onfing/abutting their property. The notice also indicated that if cor~-ucfion is not commenced ~xhthin sixty (60) days after the notice is ~ven, the City shall proceed ,~hrh the construction of the improvements and the cost of said consWucfion shall then be assessed as a lien on the property. As o£J~me 27th, 1997, none of the property, owners has applied for a construction pc;mit to install the improvements. If the assessment is not paid upon confn-mafion. the CiW shall collect the unpaid balance of an), assessment semiannually in conjunction with the collection of CiD- rexes. In accordance with the Resolution of Intention, said balance shall be paid ever a period o£ten (10) years at an interest rate of 7% per a.tmum The assessments are based on the amount off-enrage on Ox.ford Street. The assessments range from $372 to $2,793, with 18 of the 30 assessments at less than $1,000 (see Exhibit C). There are an additional four properties which ' have frontage on OxTord Street, but were not included as part of this assessment dislrict since the su-eet improvements have already been cons~ucted along their frontage (see Exhibit B). Three of Gese prope~, o,~uers had submined a ballot in favor of forraing the district while the other propmwy Page 3, Item Meeting Date 7~2/97 never returW~d their ballot. The 3 ballots with zero assessment amount were not considered in the majority requirement, since they have no financial obligation. .All property owners were invited by mai/to attend a meeting on Thursday January 30, 1997 at wMch details of the project were discussed. The major issues discussed were: 1) assessment district proceedings; 2) project schedules; 3) project cost estimates and property owner's share of costs; 4) pa)maent schedules; 5) financing alternatives 6) project design; and 7) a question & answer session. At. this meeting, staff presented the idea of expanding the project to include the installation of concrete sidewalks on both sides of the street instead of sidewalk improvements on the north side only. The reason for thig was that due to the grading required for the work along the north side, the south side would also requite ~m'adiug to accommodate the proposed ultimate sire. et centerline made. The project extemion to the south side could be accomplished provided the property owners ~vould participate in the formation of a special assessment d/strict, whereby the difference in cost from asphah to concrete sidewalks would be paid by ail area property owners on both sides of the street. Subsequent to the meeting, staff was also able to resolve those issues which were brought to their amenfion_ Specifically, those issues centered on the methods of payment, project schedule and l{rnlts of work. At the July 15, 1997 public hearing, one property owner made a presentation. Although this property owner is not opposed to the formation of the assessment district, he raised several traffic concerns, including speed bumps, which staffis currently reviewing. Ln order to comply with the requirements of Proposition 218, the "Right To Vote on Taxes Act", ~Sdch was passed by a majority of the ~a~'e voters in a generally held election of November 5.. 1996, s-&ffb~rl to prep. are ballots. Proposition 21 g requires that a ballot be mailed to all property ox~aaers which may be subject to an increase in their property taxes. When the ballots are returned, the majority of the votes for or ~ainqt, based on financial obligation, determines whether or not'this disuSct is formerl The results of the voting ballot returns as of June 18, 1997 show the follo~iuz: 31 ballots of 34 returned w/th 29 ballots in favor ($28.o01) and 2 ballots ~ain~t ($2,124) ~e formation of an assessment d/strict Based on the property owner's total financial oblization of $3 ],858, the ballots returned in favor represent 88.52% of the property owner's financial ob~Iization. As of June 18, ] 997, the other 3 property owners had not yet responded with their ballots, b~t they do have until the close oftbe second public hearing date of July 22, 1997 to cast their vote (see a~'.ached ballot m~r, rnary Exhibit D). Even if these 3 property o~mers submit their ballots against 'dae fo~Tnafion ofth/s district, their sum financial obi/gafion will not be enou~J2 to reverse the rn~oriry vote submittel The property owners which have already submitted their b],fllots, also have until the closure of the second public hearing to change their vote, if desired. Of the 34 prot:m'ties with frontage on the 400 block of Ox_'ford S~reet, four (4) of the properties do not. have any assessment estimate, since along the frontage of their property all of the street · '~orovemen:s such as curb, gutter, sidewalk and ultimate pavement width m-e in place. Staff Page 4, Item Meeting Date 7/22/97 therefore exZInd~ these p~operties fi.om the district ('~ot A Part"), as sho~m on the boundary map (see Exhibit B), and based on financial obligation, their ballot does not impact the formation of the distr/ct. Estimated Assessments The estimated project cost is $496,858. The City will finance the construction of the improvements ~smnated at $~61,8>8 and will be reimbursed by the property owner's their share of the cost of the improvements which are estimated at $31,858. The City ~511 collect these funds throu~,h the formation of AD97-01 and the collection of~ w/th their property taxes. In ad[tifion, desi~ma, inspection, d/strict formation costs and contingehcies estimated at 51'X57U00, will not be reimbursed and will be absorbed by the City in accordance with Council Policy #505-01 (Exhibit £). _As mentioned above, the proposed total assessment amount is $31,858. The estimated amounts to be assessed to each of the parcels in the d/slrict is presented in Exhibit C. In order to address the Council's and ~m-operty owner's concerns over financial hardship in meeting the payment oblieafions, s'~=ff has included an attachment (Exhibit F), which describes alternative payment methods that Council has adopted for other assessment districts. If there is a property owner which has financial difficulties, they must have Council approval in order to lrriliTe any of the reduced payment almmatives (Alternatives 2 & 3). Resolutions Ton/g. ht's action will continue the proc~dings for the formation of AD 97-01 pursuant to the "1911 Blo& Act . By approving the proposed resolution Council u511 make the following zTndings: 1. The City Council of the City of ChuJa Vista, California, has instituted proceedings pursuant m the provisions of Chapter 27 of the "Improvement Act of 1911 being Division 7 of the Sn'eets and Highways Code of the State of California for the construction of certain authorized improvements in a special assessment district lmoxxm and desi~maated as .Assessment Dislrict No. 97-0I (AD No.97-01); 2. Notice has been given in the manner and form as required by law and specifically _Article It, Part 3, ,of DixSsion 7 of the Seeets and Fli~ways Code, and a Certificate of Compliance is on file in the office of the CiD' Clerk; 3. The City h~ complied w/th the requirement of Proposition 218, the "RigSat To Vote On ' Taxes Act", by mailing out ballots to all property owners subject to an increase in their propero.' :axes and has counted the ballots returned and found that based on fmmncial Page 5, Item_ Meeting Date 7/22/97 obl~g"~afion, that g8.52% of the property owner's share, voted in favor of formin~ Cae assessment district; 4. A public hearing has been held and all testimony and evidence hem-d relating to the work 0fthe imProvemmt as proposed for the Assessment District if said construction is not commenced within sixty (60) days after notice is given to the property owner (by 7/12/97) cause the work to be done; All promsts of every nature are hereby overruled and denied; 6. The Superintendent of Streets is hereby directed to proceed and cause the construction of the works and improvement in said Assessment District if said consmaction is not commenc..ed w/thin sixty (60) days after notice is given to the property owner (by 7/lO_/97) ca,~e the work to be done; 7. The works of the improvement shall be done and carried throu~__~h and financed pursuant to the pmxisions of Chapter 27 of the "Improvement Act of 1911" and for ali particulars as to these proceedings, reference is made to the Resolution ordering the installation of the 2 public improvements and instructing the Superintendent of Streets to ~ve notice; 8. The works4>f improvement and projectshall be ~n~nc~ pursuant t~ the provisions Of said Chapter 27, and the City shall collect each assessment remaining unpaid followinm the expiration of a 30 day cash collection period. Said balance shall be pm'able over a period of 10 years at an interest rote of 7% per annum The City shall collect Cae unpaid balance of any assessment on the district properties semi-annually in conjunction w/th the collection of City_ taxes, excepting these properties for ~-kich a payment deferral has been approved. The collection of assessments on these properties shall be in' accordance with the pa)maent schedule stipulamd in their deferral a~eement. Furore Actions Bid results and award of the construction contract would be submitted to Council by September 1997. This it~n WIll include a public hearing where the property owners can review their assessments based on bids and, if they so desire, request Council to stop the district proceedings. Pmwaant ~o the "19I 1 Block Act", confu-mation of the assessments will be brou*2at before Council on or about July 1998, after Cae improvements are constructed. The construction is anticipated to be completed by late March, 1998. Ali property owners within this proposed assessment district of 30 parcels have been sent a copy of ro~g_ht's City Council agenda slatement and armchrnents. Page 6, Item Meeting Date 7/22/97 FISCAL I3IPACT: Trig project was originally approved in the FY96/97 budget as CIP project STL229 - Oxff'ord Avenue Sidewalk Safety between Fourth Avenue and Fifth Avenue. The financing for this project (Project total of $500,000) is being funded through Tranqport~on Development (TDA) funds ($141,500) and Gas Tax funds ($358,500). Assessment dislrict proceedings will allow for the property owners w/thin th/s district to participate in contributing $31,858 towards the costs of the construction, preliminarily estimated at $361,858. The estimated property owner's share will be reimbursed ~4th 7% interest over a period of 10 years. Exhibits: . - Resoluuons ~ 18663 & 18664 B - Boundary Map C - Estimated Assessments D - Ballot Summary E - Council PoLicy # 505-01 F - Description of Payment Alternatives RESOLUTION NO. 18795 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROPRIATING FUNDS, ACCEPTING BIDS AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF "OXFORD STREET IMPROVEMENTS FROM FOURTH AVENUE TO FIFTH AVENUE IN 'THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CA. (STL229)" WHEREAS, at 2:00 p.m. on September 17, 1997, in Conference Room 2 in the Public Services Building, the Director of Public Works received the following four bids for the construction of "Oxford Street Improvements from Fourth Avenue to Fifth Avenue in the City of Chuia Vista, CA (STL229)": Contractor 1 Base Bid Amount I. MJC Construction - Chula Vista, CA $328,708.00 2. Frank & Son Paving - Chula Vista, CA 360,081.83 3. Single Eagle, Inc.- Poway, CA 436,293.00 4. Scheidel Contracting & Engineering - La 479,858.00 Mesa, CA - WHEREAS, the Iow bid (base bid) by MJC Construction is below the Engineer's estimate of 8369,940.00 by $41,232.00 or 11.2%; and WHEREAS, staff has reviewed the lowest bidder's qualifications and references and found them satisfactory and therefore recommends that the contract be awarded to MJC Construction; and WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the work involved in this project and has determined that this project is categorically exempt under Class 1, Section 15301(c) of the California Environmental Quality Act: and WHEREAS, the primary source of funding for this project is Gas Tax funds, with additional funding from Transportation Development Act Funds (TDA) and Transportation Partnership Funds (TRF). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby accept the four bids and award the contract for the construction of "Oxford Street Improvements from Fourth Avenue to Fifth Avenue in the City of Chula Vista" to the lowest bidder, MJC Construction, in the amount of $328,708.00. Said contract to be filed in the Office of the City Clerk and known as Document No. CO97-177. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby appropriate $22,278 -' from the unappropriated balance of Transportation Partnership Fund (TPF) No. 253 and Resolution iS795 Page 2 authorize a $44,00.0~1oan from~the Trunk Sewer Capital Reserve Fund No. 222 to be reimbursed to the City over a period of ten years at 7% interest, through the administration of Assessment District 97-01. Presented by Approved as to form bY Public'VVorks Director . (.~y Attorney Resolution 18795 Page 3 PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista, Calif.~,nia, this 28~th day of October, 1997, by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers: Moot, Padilla, Rindone, Salas, and Horton NAYES: Councilmembers: ' None ABSENT: Councilmembers: None ABSTAIN: Councilmembers: None Shirley 'Horror, Mayor ATTEST: Beverly A~Authelet, City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO ) CiTY OF CHULA VISTA ) !, Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk of the City of Chula Vista, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 18795 was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council at a regular meeting of the Chula Vista City Council held on the 28th day of October, 1997. Executed this 28th day of October, 1997 Beverly A./Authelet City Clerk COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item // Meeting Date 10/2.8/97 contract for the construction of "Oxford Street Improvements from Fourth Avenue to Fifth Avenue in the City 0f Chula Vista, CA (STL229)" SL:BS~i i'ED BY: Director ofPublic Work~/'/~ RE'~TE'~VED BY: City Manao~r At 2:00 p.m. on September 17, 1997, in Conference Room 2 in the Public Sen, ices Building, the Director of Public Works received sealed bids for the construction of "Oxford Street Improvements fi*om Fourth Avenue to Fifth Avenue in the City of Chula Vista, CA (STL229)". The general scope of the project involves the reconstruction of the existing pavement and the installation of curb, gutter and sidewalk irnprovements along both sides of Oxford SIa'eet between Fourth Avenue and Fifth Avenue. The work to be done includes removal and disposal of existing improvements, excavation and grading, ins'~.ilation of asphalt concrete pavement, crushed a_o_oreaate base, cold planing, pedestrian ramps, Curb and ?2tter. sidewalk, driveways, curb inlek storm drainpipes, sewer laterals, street lighting, traffic si_~nal modifications, new mailboxes, adjusn'nent of sewer manholes, pavement striping and sig-ning and o7.her miscellaneous items of work as shown on the plans. RECO.M2VIE_N-DATION: That Council: i. Approve the resolution appropriating $22,278 from the unappropriated balance of Transportation Partnershin Fund (TPF) No. 253 and authorizing a $44,000 loan from the Trunk Sewer Capkal Resen, e Fund No. 222.. 2. Approve the resolution accepting bids and awarding contract for the construction of Oxford Street Improvements from Fourth Avenue to Fifth Avenue in the City of Chula Vista, CA (STL229) to M_IC Cons~action in the amount of $328,708.00 BO-'~RDS/COI~Ax,{IssION~ RECO-ML-MENDATION: Not applicable. DISCUSSION: This project was originally funded during the FY 96-97 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) budget process. Fhe project was funded to improve pedestrian access, circulation, and alleviate a local drainaae problem at mid-block. It is also part of the overall sidewalk safe9' program which provides for ~e cons,-ruction of sidewalk facilities in the MontgomeU, area. As originally budgeted, in the FY 96-97 ' Capital Improvernent Pro__m-am (CIP STL229), the Cig, proposed to build sidewal 'ks on the north side of Oxford Stre~ only to provide a safe walkwvay for the children in the area. Funds for this project were obtained from :ins Transportation Development Act (TDA) through the San Diego Association of Gove,,-r,-nents (S.~X,'DAG). However, since the TDA funds wilI only pay for the sidewalk and not related items such as curb and __*utter, additional Ci2: Gas Tax funding was inciuded. Staff met with the .. prope--9' o~mer_~ in due area and b,d.~fed them on the star-'s of the funding for due project_ and ama. iority Page 2. Item . // Meeting Date 10/28/97 of ~nose pres~t indicated-an interest in making up the difference necessary to construct full improvements on that street. On April 22, 1997 by Resolution 18645 (Exhibit A), Council approved a petition for the formation of the assessment dis'a-ict (Assessment District 97-01), 1911 Block Act for the conmmction of the street improvements. Subsequently, on May 13, 1997, Council adopted Resolution No. 18663 (Exhibit B), approving the boundary map for AD97-01. At the same meeting, Council also approved Resolution of IntenTion No. 18664 (Exhibit B) ordering the installation of the street improvements on Oxford Street ~o.m Fourth Avenue to Fifth Avenue pursuant to the Improvement .Act of 1911 (also 'known as the 1911 Block Acc) and sexing the public hearings for Juiy I5 and 22, 1997. On July 1 ], I997, Council adopted Resolution i 8740 (Exhibit C) making findings of public heating pursuant to Chapter 27- of the "Lmprovement .Act of 1911 ." The adoption of that resolution aisc authorized smffto proceed with the conva-uction schedule since none of the property o~mers have commenced the construction of their po=ion o£ the improvements after the expiration of the 60 days from the date of notification allowed under the Act, for property owners within a district to do so. The project was advertised for bids on August 23, 1997 for a period o£ four wee'ks and plans were pure,rased by I4 conmactors. Bids were received from four contractors as £ollows: Contractor I Base Bid Amount 1. MJC Construction - Chula Vista, CA 5;328,708.00 2. Fm_nk & Son ?aving - Chula Vista, CA 360,081.83 3. Single Eagle, Inc.- Poway, CA 436,293.00 ,4. $cheidel Contracting & Engineering - La Mesa, CA 479,858.00 The iow bid (ba~e bid) by ~UC Cons~zuctinn is below the En-~ineer's_ estimate of $369,9.40.00 by $-~ 1.,:_.00 or 11.2%. Staffreceived excellent b~as for me provosed work. The En_~ineer'v estimate was based on bids receivea for similar projects m th~ last s~x eral bros. The difference beva,een the base bid and fine total bid represents the cost of constructing the retaining walls, requested by some prope~, owne:s. They have elected to pay for the wails in addition to their original assessment. Staff has reviewed tine Iow bidder's qualifications and references and found them satisfactory. We, therefore, recommend that the contract be awarded to MJC Construction. Disclosure Statement Ar'2:hed is a cop}- of the Conu~actor's Disclosure Statement (Exhibit D). Environmental Status T, he En3!ironmen21 Review Coordinator has reviewed the work involved in this nroject and has ae~e_wnmea mat m:s project ~s categormahy exempt under Class 1, Section 15301 (c) of the Caiifomia ....'- ...... o,;m_nraI'~ ' Quaiir:, .Act. Page 3, Item // Meeting Date 10/28/97 Prevailing x, Ya~e Statement The primary source of funding for this project is Gas Tax funds, with additional funding from Transporlation Development Act Funds CFDA), Transportation Partnership Funds (TPF), and Trunk Sewer Capital Reserve Funds. Contractors bidding this project were not required to pay prevailing wages to persons employed by them for the work under this contract. No special minority or women business owned requirements were necessary as pa~ of the bid documents. Disadvantaged businesses were encouraged to bid through the sending of the Notice of Contractors to various minority trade puNicatJons. Assessment District This project is partially funded through Assessment District 97-01 approved by Council on April 22, 1997, by Resolution 18645 (Exhibit A). The property owners within this district were informed of the engineer's estimate and their individual costs are known to them. Although the contractor's bid is below the engineer's estimate, the conn'"actor's bid for the particular items of work being paid for by the property, owners is about the same as the engineer's estimate. The propercy owners' cost will be approximately that amount in their ballot or lower. It is estimated that the total reimbursement to the City from the assessment district will be about 5;44,000 (5;33,000 in concrete improvements and 5;I 1.000 in sewer improvements). The contract bid document had an item for some retaining walls, which ¢~)uld be insmlled if requested by affected property owners. The amount of 5;27,000 '~411 not be used. since the property o~mers no longer desire the walls. The contract specifications for this project was c{raAed in a manner that allows the Ci~ to delete that item of work if the property owners decide not to proceed with the con~ruztion of the walls. FI$C_&L LMTACT: Funds Required for Construction A. Contract Amount (Grand Total Bid Amount) 5;328,708.00 B. Contingencies (approx 10%) 32,g70.00 C. Water Facilities Relocations (paymem to Swee~'ater Authorin_') 60,000.00 D..Materials and Lab Testing 2,000.00 E. S:affCosts (Construction Inspection Traffic Inspection, Assessment 30,000.00 District Formation, Construarion Surveying and Design) Total Funds Required for Construction I 5;;453,578.00 Funds Available for Construction A. Oxford Street Improvement (STL229) 5;387,300.00 B. AdditionaI Appropriation from Transportation Pa~"mership Funds (TPF) 22,278.00 C..Appropriation of Loan from Unappropriated Ba]anc~ of Trunk S~wer 44,000.00 Capital Res:n'e Fund Total Funds Available for Construction $453,578.00 Page 4, Item // Meeting Date 1(I/28/97 Funding for this project was budgeted in the FY 96-97 CIP budget process as identified above. The project as budgeted will utilize Gas Tax funds and Transportation Development Act CI'DA) Funds wkh an additional appropriation from the unappropriated balance of Transportation Parmership (TPF) Funds and a loan from the Trunk Sewer Capital Reserve Fund. Prior to advertising this project for bids, engineering design staff.determined that additional funds in the amount of $140,000 would be required to complete the project. The additional funding was required because the City's share of the cost of v,a'er facilities relocation, which is split equally with Sweetwater Authority was much more than ori~inally anticipated and budgeted. Another factor that increased the cost was the cost of the additional work requested by some of the property owners (i.e., sewer lateral installation) which were not part of the original scope of work, but is now being financed through the Assessment District. However, the Cir3., needs to front these costs to be paid hack over time. The estimated costs for these items is 5; 11,000 out of the $44,000 to be reimbursed by the property owners. The loan from the Trunk Sewer Capital Resen'es for the full mount of the costs estimated to be repaid by the property owners. Staff identified the source for additional funding for the project, but since we hoped to ~et bids be=er than the enaineer's estimate, decided to proceed with advertising the project, getting an exact bid from a contractor and dete,,"rnining the amount to be appropriated after receipt of bids. Based on the bids received, the amount to be appropriated was reduced to 5;66,278. The City wiI1 be reimbursed for about $44,000 over a period of 10 3.'ears at 7.00% interest, through the administration of Assessment District 97-0t. The award of this conU-act will authorize the expenditure of funds from the STL229 Project Account Upon completion of the project, ail funds not utilized will be reimbursed either to the Transportation Partnership _F_und if it is not an item to be ~eimbUrSed hy the pr~-p-erry ov~n'~2 or to~t~ Trunk Sewer Capital Reserve Fund if the savings is from reimbursable work not done such as deletion of some of the retaining walls.. The project will require only routine City maintenance, mainly sweeping, upon completion. Exhibit: A - Resolmion No. 18645 B - Resolution Nos. t 8663 and 18664 C - ResolmJon No. 18740 D - Conn-azlor's Disclosure Szaternsm File #0785-10-STL229 & 0725-10-.~d)97-01 lW~I~fORANDUM January 4, 2000 File: 0735-10-STL229 TO: 'David D. Rowlands, Jr., City John P. LippilI, Direaar of PuNic Works Clifford Sv~nson, Deputy Director Public Works/City Enginee~ FROM: Kirk Ammea-llla~ Civil E~ne~ Sba,mn Stokes, Admin~trative Services SUBJECT: Oxford Strut ~m~lX)Vemealts between Fora'th mad ~ f~h ~'v~nues On Octaber 2g.~1997, the City Council, by Resolution:No. 18795, a~zrded the ~ for ~e Off~ ~ ~v~ ~ Fo~ ~d ~ A~u~ m ~C Co~o~ ~e mo~ of~e con~ ~ $32g~08.00 pt~ ~670.00 for co-~i,g~des. ~e ~ork ~ now compl~d. ~ ~rd~nc¢ ~ Ci~ Co~ R~ol~on No. 16034 ~op~ ~ 3~ ~ 1991, yo~ o~ce is ~o~ ~ ~owlc~c ~ ~mplcfion ofP~c ~'ork~ ~j~ ~d to ~e ~i~or fi~l~ buret ~pxop~o~ (not m exc~ 10% of ~e ~n~ ~ce m a ~ of $20,000). We ~ req~ ~ you: .......... '- - A) Ac~owl~e ~mpl~on of ~ projea ~t~e rc~ to o~ o~ce ~M memo of ~owl~ ~hed). B) No~~ ~e CiW Co,cfi of~z compledon of~e project ~le~e fo~,~d an~ehed memo). ~e 6nM co~on ~ for ~e project mo~ m S385,696.57, ofw~ch $32g,70g.00 w~ for ~e ofig~ ~n~c~ $5~65.00 ~ for adj~ m con~ q, mnfi~es ($334,073.00 ~o~ for ~n~ im~), $3,g93~ ~ for ch~ge o~ ~7~17.84 ~ for ~ ~lo~on e~es ~d $512.50 ~ for ~ m~ng. ~ M~oa $176,452.5g w~ for ~aff~me (~ of 6/30/99), for a to~ co~ of $562,149.15. It shoed be no~ ~t $566~78.00 w~ ~opd~ed for ~hi~ ~oj~ ~ ~j~ ~ p~y ~ded ~a ~ ~ses~em ~ct ~er accepmce of~e ~provemenm by ~e CiW, ~e ex~en~es ~ be ~vpo~oned m ~e prope~ o~ ~d ~ ~en~ item ~ be ~b~zd to Co,cfi to set ~e public h~g for le~g ~e ~sessmem. .Attachments c: Dolly Hicks MEM OR.~N~D UM January 1P. ] P99 File: 0735-10-S~._229 TO: Honorable M~yor and CiD' Council FROM: Da~4d D. Rowlands, Jr., City M~n~er SL,-BJECir: Oxy%rd $~r~t Improvemenm berwc~-n Fourth and Fifr~ Avenues l-his ~ m inforrn you thai in _accordance w/th City Coungil ResolmJonNo. 16034.adopled on January 2-2,~ 1991, fn~s office h~s a~knowledaed completion of the Oxford Street Improv.-maan*.s Bom Fomv. h Aw~nue To Fifth Avenue Project. Trois proje~ ~-s a~xrded on Octob~ 28, 1997 by Council Resolution No. 18795 ro MJC Consn-ucrio~_ The ~'oj~.~-t installed ~J mzee.~t improvements conMvdng of curbs, =m.~ers, sidewalks, and pavement along Ox~ford Sn-eet bc~zwe~n Fourth and Fifr. h Avenues. The ~ ¢onsh-acfion cos~ for zhe project ~mounted Io $385,696.57. The Chy spent $328,708.00 for the .ori~nal conwact, $5,36~.00 for adjuslmen~ to ~contra=t qn~mrkdes ($334,07_3.00 ~qral for conwa~t it~_,~m~), $389323 for ch~_~e ordm~ $~72i7.84 for v~ relocation ex.roes $512.50 for soft tesli~g, and $176,452.58 for sr~ ,~rh~e (as of 6/30/99), for a total cost ofi562,149AS. _'Fmis proj~t was partially funded xSa an assessment dis-a-icL Upon sra~s acceptance of zln~ -lmorovemenm, Council wi!/consid= an agenda item regarding the assessment disrricu Arrachext is a complete Fin~n.cial Statement for f~e projccL Il shoMd be nmcd rh~, $566._o78.00 was <opropr/ared ~%r fais proj ecu DOE>, }-~icks JanuaD, 4, 2000 File: 0735-10-STL229 TO: John Lippitt, Director of Public Works FROM: Dav/d D. Rowlands, Jr., Ciw Manager SUBJECT: Oxqord Street Improvements, between Fourth and Fifth Avenues This is to inx~orrrt you that ~rhig office t:m.s acknowledged completion of the subject project on the shown below. You may now acknowledge mmeplance of~bi~ project. Da~dd D. Rowtands, Jr. t' D~ate City Manager cc: Dol/y I-ticks Bill Ullrich M/chael Meacham Nancy Ross January 4. 2000 File: 0735-10-STL229 -"FINANCL&L STATEMENT Oxford Street Improvements, Between Fourth a~d Fifth Avenues Appropriated Funds Total I ............. $566278.00 IL Contract.Amount as Awarded on Council Agenda Slatement a) Aveard Amomat $328,708.00 b) Contingencies $ 32,670.00 Total II ............ 5;361.378.00 !T2. A cma.1 Ex'~enfiimres Con_q~-azriorc a) Conrractwork 0v[IC Comma-ucfion) 1) Ori~nal Contract S32g,708.00 2) Adjustments to Contract Quantities $ 5.365.00 Adjusted Conz-act Amount ..................... S334,073.00 3) Change Orde~ $ 3.893.23 Total Paid to Con,actor ........................ $337,966.23 b) Other Expenses 6) City's share o£P, eloc. arion Costs o£Water Main/Laterals (To SweetwaterAuthoriU,) $ 47,217.84 7) Testing Ex~pense (Soils) $ 512.50 Ot]aer Expenses Total .......................... $ 47.730.34 Construction Cost Subtotal .................... $385,696.57 c) S~Costs $176.452.58 inception lo 6/30,/99 (Iarest available report) Total IH ............ $562,149.I5 P:£SO ~ 18795 ~L ~ ~UG 17, 1998 10:49 .R~ORDING REOU~D BY ,? ~ o 7-/~ ~ WHSN RSC~DED I4,~1_ ~ O. ~ ~ ~ 276 Fou~h Avenue ~ 0.~ NOTIOE OF OOMPL ION '- '- 3. T~~OWN~ ~6 Fou~h:Avenue;: ~ul~ Vis~. CA 9191D ~he.-m~LLN~ndF~I~l-ADD.q=-S~ES~?z~&&.`~-~-~SON~ny~W;H~OLDSUCH~N~`~.~`~ or 5SZA~_w~ththeLr~d~'--~gn_ ~ JDIN% ~NA~ or ~ ~NAN~ IN COMMON are: NON~ ~ ~e~ ~ ~ ~ ~p~v~ herein re~d ~: _ N~ ~S~ NDNE 7. Aw~impr~ememan~epr~.:~_,'%,hereinafterdes=d'bedw~sOOMPL-=~=~ July 24, !998 8. Tne w~ ~ imp~ve~% :mplmed ~ d~d ~ iolto~: Oxford Street Improvements - Fourth Avenue to Fifth Avenue 9_ The ~E OF ~E O~S]~ CO~A~D~ ~ any, ~r ~ wo~ of ~p~m ~ MJC Constructi on 10_ ~e~d~ ~m~ ~ 11. ~ p~ on ~ ~ ~ of impmveme~ w~ ~mp~d ~ in ~e C~ of CH~ VISTA O~u~ ~ SAN D]EBD - ' , ~ze of C¢~mi~ ~nd is d~¢~d ATTACHMENT D: ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 97-01 BALLOT AMOUNT VS. ACTUAL ASSESSMENT ASSMT PROPERTY BALLOT ACTUAL ADDRESS APN ASSMT TOTAL * ASSESSMENT 1 496 OXFORD ST. 618-270-25 $1,116 $1,116 2 488 OXFORD ST. 618-270-49 N.A.P. $0 3 478 OXFORD ST. 618-270-22 $984 $984 4 472 OXFORD ST. 618-270-21 $1,084 $1,084 5 470 OXFORD ST. 618-270-44 $625 $625 6 466 OXFORD ST. 618-270-53 N.A.P. $0 7 462 OXFORD ST. 618-270-19 $2,083 $2,083 8 446 OXFORD ST. 618-270-18 $969 $969 9 442 OXFORD ST. 618-270-17 $1,937 $1,465 10 438 OXFORD ST. 618-270-16 $887 $887 11 430 OXFORD ST. 618-270-45 N.A.P. $0 12 1198 OXFORD CT. 618-380-01 N.A.P. $0 13 1197 OXFORD CT. 618-380-09 $587 $587 14 1196 FOURTH AVE. 618-270-41 $826 $826 15 497-495 OXFORD ST. 618-301-02 $663 $663 16 485 OXFORD ST. 618-301-20 $997 $997 17 481 OXFORD ST. 618-301-19 $894 $894 18 475 OXFORD ST. 618-301-04 $1,506 $1,506 19 467-471 OXFORD ST. 618-301-05 $2,793 $2,442 20 465 OXFORD ST. 618-301-06 $888 $888 21 459 OXFORD ST. 618-301-07 $769 $769 22 461 OXFORD ST. 618-301-08 $970 $970 23 453-453A OXFORD ST. 618-301-09 $815 $815 24 447~t49 OXFORD ST. 618-350-13 $470 $244 25 445 OXFORD ST. 618-350-01 $1,112 $1,112 26 441 OXFORD ST. 618-350-02 $828 $828 27 437 OXFORD ST. 618-350-03 $835 $835 28 433 OXFORD ST. 618-350-04 $1,008 $1,008 29 429 OXFORD ST. 618-350-05 $870 $870 30 423 OXFORD ST. 618-350-06 $1,056 $1,056 31 419 OXFORD ST. 618-350-07 $1,459 $1,459 32 415 OXFORD ST. 618-350-08 $1,227 $1,227 33 409 OXFORD ST. H 8-350-09 $1,228 $1,228 34 1208 FOURTH AVE. 618-350-10 $372 $372 TOTAL $31,858 $30~809 H:\HOME\ENGINEER~ASMTDIST~AD9701\OXFDASS3.WB3) RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA CONFIRMING THE ENGINEER'S REPORT BY THE CITY ENGINEER ON THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION AND SPREAD OF ASSESSMENTS FOR ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 97-01 WHEREAS, on April 22, 1997 the City Council accepted a petition signed by the affected property owners to form a special assessment district (1911 Block Act) for the construction of improvements on Oxford Street between Fourth and Fifth Avenue; and WHEREAS, the City Council subsequently awarded the contract to MJC Construction in the amount of $328,708 which work is now completed and the improvements have been accepted by the City Manager; and WHEREAS, the city Council adopted Resolution No. 2000-091 on March 21, 2000 to accept filing of the Engineer's report on the cost of construction and to set the public hearing on the assessments; and WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2000-092 on March 21, 2000 to approve the deferral of liens and setting deferral criteria; and WHEREAS, a new public hearing was set for May 2, 2000, which allows Council to take testimony on the assessments; and WHEREAS, after considering all testimony, Council may set the assessments to be levied on each parcel if a majority of the property owners (based on their financial obligation) vote "YES". NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the City of Chula vista does hereby confirm the Engineer's Report by the City Engineer on the cost of construction and spread of assessments for Assessment District 97-01. Presented by Approved as to form by John P. Lippitt, Director of Joh~/~'~2 Kaheny, cit-y Public Works Attorney RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ADOPTING A NOTICE OF LIEN TO LEVY AND COLLECT ASSESSMENTS FOR ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 97-01 WHEREAS, the Oxford Street improvements were financed by the City and AD 97-01 was formed pursuant to the 1911 Block Act to obtain reimbursement for the improvement and other miscellaneous costs in accordance with Council Policy Number 505-01; and WHEREAS, the Act is a financing mechanism which authorizes local agencies to impose assessments on benefiting properties to fund the construction of public improvements; and WHEREAS, the property owners have an option of paying local assessments during the 30 day pay-off period following confirmation of assessments; and WHEREAS, if the assessments are not paid during that time or are deferred, the City will collect the unpaid balance in semiannual installments over a period of ten (10) years at an interest rate of 7% per annum; and WHEREAS, property owners may pay the balance of their assessments at any time during the ten year repayment period without penalty. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby adopt a Notice of Lien to levy and collect assessments for Assessment District No. 97-01 for improvements to Oxford Street from Fourth Avenue to Fifth Avenue. Presented by Approved as to form by John P. Lippitt, Director of John~'~ Kaheny, city Public Works Attorney COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item Meeting Date 5/2/00 ITEM TITLE: Resolution Waiving the consultant selection process and approving an agreement between the City of Chula Vista and Dudek & Associates, Inc., for the provision of environmental and engineering services required for the final design and construction of the Salt Creek Gravity Sewer Interceptor and the Wolf Canyon Trunk Sewer Resolution Approving an agreement with Remy, Thomas and Moose, LLP for the provision of legal consulting services required for the Salt Creek Gravity Sewer Interceptor and Wolf Canyon Trunk Sewer SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public 3Vorks 04~ REVIEWED BY: City Manag (4/5ths Vote: Yes_No X The consultant, Dudek & Associates are in the process of finalizing the preliminary design report for the Salt Creek Gravity Sewer Interceptor. The preliminary design report identified an alignment for the trunk sewer that will ultimately form the basis of the final design. The report also examined and identified all the environmental constraints that would be attributable to the alignment and the necessary permits that would be required for the approval of the project. Due to the current pace of development in the eastern territories of the City and the need to expedite the completion of the final design plans, begin the preparation of the necessary environmental documents and processing of the required permits under a very challenging time constraint, it has become critical to hire a consultant at this time to finalize the design of the project in order to meet the project objectives and deadlines. RECOMMENDATION: That Council: 1. Approve resolution waiving the consultant selection process and approving an agreement between the City of Chula Vista and Dudek & Associates, Inc., for the provision of environmental and engineering services required for the final design and construction of the Salt Creek Gravity Sewer Interceptor and the Wolf Canyon Trunk Sewer. 2. Approve resolution approving an agreement with Remy, Thomas and Moose, LLP for the provision of legal consulting services required for the Salt Creek Gravity Sewer Interceptor. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable. Page 2, Item Meeting Date 5/2/00 DISCUSSION: Agreement with Dudek & Associates Background On June 8, 1999, the City Council approved Resolution No. 19484 (Attachment No. 1), the selection of Dudek & Associates as the project consultant to prepare the preliminary design of the Salt Creek Gravity Sewer Interceptor and also provide environmental services needed in the preliminary design of the project. Dudek & Associates have worked closely with staff in identifying an alignment that is both functional and meets most of the project goals and objectives, and in addition, has the least impact to environmentally sensitive habitats along the path of the alignment. The final draft of the preliminary design report is scheduled to be submitted to the City by mid May 2000. Expansion of the Scope of work to include the Wolf Canyon Trunk Sewer The Wolf Canyon Trunk Sewer project involves the installation of approximately 15,700 linear feet of sewer pipes varying in size from 10 inches to 15 inches within the Wolf Canyon Basin. This trunk sewer line will connect to the Salt Creek Gravity Sewer Interceptor at some point within the lower reaches (See Attachment No. 2 for details). At the inception of this project, the scope of work for the project included all the work that was necessary to facilitate the design and construction of the Salt Creek Gravity Sewer Interceptor. However, as work on this project proceeded, the developers within the Wolf Canyon Basin approached the City and requested that the trunk sewer serving the Wolf Canyon Basin be included as part of this project for the following reasons: a. The Wolf Canyon Basin is tributary to the Salt Creek Basin, and is relatively small compared to the other major basins. b. All the data that would be needed for the design of the system is easily obtainable from previous studies conducted for that region. c. It would be more cost effective considering the proximity of the two basins to design both trunk systems simultaneously than to do so individually since both project are related and virtually span adjacent areas. d. Development within that region is currently set to proceed at a very fast pace, and the only way to expedite the proposed developments for that region is to do parallel processing of the environmental documents and permits required to facilitate the construction of the trunk sewer systems that serve both basins. e. The City made commitments to the developers within the region to assist in expediting the project as an accommodation for the grants made by the developers towards the university site. Page 3, Item Meeting Date 5/2/00 f. Most importantly, the major developers are willing to fund most of the initial costs necessary for the design and construction of the trunk system. Based on these reasons outlined above, staff recommends that the scope of work for this project be revised to include all work necessary for the design of the Salt Creek Gravity Sewer Interceptor and the Wolf Canyon Trunk Sewer. Waiving the consultant selection process Dudek & Associates were selected by the City to prepare the preliminary design report for the Salt Creek Project following the City's guidelines for the hiring of consultants. They were selected after an interview by a selection committee approved by the City Manager who interviewed a total of eight firms before making the recommendation to select Dudek & Associates for design of the project. When the preparation of the preliminary design report was awarded to Dudek & Associates, the scope of work for the contract was for the consultant to explore various alignments and identify an alignment which best meets the project objectives. The primary goal of the project is the provision of a trunk sewer system to convey sewage flows from developments within the Salt Creek Basin in an efftcient manner, and to provide for the decommissioning of all the existing pump stations along the alignment of the trunk system and have the least impact to the environment. The preliminary design report by Dudek accomplishes all the project goals and objectives. The Salt Creek Gravity Sewer Interceptor is crucial to the continued development of the "Eastern Territories". Considering the current pace of development within that region it has become necessary to accelerate the schedule for the completion of this project. The City has made commitments to the developers within that region that the project would be constructed by the end calendar year 2001 or the early part of 2002 at the latest (allowing for any delays that could result from the environmental permitting process). To meet this commitment, the design of the project has to be completed by the end of October 2000, which is a challenging and daunting schedule. The work already done by the consultant represents about thirty percent (30%) of the design work to be done on this project. Dudek & Associates are intimately familiar with the various aspects of the project and have a vast knowledge of the environmental issues within that region, stemming from their long history of projects within that area. The consultant has the necessary resources to provide the services necessary to meet the project deadlines and information necessary to obtain the required environmental permits within the short time frame. The approval of this agreement (Attachment No. 3) with Dudek & Associates for the preparation of the final design plans would facilitate the accomplishment of the project objectives considering the time constraints and is a natural extension of the work already being done by the consultant. Page 4, Item Meeting Date 5/2/00 The consultant proposes to do the all the work required (preparation of final design plans, processing of environmental documents and permits and construction support services) for the Salt Creek Gravity Sewer Interceptor on a time and material basis, for the total amount not to exceed $882,000. The work required for the Wolf Canyon Trunk Sewer would also be completed on a time and material basis, and would be done for the total amount not to exceed $280,000. It is staff's opinion that these amounts represent a very competitive proposal since any other consultant selected would have significantly higher costs due to the additional time required to become familiar with all of the project issues and their relationship to the design under the same time schedule proposed for this project. Also, the consultant's proposal is approximately 6 % of the construction cost of the project (the Salt Creek Gravity Sewer project is currently estimated to cost $14,000,000, and the Wolf Canyon Sewer is estimated to cost $2,500,000). This proposal is within industry standards for a project of this size. It should also be noted that the cost for the environmental processing that would be required for this project is currently unknown. The consultant's proposal (in the amount of $210,250) for providing this service assumes a worst-case scenario. So in the event the resource agencies upon evaluating the project require the preparation of less tedious environmental documents, then the costs could be significantly lower for this task. This is also the case for the Wolf Canyon Sewer. To date, staff has been very satisfied with the work completed by the Dudek & Associates. Their staff have been very quick to respond to questions from City staff, and are readily accessible when required for field trips, presentation and various project meetings. Throughout the preliminary design period, the consultant met all the important deadlines. Based on the issues articulated above, staff recommends that the selection process be waived and that the contract for the final design of the project and processing of the required environmental permits be awarded to Dudek & Associates. Stares of Consultant's Work The preliminary design report is about 95 % complete. An alignment has been identified, and the horizontal and vertical designs have been completed. The Biological Resource Study Report and the Biological Constraints Report have been completed and the consultant is currently finalizing the report to include the input from local developers within the project boundaries who reviewed the biological studies prepared for the project. The environmental issues have been evaluated and the opportunities and constraints report have been drafted. With the approval of this agreement, the consultant will proceed with the final design and begin the environmental permitting process. The original agreement with Dudek & Associates for the preparation of the Preliminary Design Report was for an amount not to exceed $54,950. To date they have been paid a total amount of $43,960. The remaining balance will be due upon the receipt of the final draft of the Preliminary Design Report. In addition to the work they have done so far on this project, they also done other Page 5, Item Meeting Date 5/2/00 work for the City in the amount of $4,077. To date Dudek & Associates have been paid $48,037 for this and other projects by the City of Chula Vista. Conclusion As a result of this agreement, the City will be authorizing the consultant, Dudek & Associates, Inc., to commence work on the final design and environmental permitting (Exhibit B). Staffhas reviewed the cost proposal for the additional work and based on the challenging timeframe required to complete the project and obtain the necessary environmental permits, staff recommends approval of the agreement to provide the required services. The consultant is expected to complete the project by the end of October 2000. Agreement with Remy, Thomas and Moose, LLP The City has determined the need for specialized legal services for review of the legal adequacy of required environmental documents and related environmental permitting clearances related to the final design of the Salt Creek Gravity Sewer Interceptor. On behalf of the City of Chula Vista, Remy, Thomas and Moose shall review and edit environmental documents and permitting clearances including, but not limited to: an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration or Environmental Impact Report, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; Draft Findings of Fact; Section 404 Permit application; Section 401 Water Quality Certification/Waiver; 1601 Streambed Alteration Agreement from the California Department of Fish and Game; Section 7 consultation documentation; Section 10(a) take permit; or 4(d) permit. Pursuant to Chula Vista Municipal Code Section 2.56.070, staff recommends that Council waive the normal consultant selection process and approve an agreement with Remy, Thomas and Moose, LLP (Attachment No. 4) due to the condensed project timeline. The law firm of Remy, Thomas and Moose is known throughout the State of California for their expertise and experience regarding the California Environmental Quality Act, and the processing of the necessary federal and state environmental clearances. Remy, Thomas and Moose has maintained a long history with the City, and have spent a significant amount of time and effort advising the City on several environmental issues/documents related to the General Plan, as well as other projects located throughout the City. To date, Remy, Thomas and Moose have done work for the City on various projects totaling approximately $123,000. They have also been retained as counsel on related litigation, and have spent a significant amount of time and effort processing required environmental clearances. Remy, Thomas and Moose has reviewed the City's proposed schedule have assured staff that they can prepare and deliver the services required of them within the time frames provided all in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement. Remy, Thomas and Moose propose Page 6, Item Meeting Date 5/2/00 to provide all the needed services for this project on a time and material basis for a not to exceed amount of $100,000. It is staff's opinion that this fee is reasonable for the required services. Staff therefore recommends that Council approve the agreement for the provision of legal services required on the Salt Gravity Sewer Interceptor to Remy, Thomas and Moose, LLP. FISCAL IMPACT: The approval of this resolution would authorize the expenditure of about $1,100,000 (including 10% contingencies) for both consultants required for this project. The overall cost of the project would be financed through a combination of funding from the Salt Creek Gravity DIF, the Trunk Sewer Capital Reserve Fund and Deposits from Developers (to pay for the Wolf Canyon portion of the Project). During the last budget process, Council approved the appropriation of funds in the amount of $1,550,000 from the Trunk Sewer Capital Reserve Fund to fund the design and right of way acquisition required for the Salt Creek Gravity Sewer Interceptor. The Developers involved in this project are expected to deposit a total amount of $300,000 into the project account. These funds will be used to pay for the design and environmental processing costs for the Wolf Canyon Trunk Sewer portion of this project. All staff costs related to the administration of that portion of the project would also be funded through the developer deposit. Currently, there are adequate funds in the project account to proceed with the final design of this project and begin the environmental permitting process. Attachments: No. 1. Resolution No. 19484 approving the award of consulting services contract to Dudek & Associates, Inc. to provide environmental services and a preliminary design for the Salt Creek Gravity Sewer Trunk No. 2. Plat Showing the Salt Creek Gravity Sewer Interceptor and the Wolf Canyon Trunk Sewer No. 3. Agreement between the City of Chula Vista and Dudek & Associate for the provision of environmental and engineering services required for the final design and construction of the Salt Creek Gravity Sewer Interceptor and the Wolf Canyon Trunk No. 4. Agreement between the City of Chula Vista and Remy, Thomas and Moose, LLP for Legal Consulting Services required to facilitate the construction of the Salt Creek Gravity Sewer Interceptor and the Wolf Canyon Trunk Sewer FILE NO. 0735-10-SW219 H:\HOME\ENGINEER\SEWER\SEWER 00\Salt Creek\Dudek-Final -Design Contract-Al 13.ac.doc 4/26/00 4:59:52 PM RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHIrLA VISTA APPROVING AWARD OF CONSULTANT SERVICES CONTRACT TO DUDEK ;ZND ASSOCIATES, INC. TO PROVIDE ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES AiqD A PRELIMINARY DESIGN FOR THE SALT CREEK GRAVITY SEWER TRUNK WHEREAS, the proposed Salt Creek Trunk will transport wastewater from new developments within the Salt Creek Basin in eastern Chu!a Vista and provide additional capacity to the existing wastewater collection systems in southern Chula Vista; and WHEREAS, the City needs the assistance of a consultant to provide engineering and environmental services and to prepare a preliminary design for the Salt Creek Gravit~ Trunk Sewer; and WHEREAS, Section 2.56.110 of the Municipal Code was followed in the consultant selection process and a Request for Proposals was prepared and sent to over forty firms with expertise in these areas; and ~E~EREAS, the three member selection committee appointed by the City Manager selected Dudek and Associates, Inc. based on the lowest proposal, relevant experience, strong project team and excellent references; and WHEREAS, approval of this resolution will allow for the preparation of the preliminary design and determine the environmental constraints and alignment for subsequent final design of the interceptor; and ~EHEREAS, upon completing this preliminary design, the Ciuy will hire a consu!mant to prepare 5he final design. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the City of Chu!a Vista does hereby approve the award of a consultant services contract to Dudek and Associates, Inc. in the amount of $54,950 to provide environmental services and preliminary design for the Salt Creek Gravity Trunk Sewer, a copy of which shall be kept on file in the office of the City Clerk. BE iT FURTHER RESOLVED nhat the Mayor of the City of Chuia Vista is hereby authorized and directed to execute said Agreement for and on behalf of the City of Chula Vista. Presented by Approved as to form by John P. Lippitt, Director of J~. Kaheny, City ~ney Public Works · AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND DUDEK & ASSOCIATES, INC FOR THE PROVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND ENGINEERING SERVICES REQUIRED FOR THE FINAL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE SALT CREEK GRAVITY SEWER INTERCEPTOR AND THE WOLF CANYON GRAVITY SEWER INTERCEPTOR This agreement CAgreemem"), dated 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 of Chula Vista, hereinafter called "City", whose business form is set forth on Exhibit A, paragraph 3, and Dudek & Associates, Inc. hereinafter called "Consultant," 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: WHEREAS, the City Chula Vista, by Resolution 19484 on June 8, 1999, approved an agreement with Dudek & Associates to provide environmental services and a preliminary design for the Salt Creek Gravity Sewer Interceptor; and WHEREAS, there is a need for additional consultant services in order to prepare the final design plans necessary for the construction of the Salt Creek Gravity Interceptor, and; WHEREAS, the City requires further consultant services in order to prepare the necessary environmental documents and obtain the required environmental permits, and; WHEREAS, Wolf Canyon Trunk Sewer is tributary to the Salt Creek Gravity Sewer and the City desires to expedite the design and environmental processing of the Wolf Canyon Trunk Sewer, at the request of the developers within that basin who have a vested interest in the project and who will be funding a portion of the project costs, and; WHEREAS, there is a need for consultant services in order to prepare the design plans, prepare the necessary environmental documents and obtain the required environmental permits necessary for the construction of the Wolf Canyon Trunk Sewer, and; WHEREAS, pursuant to Chula Vista Municipal Code Section 2.56.070 Council determined that competitive bidding is impractical, and waived the normal consultant selection process, because Dudek & Associates have extensive experience and familiarity with the Salt Creek Gravity Sewer Interceptor project, having completed the preliminary design for the project -1- and this agreement will result in enhanced continuity of the project and expedite the timely completion of design of the project and processing of the necessary environmental permits, and; WlIEREAS, 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 o this Agreement. NOW, THERFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the parties do hereby mutually agree as follows: 1. Consultant's Duties: A. General Duties: The Consultant shall perform all of the services described in 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 the 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 Defmed Services by the times indicated shall not terminate this agreement, except at the option of the City. 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 Defmed 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 Defmed 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 subconsnltants 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 limits applied separately to each project away from premises owned or rented by Consultant, which names City and Applicant 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 and Applicant 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: 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. Said Performance Bond to be furnished and delivered to the City of Chula Vista immediately following signing of contract by both parties and before any work is started. Work timetable begins upon deliver3' of said Performance Bonds. (2) Letter of Credit: In the event that Exhibit A, at Paragraph 19, indicates the need for Consultant m 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 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, the 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 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 per- formance. The parties have used their judgment to arrive at a reasonable amount to compensate for delay. Failure to complete the Def'med Services within the allotted tune 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 Filler: 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. E. Duty to Advise of Conflicting Interests: Regardless of whether Consultant is designated as an FPPC Filer, Consultam 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. -6- 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 conduct 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 -7- 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 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 (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 Consultant: City is interested only in the results obtained and Consultant shall perform as an independent Consultant 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 Consultant 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. 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. -9- C. Notices: All notices, demands or requests provided for or permitted to be given pursuant to this Agreement must be in writing. Ail 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 -10- Signature Page to Agreement Between The City of Chula Vista and Dudek & Associates, Inc For the provision of Environmental and Engineering Services required for the Final Design and Construction of the Salt Creek Gravity Sewer Interceptor and Wolf Canyon Trunk Sewer IT 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: CITY OF CHULA VISTA By Shirley Horton, Mayor Attest: Susan Bigelow City Clerk Approved as to form: John M. Kaheny City Attorney DATED: Dudek and Associates, Inc. By. Frank Dudek, P.E. President Exhibit List to Agreement (X) Exhibit A Exhibit A to Agreement between City of Chula Vista and Dudek and Associates, Inc. 1. Effective Date of Agreement: 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 3. Place of Business for City: City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 4. Name of Consultant: Dudek and Associates, Inc. 5. Business Form of Consultant: ( ) Sole Proprietorship ( ) Partnership (X) Corporation 6. Place of Business, Telephone and Fax Number of Consultant: 605 Third Street Encinitas, CA 92024 Voice Phone (760) 942-5147 Facsimile (760) 632-0164 -12- 7. General Duties: A. Salt Creek Gravit3' Sewer Interceptor The scope of work for this project consists of evaluating the alignment that was proposed in the Prelinxinary Design Report based on engineering and environmental constraints, identifying the environmental constraints and obtaining the required environmental permits to satisfy CEQA and NEPA regulations, and preparing plans and specifications for the construction of the sewer interceptor. The final product of this project shall consist of hydraulic calculations supporting the final design, environmental and encroachment permits from all the regulatory agencies that have jurisdiction over this project, a detailed cost estimate, soil reports, a phasing schedule, and a complete biddable construction package that include plans wi~h photo s~rips and profiles, and technical specifications for constructing the sewer interceptor. B. Wolf Canyon Trunk Sewer The scope of work for this project consists of determining an alignment based on engineering and environmental constraints, identifying the environmental constraints and obtaining the required environmental permits to satisfy CEQA and NEPA regulations, and preparing plans and specifications for the construction of the sewer interceptor. The final product of this project shall consist of hydraulic calculations supporting the final design, environmental and encroachment permits from all the regulatory agencies that have jurisdiction over this project, a detailed cost estimate, soil reports, a phasing schedule, and a complete biddable construction package that include plans with photo stxips and profiles, and technical specifications for constructing the sewer interceptor. The following sections present a detailed discussion of the Final Design of Salt Creek Gravity Sewer Interceptor and the Wolf Canyon Trunk Sewer scope of work. 8. Defined Services A. Detailed Scope of Work For the Salt Creek Gravity Sewer Interceptor: Element 1: Data Collection and Review For Final Design Task 1.1 Project Kickoff Meeting Conduct a project kickoff meeting with the City of Chula Vista and other appropriate parties to discuss the overall project structure and goals. Task 1.2 Collect Exiting Data Collect previous studies, reports, aerial photos, hard and electronic, copy of the Preliminary Design Report, environmental and planning documents, and -13- other available background information necessary for the project. Task 1.3 Present Existing Utility Data Contact local utility companies to locate existing utilities, existing sewer lines, and other pertinent information within the pipeline corridor and present the utility data on the base maps. Element 2: Project Design For Final Design Task 2.1 Evaluate the Proposed Alignment in the Preliminary Design Report Evaluate the feasibility of the proposed alignment that was recommended in the Preliminary Design Report by Dudek and Associates, Inc. on the basis of environmental and economical constraints. Task 2.2 Update of the Gravity Basin CEDU) Review, verify and update the land uses within the sewer gravity basins that will be discharging into Salt Creek Sewer Basin based on current projections and determine the wastewater flows that will be discharged into Salt Creek Sewer Basin at buildout. The update shall include but is not limited to Salt Creek Sewer Basin, Poggi Canyon Sewer Basin, Wolf Canyon Sewer Basin, and Main Street Sewer Basin. Task 2.3 Hydraulic Analysis and design Perform hydraulic analysis and design the sewer interceptor using gravity collection system to convey the flows generated from all existing and future facilities and developments within the Salt Creek Sewer Basin and the surrounding tributary basins. The submittal shall include a complete and detailed hydraulic report outlining the calculations, basis of assumptions, and criteria utilized in the design. Task 2.4 Pump Stations Decommissioning plans Prepare detailed plans for decommissioning the following four pump stations along the sewer interceptor alignment: a. Otay Lakes Road Pump Station b. Olympic Parkway Pump Station c. Olympic Training center (OTC) pump station d. Auto Park Pump Station Element 3: Surveying and Aerial Photography For Final Design Task 3.1 Set aerial control points along the alignment. -14- Task 3.2 Establish horizontal and vertical control points, based on City of Chula Vista benchmarks. Task 3.3 Paint existing manholes, valves and related utilities prior to start of aerial photography Task 3.4 Prepare topographical maps at scale of 1"=20' and 1 foot contour line intervals. Note: All surveying shall be done per the City of Chula Vista Surveying Standards. Any exceptions shall be defined by the City engineer. Element 4: Geotechnical investigation and Soil Reports For Final Design Task 4.1 Perform series of borings along the proposed sewer line alignment. Task 4.2 Obtain soil classification, density, and locate water table elevations, moisture contents and seismic conditions. Task 4.3 Recommend trench preparation. Task 4.4 Identify locations where micro-tunneling or pipe bursting methods will be feasible. Task 4.5 Evaluate soil reports and recommend structural sections for pavement reconstruction and resurfacing along the path of the alignment. Task 4.6 Pot hole, verify, and mark the locations of all existing utilities along the proposed alignment. Element 5: Preparation of Final Design Drawings Task 5.1 The Design drawings shall be prepared using Computer Aided Design (CAD) and all graphics shall be presented in AutoCAD/DWG file format. Task 5.2 Prepare Title Sheet (minimuml sheet) and General Index Sheets (minimum 3 sheets). Task 5.3 Place boring logs on D-size sheets (minimum 4 sheets). Task 5.4 Prepare plans with photo strips and profiles sheets at a minimum scale of 1"=20' scale and minimum 1 foot interval topographic lines of the alignment (minimum 130 sheets). -15- Task 5.5 Plot existing utilities and prepare plans and specifications for relocating any utilities or structures that will interfere with the proposed alignment. Provide road access with turnaround to each manhole along the proposed alignment to provide access for future maintenance of the interceptor. Task 5.6 Details connections, metering station, pump station decommissioning, details of connecting existing facilities and miscellaneous piping requirements (minimum 14 sheets) Task 5.7 Analyze the construction zone and mark areas that shall be used to stage construction operations Task 5.8 Prepare traffic control plans required to facilitate the construction of the project and to minimize the traffic interruptions in the surrounding areas (minimum 24 sheets). Element 6: Identifying Environmental Constraints, Preparing Requisite Environmental Documents and Obtaining all Related Permits Related to Final Design Task 6.1 Environmental Document Preparation (Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration or Environmental Impact Report) The consultant shall prepare an Environmental Initial Study, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15063 (Public Resources Code 21080), in order to determine if there are significant environmental impacts, the level of potential impacts and the appropriate CEQA document (i.e. Environmental Impact Report, Mitigated Negative Declaration, etc) for the project. Consultant shall prepare the appropriate CEQA document (i.e. Environmental Impact Report, Mitigated Negative Declaration, etc.), including draft findings and a Mitigation Monitoring and Report Program. Task 6.2 General Biological Reconnaissance and Biological Resources Technical Report As part of the preparation of the environmental document, consultant (or a qualified sub-consultant) shall prepare a biological technical report in accordance with CEQA. Said technical report shall include any required biological surveys for sensitive resources including but not limited to the Quino Checkerspot Butterfly, California Gnatcatcher and Otay Tarplant. Task 6.3 Coordination and Meetings with Resource Agencies regarding Wetlands Permitting Consultant shall meet with the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE), California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and City staff to discuss permitting requirements and potential impacts to state- and federally-listed threatened and endangered species. Task 6.4 Section 404 Permit Application Consultant shall identify and prepare required state and federal environmental permits (Section 404 Nationwide Permit or Section 404 Individual Permit). Task 6.5 Section 401 Water Quality Certification/Waiver Application Consultant shall complete and submit an application for a Section 401 Water Quality Certification/Waiver to the RWQCB. Task 6.6 Section 1601 Streambed Alteration Agreement Consultant shall submit to the CDFG an application for a Section 1601 Streambed Alteration Agreement. The application shall include a project description, a statement of purpose and need, an alternatives analysis, a discussion of avoidance and minimization of impacts, a wetland delineation, a draft mitigation plan, all associated figures and copies of the wetland permit applications submitted to the RWQCB and ACOE. Task 6.7 Habitat Enhancement Plan (Conceptual Mitigation and Monitoring Plan), Plans and Specifications for the Revegetation/Mifigation Areas Consultant shall prepare a written habitat enhancement plan, which will serve the purpose as a conceptual wetland mitigation and monitoring plan. The plan will be prepared as a written report in the format acceptable to the City of Chula Vista and compatible with resource agency permit requirements. The plan will summarize existing site conditions, discuss project description and impact, outline the goals of the revegetation program, detail the planting design, address plant materials sources and lead time, describe installation requirements, irrigation sources, erosion control, maintenance and monitoring requirements, and outline reporting/documentation requirements. The report will be submitted for review by the City of Chula Vista, as well as submitted as to the resource agencies as a follow-up to the permit applications. Consultant shall prepare a biddable set of landscape construction documents for the revegetation areas. These plans shall be detailed plans sufficient for bidding and ultimate construction. The plans shall implement the design intent of the habitat enhancement plan (conceptual mitigation plan) report, and shall incorporate client requested changes, and modifications due to actual field conditions as necessary. These plans shall include site preparation plans, planting plans, irrigation plans, legends, installation specifications, and required installation details. Consultant shall also include a cost estimate based upon the £mal revegetation plans, for budgeting, bonding and bidding purposes. -17- Task 6.8 Focused Quino Checkerspot Butterfly Survey Consultam shall conduct a habitat assessmem and an adult flight survey for the quino checkerspot butterfly in accordance with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) 2001 Survey Protocol. A report will be prepared and submitted to the USFWS, Carlsbad Field Office, detailing the results of the adult survey and habitat assessment. All mapping will be placed in an ArcCAD file for use with other biological resources in the Geographical Information System (GIS) database. Task 6.9 Focused California Gnatcatcher Survey If the Subarea Plan is not in place prior to permitting, Consultant shall conduct a focused survey for the California gnatcatcher in accordance with the USFWS protocol. Data collected during the survey will be used to estimate the number of California gnatcatcher~ on the project site and to identify those areas, if any, supporting high California gnatcatcher population densities. Task 6.10 Assessment of Impacts and Development of Conceptual Mitigation Scenarios for State and Federally-listed Plant and Animal Species Consultant shall review the proposed project alternatives with regards to impacts to state- and federally-listed plant and animal species. Consultant shall coordinate with the City regarding efforts to avoid and minimize impacts to protected species. Consultant shall quantify impacts associated with the previously identified project alternatives, and confirm that the preferred project alternative is the Least Environmentally Damaging Project Alternative (LEDPA) Task 6.11 Section 7 Consultation, Section 10(a) Take Permit, and 4(d) Permit In the event that take authorization for any listed species that are impacted by the proposed activities is not available through the Subarea Plan, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department offish and Game wilt determine the appropriate mechanism for take authorization at the time of permit application (e.g. 4(d) permitting for gnateatchers only) or (e.g. individual Section 7 consultations or 10 (a) permits for gnatcatcher and quino checkerspot). Consultant shall be responsible for identifying and preparing all state and federal environmental clearances (Section 7 Consultation, Section 10(a) Take Permit, 4(d) Permit etc. identified by the resource agencies) including preparation of all documents, permits and applications and in cooperation with the City of Chula Vista's Environmental Review Coordinator. Task 6.12 Areheologieal Significance Testing Consultant shall conduct archeological significance testing on identified sites within the project disturbance area to evaluate potentially significant impacts to cultural resources. Element 7: Preparation of Detailed Cost Estimate Based on Final Design Task 7.1 Prepare a detailed total cost estimate for constructing the sewer interceptor. This estimate shall include but is not limited to mobilization, clear'rog and grubbing, acquisition of right of way, excavation, dewatering, shoring, bedding, baclffflling and compaction, hauling, manholes, piping materials, metering station, micro-tunneling, pipe bursting, connecting existing facilities, pavement resurfacing or reconstruction, clean up, testing, environmental permits, encroachment permits~ acquisition of mitigation land and sewer easements, utilities relocation, traffic control, environmental mitigation, overhead and profit, contingency and any other costs that may be required to construct the sewer interceptor. Element 8: Preparation of Spec'ffications For Required Construction Task 8.1 Prepare technical specifications in CSI (divisions format) in accordance with the City of Chula Vista 'Boilerplate". The specifications shall include construction, traffic control, installation of various pipes, shoring, pavement reconstruction and resurfacing, materials, micro-tunneling, utilities relocation, testing, rehabilitating sections of the existing sewer interceptor, decommissioning of the pump stations, and protection and restoration of existing improvements. Element 9: Preparation of Required Right-of-Way Documents and Obtaining all Encroachment Permits Task 9.1 Preparation of Required Right-of-Way Documents. Task 9.1.1 Determine all the required right-of-way and easements necessary to construct the project. Task 9.1.2 Prepare all necessary right-of-way documents (including but not limited to legal description, easement plats, permits to enter and construct, etc.) necessary to construct the project. Task 9.1.3 Assist the City's appraisal consultant, and Right-of-Way agent as needed to obtain all the necessary right-of-way and easements necessary to construct the project. -19- Task 9.1.4 Identify and obtain encroachment permits as deemed necessary by other agencies such as but is not limited to Caltrans, Unified Port District, Metropolitan Transit Development Board, San Diego Gas And Electric, Otay Water District, Sweetwater Authority and the City of San Diego. Element 10: Construction Support Services Task I0.1 Attend pre-construction meeting and answer questions. Task 10.2 Review and approve shop drawings. Task 10.3 Review, approve and process Construction Changes within two days period of request unless otherwise instructed by the Project Manager. Incorporate all Construction Changes in the "As Built" pl,ans. Task 10.4 Periodically attend construction meetings as requested by the Project Manager. Task 10.5 Prepare "As Built" plans with all Construction Changes. B. Detailed Scope of Work For the Wolf Canyon Trunk Sewer: Element 1: Data Collection and Review Task 1.1 Project Kickoff Meeting Conduct a project kickoff meeting with the City of Chula Vista and other appropriate parties to discuss the overall project structure and goals. Task 1.2 Collect Exiting Data Collect previous studies, reports, aerial photos, hard and electronic, copy of the Preliminary Design Report, environmental and planning documents, and other available background information necessary for the project. Task 1.3 Present Existing Utility Data Contact local utility companies to locate existing utilities, existing sewer lines, and other pertinent information within the pipeline corridor and present the utility data on the base maps. Element 2: Project Design Task 2.1 Determine an Alignment for the Trunk Sewer Develop pipeline alignment alternatives, and determine an alignment in conjunction with City staff, that takes into consideration; environmental constraints, constructability, existing features, topography and cost. Task 2.2 Hydraulic Analysis and design Perform hydraulic analysis and design the trunk sewer using gravity collection system to convey the flows generated from all existing and furore facilities and developments within the Wolf Canyon Basin and the surrounding tributary basim. The submittal shall include a complete and detailed hydraulic report outlining the calculations, basis of assumptions, and criteria utilized in the design. Element 3: Surveying and Aerial Photography For Final Design Task 3.1 Set aerial control points along the alignment. Task 3.2 Establish horizontal and vertical control points, based on City of Chula Vista benchmarks. Task 3.3 Paint existing manholes, valves and related utilities prior to start of aerial photography Task 3.4 Prepare topographical maps at scale of 1" =20' and 1 foot contour line intervals. Element 4: Geotechnical investigation and Soil Reports For Final Design Task 4.1 Perform series of borings along the proposed sewer line alignmem. Task 4.2 Obtain soil classification, density, and locate water table elevations, moisture contents and seismic conditions. Task 4.3 Recommend trench preparation. Task 4.4 Idemify locations where micro-tunneling or pipe bursting methods will be feasible (If necessary). Task 4.5 Evaluate soil reports and recommend structural sections for pavement reconstruction and resurfacing along the path of the alignment. Task 4.6 Pot hole, verify, and mark the locations of all existing utilities along the proposed aligmem. Element 5: Preparation of Final Design Drawings Task 5.1 The Design drawings shall be prepared using Computer Aided Design (CAD) and all graphics shall be presented in AutoCAD/DWG file format. Task 5.2 Prepare Title Sheet (minimuml sheet) and General Index Sheets (minimum 3 sheets). Task 5.3 Place boring logs on D-size sheets (minimum 4 sheets). Task 5.4 Prepare plans with photo strips and profiles sheets at a minimum scale of 1' =20' scale and minimum 1 foot interval topographic lines of the alignment (minimum 130 sheets). Task 5.5 Plot existing utilities and prepare plans and specifications for relocating any utilities or structures that will interfere with the proposed alignment. Provide road access with turnaround to each manhole along the proposed alignment to provide access for future maintenance of the interceptor. Task5.6 Details connections, details of connecting existing facilities and miscellaneous piping requirements (minimum 14 sheets) Task 5.7 Analyze the construction zone and mark areas that shall be used to stage construction operations Task 5.8 Prepare traffic control plans required to facilitate the construction of the project and to minimize the traffic interruptions in the surrounding areas (minimum 24 sheets). Element 6: Identifying Environmental Constraints, Preparing Requisite Environmental Documents and Obtaining all Related Permits Related to Final Design Task 6.1 Environmental Document Preparation (Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration or Environmental Impact Report) The consultant shall prepare an Environmental Initial Study, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15063 (Public Resources Code 21080), in order to determine if there are significant environmental impacts, the level of potential impacts and the appropriate CEQA document (i.e. Environmental Impact Report, Mitigated Negative Declaration, etc) for the project. Consultant shall prepare the appropriate CEQA document (i.e. Environmental Impact Report, Mitigated Negative Declaration, etc.), including draft findings and a Mitigation Monitoring and Report Program. Task 6.2 General Biological Reconnaissance and Biological Resources Technical Report As part of the preparation of the environmental document, consultant (or a qualified sub-consultant) shall prepare a biological technical report in accordance with CEQA. Said technical report shall include any required biological surveys for sensitive resources including but not limited to the Quino Checkerspot Butterfly, California Gnatcatcher and Otay Tarplant. Task 6.3 Coordination and Meetings with Resource Agencies regarding Wetlands Permitting Consultant shall meet with the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE), California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and City staff to discuss permitting requirements and potential impacts to state- and federally-listed threatened and endangered species. Task 6.4 Section 404 Permit Application Consultant shall identify and prepare required state and federal environmental permits (Section 404 Nationwide Permit or Section 404 Individual Permit). Task 6.5 Section 401 Water Quality Certification/Waiver Application Consultant shall complete and submit an application for a Section 401 Water Quality Certification/Waiver to the RWQCB. Task 6.6 Section 1601 Streambed Alteration Agreement Consultant shall submit to the CDFG an application for a Section 1601 Streambed Alteration Agreement. The application shall include a project description, a statement of purpose and need, an alternatives analysis, a discussion of avoidance and minimization of impacts, a wetland delineation, a draft mitigation plan, all associated figures and copies of the wetland permit applications submitted to the RWQCB and ACOE. Task 6.7 Habitat Enhancement Plan (Conceptual Mitigation and Monitoring Plan), Plans and Specifications for the Revegetation/Mitigation Areas Consultant shall prepare a written habitat enhancement plan, which will serve the purpose as a conceptual wetland mitigation and monitoring plan. The plan will be prepared as a written report in the format acceptable to the City of Chula Vista and compatible with resoume agency permit requirements. The plan will summarize existing site conditions, discuss project description and impact, outline the goals of the revegetation program, detail the planting design, address plant materials sources and lead time, describe installation requirements, irrigation sources, erosion control, maintenance and monitoring requirements, and outline reporting/documentation requirements. The report will be submitted for review by the City of Chula Vista, as well as submitted as to the resource agencies as a follow-up to the permit applications. -23- Consultant shall prepare a biddable set of landscape construction documents for the revegetation areas. These plans shall be detailed plans sufficient for bidding and ultimate construction. The plans shall implement the design intent of the habitat enhancement plan (conceptual mitigation plan) report, and shall incorporate client requested changes, and modifications due to actual field conditions as necessary. These plans shall include site preparation plans, planting plans, irrigation plans, legends, installation specifications, and required installation details. Consultant shall also include a cost estimate based upon the final revegetation plans, for budgeting, bonding and bidding purposes. Task 6.8 Focused Quino Checkerspot Butterfly Survey Consultant shall conduct a habitat assessment a~ad an adult flight survey for the quino checkerspot butterfly in accordance with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) 2001 Survey Protocol. A report will be prepared and submitted to the USFWS, Carlsbad Field Office, detailing the results of the adult survey and habitat assessment. All mapping will be placed in an ArcCAD file for use with other biological resources in the Geographical Information System (GIS) database. Task 6.9 Focused California Gnatcatcher Survey If the Subarea Plan is not in place prior to permitting, Consultant shall conduct a focused survey for the California gnatcatcher in accordance with the USFWS protocol. Data collected during the survey will be used to estimate the number of California gnatcatchers on the project site and to identify those areas, if any, supporting high California gnatcatcher population densities. Task 6.10 Assessment of Impacts and Development of Conceptual Mitigation Scenarios for State and Federally-listed Plant and Animal Species Consultant shall review the proposed project alternatives with regards to impacts to state- and federally-listed plant and animal species. Consultant shall coordinate with the City regarding efforts to avoid and minimize impacts to protected species. Consultant shall quantify impacts associated with the previously identified project alternatives, and confirm that the preferred project alternative is the Least Environmentally Damaging Project Alternative (LEDPA) Task 6.11 Section 7 Consultation, Section 10(a) Take Permit, and 4(d) Permit In the event that take authorization for any listed species that are impacted by the proposed activities is not available through the Subarea Plan, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department ofFish and Game will determine the appropriate mechanism for take authorization at the time of permit application (e.g. 4(d) permitting for gnatcatchers only) or (e.g. individual Section 7 consultations or 10 (a) permits for gnatcatcher and quino checkerspot). Consultant shall be responsible for identifying and preparing all state and federal environmental clearances (Section 7 Consultation, Section 10(a) Take Permit, 4(d) Permit etc. identified by the resource agencies) including preparation of all documents, permits and applications and in cooperation with the City of Chula Vista's Environmental Review Coordinator. Task 6.12 Archeological Significance Testing Consultant shall conduct archeological significance testing on identified sites within the project disturbance area to evaluate potentially significant impacts to cultural resources. Element 7: Preparation of Detailed Cost Estimate Based on Final Design Task 7.1 Prepare a detailed total cost estimate for constructing the sewer interceptor. This estimate shall include but is not limited to mobilization, clearing and grubbing, acquisition of right of way, excavation, dewatering, shoring, bedding, backfilling and compaction, hauling, manholes, piping materials, metering station, micro-tunneling, pipe bursting, connecting existing facilities, pavement resurfacing or reconstruction, clean up, testing, environmental permits, encroachment permits, acquisition of mitigation land and sewer easements, utilities relocation, traffic control, environmental mitigation, overhead and profit, contingency and any other costs that may be required to construct the sewer interceptor. Element 8: Preparation of Specifications For Required Construction Task 8.1 Prepare technical specifications in CSI (divisions format) in accordance with the City of Chula Vista 'Boilerplate". The specifications shall include construction, traffic control, installation of various pipes, shoring, pavement reconstruction and resurfacing, materials, micro-tunneling, utilities relocation, testing, rehabilitating sections of the existing sewer interceptor, decommissioning of the pump stations, and protection and restoration of existing improvements. Element 9: Preparation of Required Right-of-Way Documents and Obtaining all Encroachment Permits Task 9.1 Preparation of Required Right-of-Way Documents. -25- Task 9.1.1 Determine all the required right-of-way and easements necessary to construct the project. Task 9.1.2 Prepare all necessary right-of-way documents (including but not limited to legal description, easement plats, permits to enter and construct, etc.) necessary to construct the project. Task 9.1.3 Assist the City's appraisal consultant, and Right-of-Way agent as needed to obtain all the necessary right-of-way and easements necessary to construct the project. Task 9.1.4 Identify and obtain encroachment permits as deemed necessary by other agencies such as but is not limited to Caltrans, Unified Port District, Metropolitan Transit Development Board, San Diego Gas And Electric, Otay Water District, Sweetwater Authority and the City of San Diego. Element 10: Construction Support Services Task 10.1 Attend pre-construction meeting and answer questions. Task 10.2 Review and approve shop drawings. Task 10.3 Review, approve and process Construction Changes within two days period of request unless otherwise instructed by the Project Manager. Incorporate all Construction Changes in the "As Built" plans. Task 10.4 Periodically attend construction meetings as requested by the Project Manager. Task 10.5 Prepare "As Built" plans with all Construction Changes. 9. Insurance Requirements: (X) Statutory Worker's Compensation Insurance (X) Employer's General Liability Insurance: $1,000,000. (X) Commercial General Liability Insurance: $1,000,000. ( ) Errors and Omissions Insurance: $250,000 (not included in Commercial General Liability coverage). 10. Materials Required to be Supplied by City to Consultant: · Digital data on CD-Rom disk in AutoCAD/DWG Version 14 file format showing existing aerial photographic and Topographic maps. These data shall be used for mapping environmental features, locating existing structures and facilities, and developing base maps for the alternative alignment analyses. -26- · At the request of the Consultant the City of Chula Vista will provide any available "As Built" plans and records for all existing facilities that will be affected by this project. 11. Compensation: A. (X) Hourly Rate Arrangement. For performance of all of the Defined Services by Consultant as herein required, City shall pay Consultant for the productive hours of time spent by Consultant in the performance of said Services, at the rates or mounts set forth in the Rate Schedule herein below according to the following terms and conditions: 1.(X) Not-to-Exceed Limitation on Time and Materials Arrangements Notwithstanding the expenditure by Consultant of tin~ and materials in excess of said Maximum Compensation amount, Consultant agrees that Consultant will perform all of the Def'med Services herein required of Consultant for a lump sum of ~_0 including all Materials, and other "reimburseables' ("Maximum Compensation"). 2.() Limitation without Further Authorization on Time and Materials Arrangement At such; time as the Consultant shall have incurred time and materials equal to$ Rate Schedule Categories of Employee Hourly of Consultant Name Rate Principal Engineer Mike Metts $125 Project Manaaer Mike Metts $115 Project Engineer Cecil Rehr $ 95 Principal Environmentalist June Collins $130 Environmentalist Harold Weir $130 Archaeologist Brian Smith $ 90 CAD Drafter Pat Peterson $ 70 -27- Clerical/Word Processor Carla Walker $ 45 ( ) Hourly rates may increase by 6 % for services rendered after ,2000 if delay in providing services is caused by City. 12. Materials Re'tmbursement Arrangement: Expenses reimbursable by the City will include messenger service and overnight delivery (actual cost), facsimile (transmission only $0.25 per page), copying ($0.05 per page). However, such cost shall not exceed the aggregate of $250 without further authorization issued in writing by the City Engineer. 13. Contract Administrators: City: Anthony Chukv~dolue, Civil Engineer, Public Services Building, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91910 and Susan Bigelow, City Clerk. Consultant: Dudek and Associates, Incorporated. 605 Third Street, Encinitas, CA 92024 (760) 942-5147 (Phone), (760) 632-0164 (Fax) 14. Liquidated Damages Rate: None 15. Statement of Economic Interests, Consultant Reporting Categories, per Conflict of Interest Code: (X) Not Applicable. Not an FPPC Filer. ( ) FPPC Filer 16. Real Estate Broker: Not Applicable 17. Pemnitted SubConsultants: 18. Bill Processing: A. Consultant's Billing to be submitted for the following period of time. (X) Monthly. B. Day of the Period for submission of Consultant's Billing: (X) First of the Month C. City's Account Number: -28- 19. Security for Performance: ( ) Performance Bond: ( ) Letter of Credit: ( ) Other Security: Type: : Amoum: $ (X) 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 Amoum: $ Retention Release Event: (X) Completion of all Consultant Services ( ) Other: 20. Deliverables and Due Date of Submittals The Consultant shall submit all the listed deliverable documents on the following due dates: ITEMS DOCUMENTS NO. OF DUE DATE COPIES First submittal Report updating the EDU counts within 10 May 26,2000 the tributary gravity sewer basins, hydraulic analysis of the final alignment. Copies of the environmental permit applications. Second First draft of plans for the final alignment, 10 June 19,2000 Submittal geotechnical and soil report, pot holing report, update on the environmental permits processing, right-of-way documents and easement plats. Third Submittal Second Draft Plans and Specifications I0 August 31, 2000 for the final alignment. Fourth Third draft plans and specifications for 10 September 25, 2000 Submittal the final alignment. Fifth submittal A complete bid package that include 30 October 31, 2000 Plans and specifications, environmental clearance and permits, and total cost estimate. Final Submittal As Built Plans and Specifications 3 Three months after the (Reproduce-able), and Operation and construction is completed Maintenance Manuals for any equipment installed along the proposed interceptor CD-Rom disks containing the As-Built 2 Three months after the Plans in AutoCAD/DWG Version 14 file construction is completed format. CD-Rom disks containing the As Built 2 Three months after the Specifications In Microsoft Word file construction is completed format. File No. 0735-10-SW219 H:\HOME\ENGINEER\SEWER\SEWER 00\Salt Creek\Dudek-Final -Design-Agreementl.ac.doc -30- Agreement Between City of Chula Vista and Remy, Thomas and Moose, LLP For Legal Consulting Services Re: Salt Creek Sewer Interceptor Project ~a~:~i~. ~; for the purposes of reference only, and This Agreement ("Agreement"), dated 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 ("Ci~.'"), 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, Para~aph 6 ("Consultant"), and is made with reference to the following facts: Recitals WHEREAS, the City of Chula Vista has determined that it is in need of specialized legal services for review of the legal adequacy of certain environmental documentation required for the Salt Creek Sewer Interceptor; advise the City during the processing of various federal and state environmental permitting clearances and WHEREAS, the project site consists of the construction of the Salt Creek Gravity Sewer Interceptor extending from the Olympic Parkway Pump Station to the City of San Diego's Metro collection system located at the Frontage Road (i.e. reaches 3,4,5,6,7,8 and 9) generally paralleling Salt Creek, Otay Valley Road, Main Street and Faivre Street. The overall Work Program requested by the City includes final design plans specifications and cost estimates required for the construction of the sewer interceptor, as well as the preparation of related enviromnen~al documents and permits pertaining to the construction of the sewer interceptor. WHEREAS. the Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that the legal services of a law firm that specializes in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) are necessary to ensure that the environmental documents are fully prepared in accordance with CEQA, and WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that the legal services of a law firm that specializes in the processing of various federal and state environmental clearances (i.e., Initial Studies/Negative Declarations, Environmental Impact Reports, Section 404 permit, Section 401 Water Quality Certification/Waiver Application, 1601 streambed alteration agreement, etc), are necessary to ensure the timely issuance of said clearances by the wildlife agencies. H:~Home\Planning\Marisa\Sal~CreekSewer\remyihomaspermit.agr Page 1 04/26/00 WHEREAS, the law firm of Remy, Thomas and Moose is 'known throughout the State of California for their expertise and experience regarding the California Environmental Quality Act. and WHEREAS, the law firm of Remy, Thomas and Moose is known throughout the State of California for their expertise and experience the processing of the necessary federal and state environmental clearances, and WHEREAS, pursuant to Chula Vista Municipal Code Section 2.56.070 that competitive bidding is impractical, and waive the normal consultant selection process because of Remy. Thomas and Moose's historic significant time and effort advising on the preparation of the Environmental Impact Report of the General Plan, retention as counsel on related litigation, and historic significant time and effort processing of the necessary environmental clearances, and reasonable fees, 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 o this Agreement. 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. H:\Home\Planning2vlarisa\S altCreekSewerXremylhomaspermit, agr Page 2 04/26/00 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 t 1 (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 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 o~med or rented by Consultant, which names City and Applicant 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 and Applicant in the same manner as members of the general public ("Cross-liability Coverage"). H:kHomekPlanningkMa~isa\SaltCreekSewer\remylhomaspermit, agr Page 3 04/26/00 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. (I) 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 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, H:\Home~Planning~Vlarisa\SaltCreekSewerXremythom~spermit. a~ Page 4 04/26/00 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 mount 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 mount satisfactory to the Risk Manager or City Attorney. 1. 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 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 goveming compensation relationship indicated by a "checkmark" next to the appropriate arrangement, subject to the requirements for H:\HomekPlanningW!arisa\SaltCreekSewer\remythomaspermit.agr Page 5 04/26/00 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, 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. H :\Home\Plannin g\Marisa\SaltCreekSewer~-emythomaspennit, agr Page 6 04/26/00 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 FPL 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. 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. H:\Home\Planning\Marisa\SaltCreekSewer~remythomaspermit. agr Page 7 04/26/00 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 Sen,ices, ("Prohibited Interest"), other than as listed in Exhibit A, Paragraph 15. Consultant further warrants and represents that no promise of future employment, remuneration, consideration, gratuiB, 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 ali 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 wTitten 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 H:\Home\Planning~vlarisa~SaltCreekSewer\remythom~spennit. agr Page 8 04/26/00 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 .iust 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 mounts 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 fights 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 .iust 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 H:\Home~PlanningWlarisa\S~ltCreekSewer~remythomaspermit.agr Page 9 04/26/00 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 countw 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, aa 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 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. H:\Home\PlanningLMarisa\SaltCreekSewer\remythom~permit. agr Page 10 04/26/00 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. Ail 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. H:~Home\Planning\Marisa\SaltCreekSewer\remythora~permit. agr Page 1 1 04/26/00 Each signato~ 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.] H:\Home~PlanningUVlafisa\SaltCreekSewerkremythoraaspermit.agr Page 12 04/26/00 Signature Page Agreement Between City of Chula Vista and Remy, Thomas and Moose, LLP For Consultant Work Re: Salt Creek Sewer Interceptor 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: City of Chula Vista By: Shirley Horton Attest: Mayor Susan Bigelow, City Clerk Approved as to form: John M. Kaheny, City Attorney Dated: Remy, Thomas and Moose, LLP By: TinaA. Thomas, Partner Exhibit List to Agreement (X) Exhibit A H:\Home\Planning\Marisa\SaltCreekSewer~-emythomaspermJt. agr Page 13 04/26/00 Exhibit A to Agreement between City of Chula Vista and Remy, Thomas, and Moose, LLP For Legal Consulting Services Re: Salt Creek Sewer Interceptor 1. Effective Date of Agreement: ~2000 2. City-Related Entity: (X) City of Chula Vista, a municipal chartered corporation of the State of California ( ) Redevelopment Agency of the City o£ 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] 3. Place of Business for City: City of Chula Vista, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91910 4. Consultant: Remy, Thomas, and Moose, LLP 5. Business Form of Consultant: ( Sole Proprietorship (X) Limited Liability Partnership ( ) Corporation H :\Home\Planning\Marisa\SaltCreekSewerXremythom~spermit. agr Page 14 04/26/00 6. Place of Business, and Telephone Number of Consultant: 455 Capitol Mall, Suite 210 Sacramento, CA 95814 Voice Phone (916) 443-2745 Fax: (916) 443-9017 7. Scope of Work and Schedule: A. General Duties: To the satisfaction of the City's Envirormaental Review Coordinator, review, for legal adequacy, the Salt Creek Sewer Interceptor Environmental documents (Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, Environmental Impact Report, etc.); revise and edit Draft Findings of Fact in acc. ordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), on behalf of the City of Chula Vista; and Consult on issues and provide legal advise related to obtaining environmental clearances for the project, including, but not limited to, Section 404 Permit from the Army Corps of Engineers, Section 401 Water Quality Certification/Waiver, 1601 Streambed Alteration Agreement from the California Department of Fish and Game, Section 7 consultation, Section 10(a) take permit or 4(d) permit. 8. Schedule, Milestone, Time-Limitations within which to Perform Services. Date for Commencement of Legal Consultant Services: ( X ) Same as Effective Date of Agreement Dates or Time Limits for Delivery of Deliverables: Deliverable No. 1: Comments in the form of margin notes on environmental documents, Draft Findings of Fact, Overriding Considerations and Draft Responses to Comments. Deliverable No. 2: Permit Clearances: Issuance of Environmental Clearances by the agencies. Dates for completion of all Legal Consultant services: ~20~. H:\Home\Planning\Marisa\SaltCreekSewer\remythomaspermit.agr Page ] 5 04/26/0o 9. Contract Administrators. City: Marilyn Ponseggi, Environmental Review Coordinator 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91910 (619) 691-5707 Legal Consultant: Tina A. Thomas Remy, Thomas, and Moose, LLP, Attorneys at Law 455 Capitol Mall, Suite 210 Sacramento, CA 95814 (916) 443-2745 10. Insurance Requirements: (X) Statutory Worker's Compensation Insurance (X) 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: $1,000,000 (not included in Commercial General Liability coverage). 11. Compensation: A. (X) Time and Materials For performance of the General and Detailed Services of Legal Consultant as herein required, Applicant shall pay Legal Consultant for the productive hours of time and material spent by Legal Consultant in the performance of said Services, at the rates or amounts set forth heroin below according to the following terms and conditions: (X) Not-to-Exceed Limitation on Time and Materials Arrangement Notwithstanding the expenditure by Legal Consultant of time and materials in excess of said Maximum Compensation amount, Legal Consultant agrees that Legal Consultant will perform all of the General and Detailed Services herein required of Legal Consultant for no more than $80,000 including all Materials, and other "reimbursables: ("Maximum Compensation"). H:\Home~Planning\Marisa\SaltCreekSewer\remythornaspermit.agr Page 16 04/26/00 Rate Schedule Category of Employee Hourly of Legal Consultant Name Rate Panner Michael H. Remy $210,00 Partner Tina A. Thomas $210.00 Partner James G. Moose $210.00 Partner Whitman F. Manley $210.00 Associate Andrea A Matarazzo $165.00 Associate Renee F. Hawkins $165.00 Associate Erik K. Spiess $165.00 Associate Jennifer S. Holman $165.00 Associate Osha R. Meserve $165.00 Land Use Analyst Georganna E. Foondos $80.00 ( ) Hourly rates may increase by 6% for services rendered after December, 2000, if delay in providing services is in the opinion of the City's Director of Planning and Building, caused by the City. 12. ( ) FPPC Filer ) Category No. I. 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 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. H:\llome\Planning~Marlsa\SaltCreekSewer~remythomaspermit. agr Page 17 04/26/00 Category' No. 7. Business positions. ( List "Consultant Associates" interests in real property within 2 radial miles of Project Property, if any: 13. ( ) Consultant is Real Estate Broker and/or Salesman 14. Permitted Subconsultants: None. 15. Bill Processing: A. Consultant's billing to be submitted for the following period of time: (X) Monthly ( Quarterly ( Other: B. Day of the Period for submission of Consultant's Billing: (X) First of the Month ( 15th Day of each Month ( End of the Month ( Other: C. City's Account Number: 16. Security for Performance ( ) Performance Bond, $ ( ) Letter of Credit, $ ( ) Other Security: H:\Home\PlanningWiarisa\SaltCreekSewer\remythomaspermit.agr Page 18 04/26/00 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: ( ) Retention Percentage: 10% ( ) Retention Amount: $ Retention Release Event: ( ) Completion of All Consultant Services H:\Home\Planning\Marisa\SaltCreekSewer\remythomaspermit.agr Page 19 04/26/00 R ESO NO. / RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING AWARD OF CONSULTANT SERVICES CONTRACT TO DUDEK A/~ ASSOCIATES, INC. TO PROVIDE ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES AND A PRELIMINARY DESIGN FOR THE SALT CREEK GRAVITY SEWER TRUNK WHEREAS, the proposed Salt Creek Trunk will transport wastewater from new developments within the Salt Creek Basin in eastern Chula Vista and provide additional capacity to the existing wasuewater collection systems in southern Chula Vista; and WHEREAS, the City needs the assistance of a consultant to provide engineering and environmental services and to prepare a preliminary design for the Salt Creek Gravit~'Trunk Sewer; and WHEREAS, Section 2.56.110 of the Municipal Code was followed in the consultant selection process and a Request for Proposals was prepared and sent to over forty firms with expertise in these areas; and k~EREAS, the three member selection committee appointed by the City Manager selected Dudek and Associates, Inc. based on the lowest proposal, relevant experience, strong project team and excellent references; and WHEREAS, approval of this resolution will allow for the preparation of the preliminary design and determine the environmental constraints and alignment for subsequent final design of the interceptor; and ~EREAS, unon comD!etinc this ~=~ 'n~ _ _ _ ~ .... mi .... y design, the ---~' will ~' - .... - F~-~ ..... final design. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED nhe City Council of the Cily of Chu!a Vista does hereby approve the award of a consultant services contract to Dudek and Associates, Inc. in the amount of $54,950 to provide environmental services and preliminary design for the Salt Creek Gravity Trunk Sewer, a copy of which shall be kept on file in the office of the City Clerk. BE IT FIIRTEER RESOLVED that the Mayor of the City of Chuia Vista is hereby authorized and directed to execute said Agreement for and on behalf of the City of Chula Vista. Presented by Approved as to form by John P. Lippitt, Director of Jo~2~. Kaheny, City Attorney Public Works // [_--'-- . RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA WAIVING THE CONSULTANT SELECTION PROCESS AND APPROVING AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND DUDEK & ASSOCIATES, INC., FOR THE PROVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND ENGINEERING SERVICES REQUIRED FOR THE FINAL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE SALT CREEK GRAVITY SEWER INTERCEPTOR AND THE WOLF CANYON TRUNK SEWER WHEREAS, on June 8, 1999, the City Council approved Resolution No. 19484 selecting Dudek & Associates as the project consultant to prepare the preliminary design of the Salt Creek Gravity Sewer Interceptor and also provide environmental services needed for the project; and WHEREAS, Dudek & Associates is in the process of finalizing the preliminary design report for the Salt Creek Gravity Sewer Interceptor which report identified an alignment for the trunk sewer that will ultimately form the basis of the final design; and WHEREAS, due to the current pace of development in the eastern territories of the City and the need to expedite the completion of the final design plans, it has become critical to hire a consultant at this time to finalize the design of the project in order to meet the project objectives and deadlines; and WHEREAS, since Dudek & Associates is intimately familiar with the various aspects of the project, has a vast knowledge of the environmental issues within that region, has the necessary resources to provides the services necessary to meet the project deadlines and information necessary for obtaining the environmental permits within a short time frame, staff recommends that the consultant selection process be waived and that a contract be approved for the provision of environmental and engineering services required for the final design and construction of the Salt Creek Gravity Sewer Interceptor and the Wolf Canyon Trunk Sewer; and WHEREAS, the consultant proposes to do all the work required (preparation of final design plans, processing of environmental documents and permits and construction support services) for the Salt Creek Gravity Sewer Interceptor on a time and material basis, for the total amount not to exceed $882,00 and the work required for the Wolf Canyon Trunk Sewer would also be completed on a time and material basis, and would be done for the total amount not to exceed $280,000. 1 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby waive the consultant selection process and approve an Agreement with Dudek & Associates, Inc. for the provision of environmental and engineering services required for the final design and construction of the Salt Creek Gravity Sewer Interceptor and the Wolf Canyon Trunk Sewer, 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 and directed to execute said Agreement for and on behalf of the City of Chula Vista. Presented by Approved as to form by John P. Lippitt, Director of Joh~'~. Kaheny, C~torney Public Works H:~home~att©rney~reso~dudek AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND DUDEK & ASSOCIATES, INC FOR THE PROVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND ENGINEERING SERVICES REQUIRED FOR THE FINAL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE SALT CREEK GRAVITY SEWER INTERCEPTOR AND THE WOLF CANYON GRAVITY SEWER INTERCEPTOR This agreement ("Agreement "), dated 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 of Chula Vista, hereinafter called "City", whose business form is set forth on Exhibit A, paragraph 3, and Dudek & Associates, Inc. hereinafter called "Consultant," 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: WHEREAS, the City Chula Vista, by Resolution 19484 on June 8, 1999, approved an agreement with Dudek & Associates to provide environmental services and a preliminary design for the Salt Creek Gravity Sewer Interceptor; and WHEREAS, there is a need for additional consultant services in order to prepare the final design plans necessary for the construction of the Salt Creek Gravity Interceptor, and; WHEREAS, the City requires further consultant services in order to prepare the necessary environmental documents and obtain the required environmental permits, and; WHEREAS, Wolf Canyon Trunk Sewer is tributary to the Salt Creek Gravity Sewer and the City desires to expedite the design and environmental processing of the Wolf Canyon Trunk Sewer, at the request of the developers within that basin who have a vested interest in the project and who will be funding a portion of the project costs, and; WllEREAS, there is a need for consultant services in order to prepare the design plans, prepare the necessary environmental documents and obtain the required environmental permits necessary for the construction of the Wolf Canyon Trunk Sewer, and; WHEREAS, pursuant to Chula Vista Municipal Code Section 2.56.070 Council determined that competitive bidding is impractical, and waived the normal consultant selection process, because Dudek & Associates have extensive experience and familiarity with the Salt Creek Gravity Sewer Interceptor project, having completed the preliminary design for the project -1- and this agreement will result in enhanced continuity of the project and expedite the timely completion of design of the project and processing of the necessary environmental permits, 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 o this Agreement. NOW, THERFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the parties do hereby mutually agree as follows: 1. Consultant's Duties: A. General Duties: The Consultant shall perform all of the services described in 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 the 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 shall not terminate this agreement, except at the option of the City. 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, 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. -2- 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 limits applied separately to each project away from premises owned or rented by Consultant, which names City and Applicant 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 and Applicant in the same manner as members of the general public CCross-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: 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. Said Performance Bond to be furnished and delivered to the City of Chula Vista immediately -3- following signing of contract by both parties and before any work is started. Work timetable begins upon delivery of said Performance Bonds. (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 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, the 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. -4- 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 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 per- formance. 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 Filler: 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 -5- 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. 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. -6- 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 conduct 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 -7- 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 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 (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 Consultant: City is interested only in the results obtained and Consultant shall perform as an independent Consultant 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 Consultant and shall not be deemed to be an employee of City, and none of them shall be entitled to any -8- 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. 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. -9- 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 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 Signature Page to Agreemem Between The City of Chula Vista and Dudek & Associates, Inc For the provision of Environmemal and Engineering Services required for the Final Design and Construction of the Salt Creek Gravity Sewer Interceptor and Wolf Canyon Trunk Sewer IT WITNESS WHEREOF, City and Consultam have executed this Agreement thereby indicating that they have read and understood same, and indicate their full and complete consent to its terms: DATED: CITY OF CHULA VISTA By. Shirley Horton, Mayor Attest: Susan Bigelow City Clerk Approved as to form: John M. Kaheny City Attorney DATED: Dudek and Associates, Inc. By Frank Dudek, P.E. Presidem Exhibit List to Agreement (X) Exhibit A -11- Exhibit A to Agreement between City of Chula Vista and Dudek and Associates, Inc. 1. Effective Date of Agreement: 2. City-Related Entity: (X) City of Chula Vista, a municipal chartered corporation of the State of California ( ) Redevelopmem Agency of the City of Chula Vista 3. Place of Business for City: City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 4. Name of Consultant: Dudek and Associates, Inc. 5. Business Form of Consultant: ( ) Sole Proprietorship ( ) Partnership (X) Corporation 6. Place of Business, Telephone and Fax Number of Consultant: 605 Third Street Encinitas, CA 92024 Voice Phone (760) 942-5147 Facsimile (760) 632-0164 -12- 7. General Duties: A. Salt Creek Gravity Sewer Interceptor Thc scope of work for this project consists of evaluating the alignment that was proposed in the Preliminary Design Report based on engineering and environmental constraints, identifying the environmental constraints and obtaining the required environmental permits to satisfy CEQA and NEPA regulations, and preparing plans and specifications for the construction of the sewer interceptor. Thc final product of this project shall consist of hydraulic calculations supporting the final design, environmental and encroachment permits from all the regulatory agencies that have jurisdiction over this project, a detailed cost estimate, soil repons, a phasing schedule, and a complete biddable construction package that include plans with photo strips and profiles, and technical specifications for constructing the sewer interceptor. B. Wolf Canyon Trunk Sewer The scope of work for this project consists of determining an alignment based on engineering and environmental constraints, identifying the environmental constraints and obtaining the required environmental permits to satisfy CEQA and NEPA regulations, and preparing plans and specifications for the construction of the sewer interceptor. Thc final product of this project shall consist of hydraulic calculations supporting the final design, environmental and encroachment permits from all thc regulatory agencies that have jurisdiction over this project, a detailed cost estimate, soil reports, a phasing schedule, and a complete biddable construction package that include plans with photo strips and profiles, and tcchmcal specifications for constructing thc sewer interceptor. Thc following sections present a detailed discussion of the Final Design of Salt Creek Gravity Sewer Interceptor and the Wolf Canyon Trunk Sewer scope of work. 8. Defined Services A. Detailed Scope of Work For the Salt Creek Gravity Sewer Interceptor: Element 1: Data Collection and Review For Final Design Task 1.1 Project Kickoff Meeting Conduct a project kickoff meeting with the City of Chula Vista and other appropriate parties to discuss thc overall project structure and goals. Task 1.2 Collect Exiting Data Collect previous studies, reports, aerial photos, hard and electronic, copy of the Preliminary Design Report, environmental and planning documents, and I13- other available background information necessary for the project. Task 1.3 Present Existing Utility Data Contact local utility companies to locate existing utilities, existing sewer lines, and other pertinent information within the pipeline corridor and present the utility data on the base maps. Element 2: Project Design For Final Design Task 2.1 Evaluate the Proposed Alignment in the Preliminary Design Report Evaluate the feasibility of the proposed alignment that was recommended in the Preliminary Design Report by Dudek and Associates, Inc. on the basis of environmental and economical constraints. Task 2.2 Update of the Gravity Basin (EDU) Review, verify and update the land uses within the sewer gravity basins that will be discharging into Salt Creek Sewer Basin based on current projections and determine the wastewater flows that will be discharged into Salt Creek Sewer Basin at buildout. The update shall include but is not limited to Salt Creek Sewer Basin, Poggi Canyon Sewer Basin, Wolf Canyon Sewer Basin, and Main Street Sewer Basin. Task 2.3 Hydraulic Analysis and design Perform hydraulic analysis and design the sewer interceptor using gravity collection system to convey the flows generated from all existing and future facilities and developments within the Salt Creek Sewer Basin and the surrounding tributary basins. The submittal shall include a complete and detailed hydraulic report outlining the calculations, basis of assumptions, and criteria utilized in the design. Task 2.4 Pump Stations Decommissioning plans Prepare detailed plans for decommissioning the following four pump stations along the sewer interceptor alignment: a. Otay Lakes Road Pump Station b. Olympic Parkway Pump Station c. Olympic Training center (OTC) pump station d. Auto Park Pump Station Element 3: Surveying and Aerial Photography For Final Design Task 3.1 Set aerial control points along the alignment. -14- Task 3.2 Establish horizontal and vertical control points, based on City of Chula Vista benchmarks. Task 3.3 Paint existing manholes, valves and related utilities prior to staxt of aerial photography Task 3.4 Prepare topographical maps at scale of 1" =20' and 1 foot contour line intervals. Note: All surveying shall be done per the City of Chula Vista Surveying Standards. Any exceptions shall be defined by the City engineer. Element 4: Geotechnical investigation and Soil Reports For Final Design Task 4.1 Perform series of borings along the proposed sewer line alignment. Task4.2 Obtain soil classification, density, and locate water table elevations, moisture contents and seismic conditions. Task 4.3 Recommend trench preparation. Task 4.4 Identify locations where micro-tunneling or pipe bursting methods will be feasible. Task 4.5 Evaluate soil reports and recommend structural sections for pavement reconstruction and resurfacing along the path of the alignment. Task 4.6 Pot hole, verify, and mark the locations of all existing utilities along the proposed alignment. Element 5: Preparation of Final Design Drawings Task 5.1 The Design drawings shall be prepared using Computer Aided Design (CAD) and all graphics shall be presented in AutoCAD/DWG file format. Task 5.2 Prepare Title Sheet (minimuml sheet) and General Index Sheets (minimum 3 sheets). Task 5.3 Place boring logs on D-size sheets (minimum 4 sheets). Task 5.4 Prepare plans with photo strips and profiles sheets at a minimum scale of I" =20' scale and minimum 1 foot interval topographic lines of the alignment (minimum 130 sheets). -15- Task 5.5 Plot existing utilities and prepare plans and specifications for relocating any utilities or structures that will interfere with the proposed alignment. Provide road access with turnaround to each manhole along the proposed alignment to provide access for future maintenance of the interceptor. Task 5.6 Details connections, metering station, pump station decommissioning, details of connecting existing facilities and miscellaneous piping requirements (minimum 14 sheets) Task 5.7 Analyze the construction zone and mark areas that shall be used to stage construction operations Task 5.8 Prepare traffic control plans required to facilitate the construction of the project and to minimize the traffic interruptions in the surrounding areas (minimum 24 sheets). Element 6: Identifying Environmental Constraints, Preparing Requisite Environmental Documents and Obtaining all Related Permits Related to Final Design Task 6.1 Environmental Document Preparation (Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration or Environmental Impact Report) The consultant shall prepare an Environmental Initial Study, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15063 (Public Resources Code 21080), in order to determine if there are significant environmental impacts, the level of potential impacts and the appropriate CEQA document (i.e. Environmental Impact Report, Mitigated Negative Declaration, etc) for the project. Consultant shall prepare the appropriate CEQA document (i.e. Environmental Impact Report, Mitigated Negative Declaration, etc.), including draft findings and a Mitigation Monitoring and Report Program. Task 6.2 General Biological Reconnaissance and Biological Resources Technical Report As part of the preparation of the environmental document, consultant (or a qualified sub-consultant) shall prepare a biological technical report in accordance with CEQA. Said technical report shall include any required biological surveys for sensitive resources including but not limited to the Quino Checkerspot Butterfly, California Gnatcatcher and Otay Tarplant. Task 6.3 Coordination and Meetings with Resource Agencies regarding Wetlands Permitting Consultant shall meet with the Army Corps o£Enginecrs (ACOE), California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service -16- (FWS) and City staff to discuss permitting requirements and potential impacts to state- and federally-listed threatened and endangered species. Task 6.4 Section 404 Permit Application Consultant shall identify and prepare required state and federal environmental permits (Section 404 Nationwide Permit or Section 404 Individual Permit). Task 6.5 Section 401 Water Quality Certification/Waiver Application Consultant shall complete and submit an application for a Section 401 Water Quality Certification/Waiver to the RWQCB. Task 6.6 Section 1601 Streambed Alteration Agreement Consultant shall submit to the CDFG an application for a Section 1601 Streambed Alteration Agreement. The application shall include a project description, a statement of purpose and need, an alternatives analysis, a discussion of avoidance and minimization of impacts, a wetland delineation, a draft mitigation plan, all associated figures and copies of the wetland permit applications submitted to the RWQCB and ACOE. Task 6~7 Habitat Enhancement Plan (Conceptual Mitigation and Monitoring Plan), Plans and Specifications for the Revegetation/Mitigation Areas Consultant shall prepare a written habitat enhancement plan, which will serve the purpose as a conceptual wetland mitigation and monitoring plan. The plan will be prepared as a written report in the format acceptable to the City of Chula Vista and compatible with resource agency permit requirements. The plan will summarize existing site conditions, discuss project description and impact, outline the goals of the revegetation program, detail the planting design, address plant materials sources and lead time, describe installation requirements, irrigation sources, erosion control, maintenance and monitoring requirements, and outline reporting/documentation requirements. The report will be submitted for review by the City of Chula Vista, as well as submitted as to the resource agencies as a follow-up to the permit applications. Consultant shall prepare a biddable set of landscape construction documents for the revegetation areas. These plans shall be detailed plans sufficient for bidding and ultimate construction. The plans shall implement the design intent of the habitat enhancement plan (conceptual mitigation plan) report, and shall incorporate client requested changes, and modifications due to actual field conditions as necessary. These plans shall include site preparation plans, planting plans, irrigation plans, legends, installation specifications, and required installation details. Consultant shall also include a cost estimate based upon the final revegetation plans, for budgeting, bonding and bidding purposes. -17- Task 6.8 Focused Quino Checkerspot Butterfly Survey Consultant shall conduct a habitat assessment and an adult flight survey for the quino checkerspot butterfly in accordance with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) 2001 Survey Protocol. A report will be prepared and submitted to the USFWS, Carlsbad Field Office, detailing the results of the adult survey and habitat assessment. All mapping will be placed in an ArcCAD file for use with other biological resources in the Geographical Information System (GIS) database. Task 6.9 Focused California Gnatcatcher Survey If the Subarea Plan is not in place prior to permitting, Consultant shall conduct a focused survey for the California gnatcatcher in accordance with the USFWS protocol. Data collected during the survey will be used to estimate the number of California gnatcatchers on the project site and to identify those areas, if any, supporting high California gnatcatcher population densities. Task 6.10 Assessment of Impacts and Development of Conceptual Mitigation Scenarios for State and Federally-listed Plant and Animal Species Consultant shall review the proposed project alternatives with regards to impacts to state- and federally-listed plant and animal species. Consultant shall coordinate with the City regarding efforts to avoid and minimize impacts to protected species. Consultant shall quantify impacts associated with the previously identified project alternatives, and confirm that the preferred project alternative is the Least Environmentally Damaging Project Alternative (LEDPA) Task 6.11 Section 7 Consultation, Section 10(a) Take Permit, and 4(d) Permit In the event that take authorization for any listed species that are impacted by the proposed activities is not available through the Subarea Plan, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and thc California Department ofFish and Game will determine the appropriate mechanism for take authorization at the time of permit application (e.g. 4(d) permitting for gnatcatchers only) or (e.g. individual Section 7 consultations or 10 (a) permits for gnatcatcher and qulno checkerspot). Consultant shall be responsible for identifying and preparing all state and federal environmental clearances (Section 7 Consultation, Section 10(a) Take Permit, 4(d) Permit etc. identified by the resource agencies) including preparation of all documents, permits and applications and in cooperation with the City of Chula Vista's Environmental Review Coordinator. Task 6.12 Archeological Significance Testing -18- Consultant shall conduct archeological significance testing on identified sites within the project disturbance area to evaluate potentially significant impacts to cultural resources. Element 7: Preparation of Detailed Cost Estimate Based on Final Design Task 7.1 Prepare a detailed total cost estimate for constructing the sewer interceptor. This estimate shall include but is not limited to mobilization, clearing and grubbing, acquisition of right of way, excavation, dewatering, shoring, bedding, backfilling and compaction, hauling, manholes, piping materials, metering station, micro-tunneling, pipe bursting, connecting existing facilities, pavement resurfacing or reconstruction, clean up, testing, environmental permits, encroachment permits, acquisition of mitigation land and sewer easements, utilities relocation, traffic control, environmental mitigation, overhead and profit, contingency and any other costs that may be required to construct the sewer interceptor. Element 8: Preparation of Specifications For Required Construction Task 8.1 Prepare technical specifications in CSI (divisions format) in accordance with the City of Chula Vista "Boilerplate". The specifications shall include construction, traffic control, installation of various pipes, shoring, pavement reconstruction and resurfacing, materials, micro-tunneling, utilities relocation, testing, rehabilitating sections of the existing sewer interceptor, decommissioning of the pump stations, and protection and restoration of existing improvements. Element 9: Preparation of Required Right-of-Way Documents and Obtaining ail Encroachment Permits Task 9.1 Preparation of Required Right-of-Way Documents. Task 9.1.1 Determine all the required right-of-way and easements necessary to construct the project. Task 9. ! .2 Prepare all necessary right-of-way documents (including but not limited to legal description, easement plats, permits to enter and construct, etc.) necessary to construct the project. Task 9.1.3 Assist the City's appraisal consultant, and Right-of-Way agent as needed to obtain all the necessary right-of-way and easements necessary to construct the project. -19- Task 9.1.4 Identify and obtain encroachment permits as deemed necessary by other agencies such as but is not limited to Caltrans, Unified Port District, Metropolitan Transit Development Board, San Diego Gas And Electric, Otay Water District, Sweetwater Authority and the City of San Diego. Element 10: Construction Support Services Task 10.1 Attend pre-construction meeting and answer questions. Task 10.2 Review and approve shop drawings. Task 10.3 Review, approve and process Construction Changes within two days period of request unless otherwise instructed by the Project Manager. Incorporate all Construction Changes in the "As Built" plans. Task 10.4 Periodically attend construction meetings as requested by the Project Manager. Task 10.5 Prepare "As Built" plans with all Construction Changes. B. Detailed Scope of Work For the Wolf Canyon Trunk Sewer: Element 1: Data Collection and Review Task 1.1 Project Kickoff Meeting Conduct a project kickoff meeting with the City of Chula Vista and other appropriate parties to discuss the overall project structure and goals. Task 1.2 Collect Exiting Data Collect previous studies, reports, aerial photos, hard and electronic, copy of the Preliminary Design Report, environmental and planning documents, and other available background information necessary for the project. Task 1.3 Present Existing Utility Data Contact local utility companies to locate existing utilities, existing sewer lines, and other pertinent information within the pipeline corridor and present the utility data on the base maps. Element 2: Project Design Task 2.1 Determine an Alignment for the Trunk Sewer Develop pipeline alignment alternatives, and determine an alignment in conjunction with City staff, that takes into consideration; environmental -20- constraints, constmctability, existing features, topography and cost. Task 2.2 Hydraulic Analysis and design Perform hydraulic analysis and design the trunk sewer using gravity collection system to convey the flows generated from all existing and future facilities and developments within the Wolf Canyon Basin and the surrounding tributary basins. The submittal shall include a complete and detailed hydraulic report outlining the calculations, basis of assumptions, and criteria utilized in the design. Element 3: Surveying and Aerial Photography For Final Design Task 3.1 Set aerial control points along the alignment. Task 3.2 Establish horizontal and vertical control points, based on City of Chula Vista benchmarks. Task 3.3 Paint existing manholes, valves and related utilities prior to start of aerial photography Task 3.4 Prepare topographical maps at scale of 1" =20' and 1 foot contour line intervals. Element 4: Geotechnical investigation and Soil Reports For Final Design Task 4.1 Perform series of borings along the proposed sewer line alignment. Task 4.2 Obtain soil classification, density, and locate water table elevations, moisture contents and seismic conditions. Task 4.3 Recommend trench preparation. Task 4.4 Identify locations where micro-tunneling or pipe bursting methods will be feasible (If necessary). Task 4.5 Evaluate soil reports and recommend structural sections for pavement reconstruction and resurfacing along the path of the alignment. Task 4.6 Pot hole, verify, and mark the locations of all existing utilities along the proposed alignment. Element 5: Preparation of Final Design Drawings -21- Task 5.1 The Design drawings shall be prepared using Computer Aided Design (CAD) and all graphics shall be presented in AutoCAD/DWG file format. Task 5.2 Prepare Title Sheet (minimuml sheet) and General Index Sheets (minimum 3 sheets). Task 5.3 Place boring logs on D-size sheets (minimum 4 sheets). Task 5.4 Prepare plans with photo strips and profiles sheets at a minimum scale of 1"=20' scale and minimum 1 foot interval topographic lines of the alignment (minimum 130 sheets). Task 5.5 Plot existing utilities and prepare plans and specifications for relocating any utilities or structures that will interfere with the proposed alignment. Provide road access with turnaround to each manhole along the proposed alignment to provide access for future maintenance of the interceptor. Task5.6 Details connections, details of connecting existing facilities and miscellaneous piping requirements (minimum 14 sheets) Task 5.7 Analyze the construction zone and mark areas that shall be used to stage construction operations Task 5.8 Prepare traffic control plans required to facilitate the construction of the project and to minimize the traffic interruptions in the surrounding areas (minimum 24 sheets). Element 6: Identifying Environmental Constraints, Preparing Requisite Environmental Documents and Obtaining all Related Permits Related to Final Design Task 6.1 Environmental Document Preparation (Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration or Environmental Impact Report) The consultant shall prepare an Environmental Initial Study, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15063 (Public Resources Code 21080), in order to determine if there are significant environmental impacts, the level of potential impacts and the appropriate CEQA document (i.e. Environmental Impact Report, Mitigated Negative Declaration, etc) for the project. Consultant shall prepare the appropriate CEQA document (i.e. Environmental Impact Report, Mitigated Negative Declaration, etc.), including draft findings and a Mitigation Monitoring and Report Program. Task 6.2 General Biological Reconnaissance and Biological Resources Technical -22- Report As part of the preparation of the environmental document, consultant (or a qualified sub-consultant) shall prepare a biological technical report in accordance with CEQA. Said technical report shall include any required biological surveys for sensitive resources including but not limited to the Quino Checkerspot Butterfly, California Gnatcatcher and Otay Tarplant. Task 6.3 Coordination and Meetings with Resource Agencies regarding Wetlands Permitting Consultant shall meet with the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE), California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and City staff to discuss permitting requirements and potential impacts to state- and federally-listed threatened and endangered species. Task 6.4 Section 404 Permit Application Consultant shall identify and prepare required state and federal environmental permits (Section 404 Nationwide Permit or Section 404 Individual Permit). Task 6.5 Section 401 Water Quality Certification/Waiver Application Consultant shall complete and submit an application for a Section 401 Water Quality Certification/Waiver to the RWQCB. Task 6.6 Section 1601 Streambed Alteration Agreement Consultant shall submit to the CDFG an application for a Section 1601 Streambed Alteration Agreement. The application shall include a project description, a statement of purpose and need, an alternatives analysis, a discussion of avoidance and minimization of impacts, a wetland delineation, a draft mitigation plan, all associated figures and copies of the wetland permit applications submitted to the RWQCB and ACOE. Task 6.7 Habitat Enhancement Plan (Conceptual Mitigation and Monitoring Plan), Plans and Specifications for the Revegetation/Mitigation Areas Consultant shall prepare a written habitat enhancement plan, which will serve the purpose as a conceptual wetland mitigation and monitoring plan. The plan will be prepared as a written report in the format acceptable to the City of Chula Vista and compatible with resource agency permit requirements. The plan will summarize existing site conditions, discuss project description and impact, outline the goals of the revegetation program, detail the planting design, address plant materials sources and lead time, describe installation requirements, irrigation sources, erosion control, maintenance and monitoring requirements, and outline reporting/documentation requirements. The report will be submitted for review by the City of Chula Vista, as well as submitted as to the resource agencies as a follow-up to the permit applications. -23 - Consultant shall prepare a biddable set of landscape construction documents for the revegetation areas. These plans shall be detailed plans sufficient for bidding and ultimate construction. The plans shall implement the design intent of the habitat enhancement plan (conceptual mitigation plan) report, and shall incorporate client requested changes, and modifications due to actual field conditions as necessary. These plans shall include site preparation plans, planting plans, irrigation plans, legends, installation specifications, and required installation details. Consultant shall also include a cost estimate based upon the final revegetation plans, for budgeting, bonding and bidding purposes. Task 6.8 Focused Quino Checkerspot Butterfly Survey Consultant shall conduct a habitat assessment and an adult flight survey for the quino checkerspot butterfly in accordance with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) 2001 Survey Protocol. A report will be prepared and submitted to the USFWS, Carlsbad Field Office, detailing the results of the adult survey and habitat assessment. All mapping will be placed in an ArcCAD file for use with other biological resources in the Geographical Information System (GIS) database. Task 6.9 Focused California Gnatcatcher Survey If the Subarea Plan is not in place prior to permitting, Consultant shall conduct a focused survey for the California gnatcatcher in accordance with the USFWS protocol. Data collected during the survey will be used to estimate the number of California gnatcatchers on the project site and to identify those areas, if any, supporting high California gnatcatcher population densities. Task 6.10 Assessment of Impacts and Development of Conceptual Mitigation Scenarios for State and Federally-listed Plant and Animal Species Consultant shall review the proposed project alternatives with regards to impacts to state- and federally-listed plant and animal species. Consultant shall coordinate with the City regarding efforts to avoid and minimize impacts to protected species. Consultant shall quantify impacts associated with the previously identified project alternatives, and confirm that the preferred project alternative is the Least Environmentally Damaging Project Alternative (LEDPA) Task 6.1 ! Section 7 Consultation, Section 10(a) Take Permit, and 4(d) Permit In the event that take authorization for any listed species that are impacted by the proposed activities is not available through the Subarea Plan, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department ofFish and Game will determine the appropriate mechanism for take authorization at the time -24- of permit application (e.g. 4(d) permitting for gnatcatchers only) or (e.g. individual Section 7 consultations or 10 (a) permits for gnatcatcher and quino checkerspot). Consultant shall be responsible for identifying and preparing all state and federal environmental clearances (Section 7 Consultation, Section 10(a) Take Permit, 4(d) Permit etc. identified by the resource agencies) including preparation of all documents, permits and applications and in cooperation with the City of Chula Vista's Environmental Review Coordinator. Task 6.12 Archeological Significance Testing Consultant shall conduct archeological significance testing on identified sites within the project disturbance area to evaluate potentially significant impacts to cultural resources. Element 7: Preparation of Detailed Cost Estimate Based on Final Design Task 7.1 Prepare a detailed total cost estimate for constructing the sewer interceptor. This estimate shall include but is not limited to mobilization, clearing and grubbing, acquisition of right of way, excavation, dewatering, shoring, bedding, backfilling and compaction, hauling, manholes, piping materials, metering station, micro-tunneling, pipe bursting, connecting existing facilities, pavement resurfacing or reconstruction, clean up, testing, environmental permits, encroachment permits, acquisition of mitigation land and sewer easements, utilities relocation, traffic control, environmental mitigation, overhead and profit, contingency and any other costs that may be required to construct the sewer interceptor. Element 8: Preparation of Specifications For Required Construction Task 8.1 Prepare technical specifications in CSI (divisions format) in accordance with the City of Chula Vista "Boilerplate". The specifications shall include construction, traffic control, installation of various pipes, shoring, pavement reconstruction and resurfacing, materials, micro-tunneling, utilities relocation, testing, rehabilitating sections of the existing sewer interceptor, decommissioning of the pump stations, and protection and restoration of existing improvements. Element 9: Preparation of Required Right-of-Way Documents and Obtaining all Encroachment Permits Task 9.1 Preparation of Required Right-of-Way Documents. -25- Task 9.1.1 Determine all the required right-of-way and easements necessary to construct the project. Task 9.1.2 Prepare all necessary right-of-way documents (including but not limited to legal description, easement plats, permits to enter and construct, etc.) necessary to construct the project. Task 9.1.3 Assist the City's appraisal consultant, and Right-of-Way agent as needed to obtain all the necessary right-of-way and easements necessary to construct the project. Task 9.1.4 Identify and obtain encroachment permits as deemed necessary by other agencies such as but is not limited to Caltrans, Unified Port District, Metropolitan Transit Development Board, San Diego Gas And Electric, Otay Water District, Sweetwater Authority and the City of San Diego. Element 10: Construction Support Services Task 10.1 Attend pre-construction meeting and answer questions. Task 10.2 Review and approve shop drawings. Task 10.3 Review, approve and process Construction Changes within two days period of request unless otherwise instructed by the Project Manager. Incorporate all Construction Changes in the "As Built" plans. Task 10.4 Periodically attend construction meetings as requested by the Project Manager. Task 10.5 Prepare "As Built" plans with all Construction Changes. 9. Insurance Requirements: (X) Statutory Worker's Compensation Insurance (X) Employer's General Liability Insurance: $1,000,000. (X) Commercial General Liability Insurance: $1,000,000. ( ) Errors and Omissions Insurance: $250,000 (not included in Commercial General Liability coverage). 10. Materials Required to be Supplied by City to Consultant: · Digital data on CD-Rom disk in AutoCAD/DWG Version 14 file format showing existing aerial photographic and Topographic maps. These data shall be used for mapping environmental features, locating existing structures and facilities, and developing base maps for the alternative alignment analyses. -26- · At the request of the Consultant the City of Chula Vista will provide any available "As Built" plans and records for all existing facilities that will be affected by this project. 11. Compensation: A. (X) Hourly Rate Arrangement. For performance of all 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 herein below according to the following terms and conditions: 1.(X) Not-to-Exceed Limitation on Time and Materials Arrangements 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 a lump sum of $0 including all Materials, and other "reimburseables" ("Maximum Compensation"). 2.() Limitation without Further Authorization on Time and Materials Arrangement At such; time as the Consultant shall have incurred time and materials equal to$ Rate Schedule Categories of Employee Hourly of Consultant Name Rate Principal Engineer Mike Metts $125 Project Manager Mike Metts $115 Project Engineer Cecil Rehr $ 95 Principal Environmentalist June Collins $130 Environmentalist Harold Weir $130 Archaeologist Brian Smith $ 90 CAD Drafter Pat Peterson $ 70 -27- Clerical/Word Processor Carla Walker $ 45 ( ) Hourly rates may increase by 6% for services rendered after ,2000 if delay in providing services is caused by City. 12. Materials Reimbursement Arrangement: Expenses reimbursable by the City will include messenger service and overnight delivery (actual cost), facsimile (transmission only $0.25 per page), copying ($0.05 per page). However, such cost shall not exceed the aggregate of $250 without further authorization issued in writing by the City Engineer. 13. Contract Administrators: City: Anthony Chukwudolue, Civil Engineer, Public Services Building, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91910 and Susan Bigelow, City Clerk. Consultant: Dudek and Associates, Incorporated. 605 Third Street, Encinitas, CA 92024 (760) 942-5147 (Phone), (760) 632-0164 (Fax) 14. Liquidated Damages Rate: None 15. Statement of Economic Interests, Consultant Reporting Categories, per Conflict of Interest Code: (X) Not Applicable. Not an FPPC Filer. ( ) FPPC Filer 16. Real Estate Broker: Not Applicable 17. Permitted SubConsultants: 18. Bill Processing: A. Consultant's Billing to be submitted for the following period of time. (X) Monthly. B. Day of the Period for submission of Consultant's Billing: (X) First of the Month C. City's Account Number: -28- 19. Security for Performance: ( ) Performance Bond: ( ) Letter of Credit: ( ) Other Security: Type:. : Amount: $ (X) 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: -29- 20. Deliverables and Due Date of Submittals The Consultant shall submit all the listed deliverable documents on the following due dates: ITEMS DOCUMENTS NO. OF DUE DATE COPIES First submittal Report updating the EDU counts within 10 May 26,2000 the tributary gravity sewer basins, hydraulic analysis of the final alignment. Copies of the environmental permit applications. Second First draft of plans for the final alignment, 10 June 19,2000 Submittal geotechnical and soil report, pot holing report, update on the environmental permits processing, right-of-way documents and easement plats. Third Submittal Second Draft Plans and Specifications 10 August 31, 2000 for the final alignment. Fourth Third draft plans and specifications for I0 September 25, 2000 Submittal the final alignment. Fifth submittal A complete bid package that include 30 October 31, 2000 Plans and specifications, environmental clearance and permits, and total cost estimate. Final Submittal As Built Plans and Specifications 3 Three months after the (Reproduce-able), and Operation and construction is completed Maintenance Manuals for any equipment installed along the proposed interceptor CD-Rom disks containing the As-Built 2 Three months after the Plans in AutoCAD/DWG Version 14 file construction is completed format. CD-Rom disks containing the As Built 2 Three months after the Specifications In Microsoft Word file construction is completed format. File No. 0735-10-SW219 H:\HOME\ENGINEER\SEWER\SEWER 00\Salt Creek\Dudek-Final -Design-Agreementl.ac.doc -30- RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING AN AGREEMENT WITH REMY, THOMAS AND MOOSE, LLP FOR THE PROVISION OF LEGAL CONSULTING SERVICES REQUIRED FOR THE SALT CREEK GRAVITY SEWER INTERCEPTOR AND THE WOLF CANYON TRUNK SEWER WHEREAS, based on the evaluation of all the legal services that would be required for the review and processing of the environmental documents, the Environmental Review Coordinator determined that the legal services of a law firm that specializes in the California Environmental Quality Act are necessary to ensure that the environmental documents are fully prepared in accordance with CEQA; and WHEREAS, the City Attorney reviewed the scope of legal services required and has determined there is a need to hire specialized legal services for the review of the legal adequacy of some of these environmental documents that would be required, and the processing of the required clearances through the various state and federal agencies; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Chula Vista Municipal Code Section 2.56.070, staff determined that competitive bidding for this service is impractical at this time and recommends that Council waive the normal consultant process and approve an agreement with Remy, Thomas and Moose, LLP; and WHEREAS, the law firm of Remy, Thomas and Moose is known throughout the State of California for their expertise and experience regarding CEQA and the processing of the necessary federal and state environmental clearances; and WHEREAS, Remy, Thomas and Moose have reviewed the City's project schedule and propose to provide all the needed services on a time and material basis for a not to exceed amount of $100,000. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby waive the consultant selection process and approve an agreement with Remy, Thomas and Moose, LLP for the provision of legal consulting services required for the Salt Creek Gravity Sewer Interceptor and the Wolf Canyon Truck Sewer, 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 and directed to execute said Agreement for and on behalf of the City of Chula Vista. Presented by Approved as to form by ), <-'/ :? John P. Lippitt, Director of Joh~ M. Kaheny, City,~tor~ey Public Works H:~home~attorney~reso~remy.con Agreement Between City of Chula Vista and Remy, Thomas and Moose, LLP For Legal Consulting Services Re: Salt Creek Sewer Interceptor Project This Agreement ("Agreement"), dated 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 of Chula Vista has determined that it is in need of specialized legal services for review of the legal adequacy of certain environmental documentation required for the Salt Creek Sewer Interceptor; advise the City during the processing of various federal and state environmental permitting clearances and WHEREAS, the project site consists of the construction of the Salt Creek Gravity Sewer Interceptor extending from the Olympic Parkway Pump Station to the City of San Diego's Metro collection system located at the Frontage Road (i.e. reaches 3,4,5,6,7,8 and 9) generally paralleling Salt Creek, Otay Valley Road, Main Street and Faivre Street. The overall Work Program requested by the City includes final design plans specifications and cost estimates required for the construction of the sewer interceptor, as well as the preparation of related environmental documents and permits pertaining to the construction of the sewer interceptor. WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that the legal services of a law firm that specializes in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) are necessary to ensure that the environmental documents are fully prepared in accordance with CEQA, and WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that the legal services of a law finn that specializes in the processing of various federal and state environmental clearances (i.e., Initial Studies/Negative Declarations, Environmental Impact Reports, Section 404 permit, Section 401 Water Quality Certification/Waiver Application, 1601 streambed alteration agreement, etc), are necessary to ensure the timely issuance of said clearances by the wildlife agencies. H:\Homc\Planning\Marisa\S altCreekSewer\remythomaspermit.agr Page 1 04/26/00 WHEREAS, the law firm of Remy, Thomas and Moose is known throughout the State of California for their expertise and experience regarding the California Environmental Quality Act, and WHEREAS, the law firm of Remy, Thomas and Moose is known throughout the State of California for their expertise and experience the processing of the necessary federal and state environmental clearances, and WHEREAS, pursuant to Chula Vista Municipal Code Section 2.56.070 that competitive bidding is impractical, and waive the normal consultant selection process because of Remy, Thomas and Moose's historic significant time and effort advising on the preparation of the Environmental Impact Report of the General Plan, retention as counsel on related litigation, and historic significant time and effort processing of the necessary environmental clearances, and reasonable fees, 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 o this Agreement. 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. H:\Home\Planning\Marisa\SaltCreekSewer\remythomaspermit.agr Page 2 04/26/00 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 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 reined by Consultant, which names City and Applicant 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 and Applicant in the same manner as members of the general public ("Cross-liability Coverage"). lt:\l lome\Planning\Marisa\SaltCreekSewer\remythomaspermit,agr Page 3 04/26/00 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. 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, H :\Home\Planning\Marisa\SaltCreekSewer\rcmythomaspermit. agr Page 4 04/26/00 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. 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 H:\Home~Planning\Marisa\SaltCreekSewer\remythomaspermit.agr Page 5 04/26/00 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, the stun 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. H:\Home\Planning\Marisa\SaltCreekSewer\remythomaspermit.agr Page 6 04/26/00 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 FPL 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. 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 leams 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. H:\I Iome~Planning\Marisa\SaltCrcekSewer\remythomaspermit.agr Page 7 04/26/00 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, 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 H:\Home\Planning\Marisa\SaltCreekSewer\remythomaspermit. agr Page 8 04/26/00 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 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 (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 H :\} lome\Planning\Marisa\SaltCreekSewer\remythomaspermit, agr Page 9 04/26/00 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 perforating 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 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. H:\I Iome\Planning\Marisa\Sa[tCreekSewer\remythoraaspermit, agr Page 10 04/26/00 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. H:\Home\Planning\Marisa\SaltCreekSewer\remythomaspermit.agr Page 11 04/26/00 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.] H:\Home\Planning\Marisa\SaltCreekSewer\remythomaspermit.agr Page 12 04/26/00 Signature Page Agreement Between City of Chula Vista and Remy, Thomas and Moose, LLP For Consultant Work Re: Salt Creek Sewer Interceptor 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: City of Chula Vista By: Shirley Horton Attest: Mayor Susan Bigelow, City Clerk Approved as to form: John M. Kaheny, City Attorney Dated: Remy, Thomas and Moose, LLP By: Tina A. Thomas, Partner Exhibit List to Agreement (X) Exhibit A H:\Horne\Planning\Marisa\SaltCreekSewer\remythomaspermit,agr Page 13 04/26/00 Exhibit A to Agreement between City of Chula Vista and Remy, Thomas, and Moose, LLP For Legal Consulting Services Re: Salt Creek Sewer Interceptor 1. Effective Date of Agreement: X~ ~ 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] 3. Place of Business for City: City of Chula Vista, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91910 4. Consultant: Remy, Thomas, and Moose, LLP 5. Business Form of Consultant: ( ) Sole Proprietorship (X) Limited Liability Partnership ( ) Corporation H:\Home\Planning\Marisa\SaltCreekSewer\remythomaspermit.agr Page 14 04/26/00 6. Place of Business, and Telephone Number of Consultant: 455 Capitol Mall, Suite 210 Sacramento, CA 95814 Voice Phone (916) 443-2745 Fax: (916) 443-9017 7. Scope of Work and Schedule: A. General Duties: To the satisfaction of the City's Environmental Review Coordinator, review, for legal adequacy, the Salt Creek Sewer Interceptor Environmental documents (Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, Environmental Impact Report, etc.); revise and edit Draft Findings of Fact in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), on behalf of the City of Chula Vista; and Consult on issues and provide legal advise related to obtaining environmental clearances for the project, including, but not limited to, Section 404 Permit from the Army Corps of Engineers, Section 401 Water Quality Certification/Waiver, 1601 Stmambed Alteration Agreement from the California Department of Fish and Game, Section 7 consultation, Section 10(a) take permit or 4(d) permit. 8. Schedule, Milestone, Time-Limitations within which to Perform Services. Date for Commencement of Legal Consultant Services: ( X ) Same as Effective Date of Agreement Dates or Time Limits for Delivery of Deliverables: Deliverable No. 1: Comments in the form of margin notes on environmental documents, Draft Findings of Fact, Overriding Considerations and Draft Responses to Comments. Deliverable No. 2: Permit Clearances: Issuance of Environmental Clearances by the agencies. Dates for completion of all Legal Consultant services: ~_X . H:\Home\Planning\Marisa\SaltCreekSewer\remythomaspermit. agr Page 15 04/26/00 9. Contract Administrators. City: Marilyn Ponseggi, Environmental Review Coordinator 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91910 (619) 691-5707 Legal Consultant: Tina A. Thomas Remy, Thomas, and Moose, LLP, Attorneys at Law 455 Capitol Mall, Suite 210 Sacramento, CA 95814 (916) 443-2745 10. Insurance Requirements: (X) Statutory Worker's Compensation Insurance (X) 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: $1,000,000 (not included in Commercial General Liability coverage). 11. Compensation: A. (X) Time and Materials For performance of the General and Detailed Services of Legal Consultant as herein required, Applicant shall pay Legal Consultant for the productive hours of time and material spent by Legal Consultant in the performance of said Services, at the rates or amounts set forth herein below according to the following terms and conditions: (X) Not-to-Exceed Limitation on Time and Materials Arrangement Notwithstanding the expenditure by Legal Consultant of time and materials in excess of said Maximum Compensation amount, Legal Consultant agrees that Legal Consultant will perform all of the General and Detailed Services herein required of Legal Consultant for no more than $80,000 including all Materials, and other "reimbursables: ("Maximum Compensation"). H:\Home\Planning\Marisa\SaltCreekSewer\remythomaspermit.agr Page 16 04/26/00 Rate Schedule Category of Employee Hourly of Legal Consultant Name Rate Partner Michael H. Remy $210.00 Partner Tina A. Thomas $210.00 Partner James G. Moose $210.00 Partner Whitman F. Manley $210.00 Associate Andrea A Matarazzo $165.00 Associate Renee F. Hawkins $165.00 Associate Erik K. Spiess $165.00 Associate Jennifer S. Holman $165.00 Associate Osha R. Meserve $165.00 Land Use Analyst Georganna E. Foondos $80.00 ( ) Hourly rates may increase by 6% for services rendered after December, 2000, if delay in providing services is in the opinion of the City's Director of Plarming and Building, caused by the City. 12. ( ) 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 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. H:\Home\Planning\Marisa\SaltCreekSewer\remythomaspermit.agr Page 17 04/26/00 ( ) Category No. 7. Business positions. ( ) List "Consultant Associates" interests in real property within 2 radial miles of Project Property, if any: 13. ( ) Consultant is Real Estate Broker and/or Salesman 14. Permitted Subconsultants: None. 15. Bill Processing: A. Consultant's billing to be submitted for the following period of time: (X) Monthly ( ) Quarterly ( ) Other: B. Day of the Period for submission of Consultant's Billing: (X) First of the Month ( ) 15th Day of each Month ( ) End of the Month ( ) Other: C. City's Account Number: 16. Security for Performance ( ) Performance Bond, $ ( ) Letter of Credit, $. ( ) Other Security: H:\llome\Planning\Marisa\SaltCreekSewer\remythomaspermit.agr Page 18 04/26/00 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: ( ) Retention Percentage: 10% ( ) Retention Amount: $ Retention Release Event: ( ) Completion of All Consultant Services H:\Home\Planning\Marisa\SaltCreekSewer\remythomaspermit.agr Page ] 9 04/26/00 COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item /'~ Meeting Date 3/2/00 ITEM TITLE: Report considering an all-way stop at the intersection of East "J" Street and La Senda Way ~ SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public Works~ REVIEWED BY: City Manager ~ft-~o,L-~ (4/5ths Vote: Yes__ No X ) Based on the provisions of the Safety Commission Policy, adopted by resolution of the City Council on March 14, 1995, whenever the Safety Commission and the City Engineer concur on the implementation of a traffic safety improvement, the resolution of the issue is considered final unless appealed by a member of the Council within 10 days of the decision of the Safety Commission. This report was generated as the result of a motion by Mayor Horton for a report to Council after a request to appeal was made by David Krogh, a member of the public, under oral communications at the Council meeting of Tuesday, December 7, 1999. The direction of the Council was for staff to remm to the Safety Commission with a report which included the analysis provided by Mr. Krogh, and to have staff and the Commission reconsider this item. The first Safety Commission decision, to recommend the installation of an all-way stop, was reached at their meeting of Thursday, November 11, 1999. On March 9, 2000, staff presented a new report and all-way stop evaluation to the Safety Commission which included Mr. Krogh's analysis, and the Commission again voted to accept staff's report and recommendation to install the all-way stop. This report is to advise the City Council of the action by the Safety Commission. RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council accept this staff report. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: The Safety Commission, at their meeting of November 11, 1999, passed a motion MSC 4-1-2 (Liken/McAlister), Commissioners Cochrane and Acton absent and Commissioner Gove voting no, to approve establishing an all-way stop control at the intersection of East "J" Street and La Senda Way. This intersection currently has a stop sign on the northbound approach stopping La Senda Way for the through traffic on East "J' Street. There were two people who spoke against staff's recommendation and one person called Chair Liken and stated that she was in favor of staff's recommendation. Staff received six telephone calls, four in favor and two against the recommendation. At their meeting of March 9, 2000, after staff presented a new report and all-way stop evaluation to the Safety Commission, which included Mr. Krogh's analysis, and after the Commission heard public testimony, the Commission voted MSUC (Acton/McAlister) 7-0-0 to accept staff's report and recommendation to install the all-way stop and recommends that the City Council approve the installation. Three people spoke in support of Staff's recommendation and two people spoke in opposition. Page 2, Item Meeting Date 5/2/00 DISCUSSION: On August 2, 1999, staff received a letter from Edward G. Woodrich, 682 East "J" Street, requesting that something be done to reduce the speed of traffic in the vicinity of his residence on East "J" Street. After increased Police enforcement failed to provide a long term solution to Mr. Woodrich's concerns with speeding vehicles, he requested that an all-way stop be installed on East "J" Street at La Senda Way to help control the high speed of vehicles traveling on East "J" Street and to provide intersection safety due to reduced visibility at this intersection caused by the vertical curve inmaediately west of the intersection. Mr. Woodrich's residence is immediately east of the subject intersection. On November 11, 1999, the Safety Commission concurred with staff's recommendation and approved the installation of the all-way stop (4-1-2). The decision was appealed to the City Council by David Krogh, 712 East "J" Street, Chula Vista, CA. On January 25, 2000, the City Council referred the item back to the Safety Commission for further consideration by a vote of 5-0. Staff and the Safety Commission were to review a report prepared by Mr. Krogh. In his letter, which is addressed to City Council and dated January 25, 2000, Mr. Krogh listed 11 items that he disagreed with in staff's report and recommendation to install the stop signs along East "J" Street. Staff considered each of the points raised by Mr. Krogh in his analysis of staff's report at the Safety Commission meeting on March 9, 2000, with Mr. Krogh and other members of the public present. Staff agrees that there is a balance between a citizen's right to mobility and an expectation from the public for a certain level of traffic safety. That is why a process of warrants is established and approved by City Council which requires a certain number of points satisfied before an all-way stop is recommended by staff. The process by which each location is evaluated to determined if all-way stop control is justified contains three parts. Staff's recommendation which is based on the collection of traffic data and adopted Council Policy Number 478-03 is only one part of the process. Some of Mr. Krogh's comments were directed to this part of the process. The second part of the process involves input from the public. A public hearing is used to receive comments from the general public who may be affected by action of the Commission. Here again Mr. Krogh had an opportunity to express his viewpoints on the matter. The third and most crucial part is the evaluation by the Safety Commission of the first two parts. Based on the information provided in the staff report and public input, including Mr. Krogh's report and oral comments during the public hearing, the Safety Commission accepted staff's report and recommends installation of all-way stop control at the intersection of East "J" Street and La Senda. The following analysis of the intersection was contained in the report to the Safety Commission. La Senda Way has an average daily traffic (ADT) of 820 vehicles per day compared to 800 vehicles reported in 1999. The ADT on East "J" Street is currently 5900 compared to an ADT of 5,700 vehicles in 1999. Page 3, Item Meeting Date 5/2/00 A review of the accident history for this intersection from January 1, 1993 to 12/31/98 (a period of 6 years), shows only one reported accident which occurred on April 30, 1996. This accident was a right turn injury accident, and was not of the type considered to be susceptible to correction by the installation of an all-way stop. Mr. Woodrich reported that there were other accidents in the immediate area of the intersection which were related to speeding vehicles. Staffwas able to verify, that on two different occasions, there were accidents involving drivers that lost control of their vehicles and struck vehicles parked at the Woodrich residence. In one of these accidents, three (3) vehicles and property at the Woodrich residence were damaged. The accident history for this intersection location was compared to the statewide average accident rate for state highways at similar types of intersections. The statewide accident rate for a similar type T-intersection on state highways is 0.14 accidents per million vehicles entering (a/mve) the intersection. Using the most recent traffic counts of 6310 vehicles per day entering this intersection, accidents for this intersection and others of similar volume can be expected to occur approximately once every five (5) years. Based on the actual accident history for this intersection, there has been one (1) reported accident within the last 6 years. This is equivalent to a rate of 0.07 a/mve, which is below the statewide accident rate for state highways. The sight distance at this intersection was also re-investigated and was found to be clear for a distance of 160' to the west and 265' to the east. A stopping sight distance of 240' is required for the posted speed limit of 35 MPH on East "J" Street and 315' is required for the 851h percentile speed of 41 MPH. These are different from the distances measured in the field in 1999 for two reasons. First, residents that live on southwest comer of the intersection have trimmed their evergreens which were in part restricting the sight distance available. Second, the staff that took these measurements, took the line of sight from the limit line on La Senda Way instead of 7.5 feet back from the limit line as provided in the State of California Highway Design Manual. The all-way stop re-evaluation for the subject intersection, which assessed points to various traffic factors, revealed that this intersection received a total of 44 points out of a possible 100 points. Thirty-five points minimum are required to justify the installation of an all-way stop. The previous analysis totaled 61 points. The primary difference was in the assignment of the points under the traffic volume section. At the subject intersection, twenty-one points were assigned for unusual conditions. Of the twenty- one points for unusual conditions, seven were for the horizontal (500' radius) curve and vertical curves of 12% grade difference (8% to the west of the intersection and 4% to the east) which resulted in limited stopping sight distance; seven were for being on a "Suggested Route to School" with no other crossings nearby, and seven were for a high 851h percentile speed of 43 MPH (dated 12/16/99) and 41 MPH (dated 1/4/00). Four points were assigned for the 5 pedestrians observed crossing at the intersection during the peak hourly volume. One point is assigned for each hour (for a maximum of 8 hours) when the intersection entering volume exceeded the 70% of 500 (350) vehicles per hour Page 4, Item Meeting Date 5/2/00 but the minor street approach did not meet the 70% of 200 (140) of both pedestrians and vehicles, for a maximum of 8 points. This is the major difference between the first report and the current report. One point was assigned for traffic volume difference between minor and major streets. Ten bonus points are assigned when all the following conditions are met: (1) The street to be controlled is within a residence district as defined in Section 515 of the California Vehicle Code, and (2) The street to be controlled is classified a collector or is functioning as a collector, and (3) The subject intersection is not within 600 feet from the nearest controlled intersection along the collector, and (4) There is a parallel arterial highway that can be used as an alternate route. Based on the current point system adopted by City Council, staff and the Safety Commission recommends the installation of an all-way stop at East "J" Street and La Senda Way. All residents who testified at previous Safety Commission meetings on this subject have been notified of tonight's City Council meeting. FISCAL IMPACT: $400 to install two R-1 stop signs, two W-17 stop ahead signs with temporary flashers, stop legends and limit lines. Attachments: Area Plats showing residences of named parties and existing all-way stops All Way Stop Study w/accident history for East "J" St./La Senda Way Radar Speed Surveys (2) Letters dated 10/19/96 and 8/2/99 from Mr. Woodrich Letter dated 1/25/00 with attachments from Mr. Krogh E-Mail letter dated March 15, 2000 from Allan Walker Excerpt of minutes from 1/25/00 Council meeting Excerpt of minutes from 11/11/99 and 3/9/00 Safety Commission meetings H:~HOME~ENGINEER~AGENDA~EASTSEND.DMW COUNCIL POLiCT -. CITY OF CHL-LA \-ISTA SUBJECT: .-'/LL-WAY _r70? POLICY EFFECTIVE NUMBER DATE PAGE 478-03 I 1 OF 8 .-~J)OPTED BY: Resolution No. I DATED: BACK GROUN'D Toe Calmm~ T,~c Manual mud the Manual on Dmform Traffic Control Devices list m-it-'nc in dmermmmg the n~-d for an Mt-way stop .... tual need for an all-way is def.=framed by an en,zme-''rS-_smdv which exarranes the svecial ohm-acrOstics of the sit--'. .Ml-way stop si_t`ms ars vm-y ~sm-'five controls smce they require nj1 motorists entering the mt-.-:'se=rion to stop at all When stop sig~ ~ ms*ailed for speed control andTor th=m is no appar=m n'-a.ffi c reason for thc stop (liras or no cross ~"affic ). moronsm regard the sop si~n as an ,*nnez=ssary nnP. calL-neat and often times do not make a complete stop. V~rntn this occurs the expec:anons of oth=r drivers and pedesmans ars al-mr.-d, th=r_'by j=opardizing th.' s~ety p.~ormance of the mL.-rsc=riom Although sp.m~ will be lower m the vi:mjB, of the stop. op. e=~ may be higher midbio:k zs motor/sm n-y to ,makeup. for the ~ ::ri, ed nme iom ar*.hz stop sign..~nother negam, e asp. -:~ of unwa_rramed stop. si_.~ms is the m~case m nom.- and pollution ~ v.--h/c!=s apply-J-.ear brakcs to slow do'am and aczeimmm out of the mm~e---ri7 on. Howev~. ~l-way stop control mtersec~ions 7eh:rally have ~_ iow~ accideIlt rate/n ~.on~,zst to ,unzonn-olled mt=~s=nons or 'two-stop control mt=rsszdons. ]: :s n'n~razhz'c z.n:: n,-ro, ossibL~ ~o 2,.szz/t an aJ]-way stop ~ or odn=r urraffiz :cnn-al device such 2s a *-zu-~% signal} whenever ' [ l - ..... ~ ' o ,4 - dku~m-_ ¢~-_2k oeriodi ex-rended delays to motorist3 m~v result, thus forzth-_ motons'm ro seek ai~'-n~at~ routes tixounh oamlteis srr~. o~en a resid-_nn~ ares A T~-ffiz En-"m-'zer s enoz.-,' -oa] Tnt pu_rpos: of z 5'ny jusn~Se~ prop~]y m-s:aiied z~.-wav suo~ is to :~.-~vely zsmm .~.-_ht-of-wav. mam~ sa.~w -_nd reduce veh/ml: delay. Ge'n_--~-nHv ai]-w~v moos m-e :.nsmH~ed ',vh~e '~-,..~= si_~'zal~ ars wm.--a.nted an&,'or ~--~ accident histoD' h~ b--=n inrii:zed by reooned acs:senn of z ,D?e s-_scmfible to zo~ezuon by an all-way stop. ?OLJC'f STA ..-EM-ENT i~ shzi] be the poiizy or,he CiD' o; _n..- ~ .~. un-ou_n me _~=p:n-nm:m ol ?DD.UC '~ o,z.~ --=m.-.m_- '-u .sm_ ,0 ~x az,an, the m~-lL~non of..k!]-Way Stops m accordance 'adth Ihs follo-a~ng policy ~-~r'.men~s: Y-ns CaUa-orma Vehicle Cods. Seznon 2 !350 thru 2 !355. =,gives thc auihonb- to local agencies ro imszall aB-amy stop ='225: eon~ois upon srrxe~ m *heir respez-dve jw-isdJc~on. _~.zzor~g to Federal mud Sore n'm~,Sz consol =-uid=!ines' al]iwa? sop insmllafions should be .... r:sem'ed for th= conrroi of v.-hazuiar ~-'affi¢ :onfiic-.s a~ int:~ezrion~ and should no~ bt us=fi as o.x .... Io conrro] .'~ne City's poii~, for ~e insmlla~on of an ail-way sop con=o] is b-,as~-d on a point sym=m. Poinm arc 2ssi_-'ned to ....... candanons, ra~o.*s measureo ~-=: accident records umu~ual condition COUNCIL POLICY CITY OF CHULA X-ISTA SUSJECT: ALL-V,'AT STOP POLICY EFFECTIVE N~MBER DATE PAGE _~OPTEDBY: RcsolufionNo. ] DATED: C~ OF ~A ALL-WAY STOP CONSOL GENEP~&L: f~ly j~q~& prop=fly i~ll=fl alPwny stop c~ eff==v=iy ~i~ d~t of ~3', r=du~ v~icle delay, ~d azz~dznn. O~zmlh' m ail-way stop ~ r~:~'td for ~: ~: al the mt~=~on of~,o ~u¢ ~¢ways, and oniy in=mm ~z consol m~u= prior to si~i~tio= St~ si=~ =: not m b: ~:d ~r ~=fi gon;ol. posung of~ int~tion for all-wgy stop zon~ol should be b~zd on f~l ~m. Wm~_u~ m b: zov~idzmfi rosin6:: i. _&zzid=m 2. Un~u:i :ondirisnz P~s~ voium~ 4. Tmv~z voim: i~5=d ~ a m~im~ of 35 pom~ h-any of~= fiv~ ~;=~ bm:: ;o g~ z~:tzn: of ]O0~k ~ ail-way ~op consol ~t~:zfion ~3' b= wmwmnt=d zv:n z~-~s fo~o~g con~fio~ ~ (al Tns ~s¢: m be zon¢oll¢fi ~ ~4~m a r~fisn=: ~z: ~ fis~sfi ~ Sc:fion 5 I5 of~: Ca~a V:~c!e Cods, and C~) Tnt ~=z m be ¢on~oll=~ ~ zi~s~sd a coll~or or is ~nzfio~g ~ a :ollszmz, ~d (z} ~: subizz: ~t:m:ztion ~s nox wi~ 600 f==~ kom ~: ntar:m :on=oll~d mmmzzfion aiong ~z zoll:ztor, and ~d) Tntrz ~ a =mmlltl ~=ml hizhwav ~at ~ b: ~:d ~ an alt:~m': roum, COUNCIL POL! Cl' CITh' OF CHI_!.A VI.gTA I POLI CW ETFECTIV£ SUF..rE CT: ALL-',;,'.-'.':.' STOP I NUMBER DATE PAGE . .ADOPTED BY: ResoluSonNo. ] DATED: ALL-WAY S'TOP POINT SYSTEM CR~ l !. A CC~W WA~ANW: Five ~om~ ~r ~i~:d for ~:h a::idem s~:~oi: m co~=~an by an ail-way ~op :on=al dm-rog ~ny !2-mon~ p=hod prior m ~= Nv=~ganon ~. Total nmbx of ~zid:n~ ro~::fible by ~-w%, stop: Ma~ ~ porn= SCO~: ~ Po~ 2. L~I~ZA[ CO~ON WA~K~NW: :on~fio~ ~: Ci~ Fv~ or ~ dmi~:: ~y a~iy ~: ~g jud~mz ~d waiv= ~: ~5-pomr mi=~m.~ pom~ r:q~m:mr m qn~ii~ ~: m~:~on for ~ ~-wzy ~ h Adi~ m szhooL si~ ~hom ~iax,~o~ s~or csnz~. ~m.q~t ~ :m. 7 3. ~m m~on i:~ m ~ ~n~ xom ~ mmhoff:~) ... m:~esno~ wi~ sm~ ~des on a~ l:~ o=: approach. 7 5. i:~se:fio: N on "Sugg:med Rome To SzhooI" md no o~= :an=oiled ~o~e wi~ 600 Mz~=~ 21 porn= SCO~: COUNCIL POLICY CITY OF CHULA VISTA SUBJECT: .~,LL-W.~Y STOP POLICY EFFECTIVE NUM:BER DATE PAGE 478-03 4 OF 8 ADOPTED BY: Resolution No. I DATED: 3. PEDESTPdAN VOLUMES Consideration is given to large numbers of pedes'e-ians crossing thc major srree~ during busiest pedesa-ian hour of an average Pedestrians Crossin_- Major Sweet. Total durin~ iht neak traffic hour MaxLmum 20 points SCORE: 7 Points ' TR.A?FtC VOLLrMES Points are dep=ndent upon the magnitude o£ v=hic=lar volumes entenng the intenecrion during the tight b ,usixst hours of an average Traffic Counts (circle eight highest hour volmm=s): Hour Ending At: Dir 0600107001080010900 10O0 11 O0 I20[ 13001400 1500il 600 1700' 180011900 2000{ TOT. In r:sid:n:e distorts as defined by Section 515 CVC, if ~: 87 percenfii= approach spe=d of ~e major s=e=r exc:e~ 35 miI:s uer hour the minimum vehicular volume wawant is 70% of the above requirement. COL'NCIL POLICY CITY OF CHULA VISTA SUBJECT: .~LL-W.:W STOP POLICY EFFECTIVE NUMBER DATE PAGE 478-03 5 OF $ .~I)OPTED BY: Resolution No. DATED: 5. TR.&FFtC VOLUME DIFFERENCE All-way stops opemle besl when thc major and tm-nor srre:~ approach traffic volumes arc near}), equal. Points shall be assigned m aecordanze ,Aqth the folio'a-m___ robie: "For T-intersections, thc p:rcen~ is thc rauo of the minor stre:t approach volume to the highest single leg approach volume on the major street muluplied by one hemmed. COUNCIL POLICT CITY OF CHULA VISTA SUBJECT: .--,Z_-w.--.y STOP POLICY EFFECTIVE N~ER DATE PAGE 478-03 6 OF 8 .~OPTED BY: R,soluuon No. DATED: CALl, NS ~ I=~A t~namer ~ Ca~mns Tmffir MnnuaB _~n5' of ~* following :ondifio~ ~y waml a ~lfi-~y ~OP ~i~ ~Iiafion: ie~ll:d qui~y m :on~ol ~ffic w~Iz agama ~ b:~g _ M~mm ~: voim:s z. : ....................... ~om h. Tns zombm=d v~ui~ ~d psd:~ voi~ ~om ~: v=hin!: firebug ~t mmm ho~, but z. w, nz= m: ~5-p~:n~: ~ro~h ~::a of ~: major ~::: COUNCIL POLICY CITY OF CHULA VISTA SUBJECT: ALL-WAY STOP POLICY EFFECTI\'E NUMBER DATE PAGE 478-03 7 OF 8 .XDOPTED BY: Resolution No. DATED: ALL-WAY STOP S~RY DA~ I~,~ST]GA~ON WAS COMPLE=D: Z// /~ ~ TOT.~ SCOPe: ¢omls aal a~ ~ ¢ossible 100. ~e m~ r~quired to 3usn~' an all-w~3 stop consol ~s ~> /boo" ' ' -~---~ 13' P. IS" .> J 1.3 ' ~CO~_A~O~S:  Sight Distance Standards D~ign Sp==d Stoppi=g P~i=g 30 200 __ lIOO ?'~:~: ' -: 240. - 40~: "' ' ':3DO - ]SOO ~5 360 ~. I650 : 50 440 1~ ~S: 55 ~00 ~ 60 ~ ~80 ~. 2100 65 650 ~ 2300 ~O - ?40 ~ 2500 75 ~40 ~ 2690 SO .. P3O ~ 2700 COL'NC!L POLl CY CI]-x' OF CHi'LA 5U~J£CT.: '.ti-v, :.x.-£TL':" POLl CX,' EFF£CTIVE NUMBER DATE PAGE 47g-03 g O? g .ADOPTED BY: R. esolmion No. { DATED: CJTY OF ~-tLrLA VIS-TA /d_L-WAY STOP _---VALUATION WO~HE~ ~ ~, ,, ~ Fik 22710-oo (M~mr) / (~or) ' for AI!-W%' Stop h~ed on 35 or mots potato: for A!I-V,:zy Stop b~=d on o~n:r ~mma: ~'es __ No, =xm~m: :. Aezidem H;.xmry Poin~ Possibie Mnx. ~ 25 2. Un~uaI Condiriop~ 7 ooin~ Pefl ~tri~ Volume ~o~ ~: ~mior s=ss:~ ~s p~ hour Minimum Traffic Volum~ 5. Traffic Volume Difference /~ ~ / 10 TOT.~ 3~ !00 5~nimum Poin~ Required 25 C%~_LISION VIC- 'PFPE POINT OF PRIM C~ M-V OTHER R-PORT COLI_ISI(~W 'FIDIS OF I~AC'T FACll]R ROAD INV R/W Pm'D --VEHICLE--- DRIV./PED ASSOC NO. DATE DA ~IM~ IN FA COL, LDCATI[XN VC SEC GP WE~ LIT S C:DN WIT LTL ACT NO. TP MV DIR A~ ,~ $/D FAC'TD~ 6D~59 04-30-96 l~J lgl3 2 O OTHR O' ? C 17 CLR DS~ A B A D A 1 J D E 31 M A N 2 ,.1 D E 3~ M A N COLLISION TYPES 3. LIGHTING CONDITIONS H~Jk~ON 0 .0 DAYLIGHT O .0 SID~S~PE 0 .O DUSK-DAI,~ l REAR END 0 .O DARK, ST I.]~TS 0 .0 BROADSIDE O . O DARK, NO ST LIGHTS D .0 HIT OBJECT O .0 DARK, ST LI(~qTS NOT OVERI!JRNED g . D FUN~I-IONI NG 0 . D AUTD/PEDES 0 . O OTHER 1 1OO. D TOTAL 1 100.0'~ TOTAL ~ 1D0.C% 2. HOTO~ VEH. INVOLVED WiTH 4. OOLLISION DESCRIPTION TOTAL PERC. DESCRIPTION --T 0 T A L -- CITY OF CHULA VISTA-VEHICLE SPEED SURVEY SEGMENT UNDER STUDY E. "0" DATE I~-Ib' qc/SURVEY SITE £/~T Orr /.~ ~EN~,~ J~ y PostED SPE~D '--'-- TIMESTART q¥/'~ ~PM TIMEEND lO'lO ~/PM WEATHER MPH DIRECTION: W = 0 ~ = / TOTAL % CUM % s2 I I I I I ~ I _37 0~1 ! I I I ! I t t I t ~ t CITY OF CHULA VISTA-VEHICLE SPEED SURVEY SEGMENT UNDER STUDY E I~Ta ~.~T (~ ,~E~k'~ WJ~Y ~ ~ t~ MPH DIRecTiON: ~ = 0 ~ = / TOT~ % CUM % 60 ~ I "~ ~ ~ ,, Mr. John Goss, City Manager City of Chula Vista 276 4th. Av. Chula Vista, California 91910 October 19, 1996 Dear Mr. Goss, I am writing in regards to a problem on East J St., mainly from the intersection of La Senda Way, to Paseo Del Rey. I live between these to cross streets, and there is a constant problem with vehicles exceeding the 35 m.p.h, speed limit in this area. I have contacted the Police on severa~ occasions concerning this problem. They have set up radar units to try to control the speeding but it seems to have little impact on discouraging speeding within this stretch of East J Street. I have witnessed on many occasions drivers passing in the center turn lane at a speed which i have estimated at 50 to 60 MPH. I do think that there is a solution to this problem. Would it be possible to have stop signs placed at the intersections of La Senda Way and East J St., and Entrada Place and East J St. I feel that this would slow down the vehicles driving East and West on East J St. This would also make it safer for the residents living on these side streets to enter East J St. La Senda Way and East J St. can become dangerous at times when you are trying to enter East J St. Vehicles come over the hill east bound and are right on top of you as you start to pull out. It is a blind intersection because of the hill. It is very dangerous at times trying to pull out of your driveway because of the speeding vehicles. I would appreciate your held concerning this matter of importance. Thank you, Sincerely,/) Edward G. Woodrich Re: Edward G. Woodrich 682 East J St. Chula Vista, CA 91910 482-8735 27(; 4th Ay. P~ ~ ~d ~ J SL ~ s~et~ of roadway ~ ~oming a m~ ~ dn~g ~e ~h ho~ ~c ~ ~e ~g ~d ~e mo~ d~g~ dne to ~e m,mb~ ofve~fi~ ~c~g ~e ~os~:~p~ {{m~ of 3~ sp~ of~ mp~ ..... ' · ~ ~ ~om{ng a v~ ~n~,s~afion for ~]dm~ ~g to ba~ out of ~ ~o~ a s~ous acfid~t ~ong ~h~ of~ i ~ve ~nm~ ~e ~u~ V~ Police on num~us oc~io~ zo ~u~ ~d~ ~ be po~, to slo do~ ~e d~ but ] s~m to be fnIHng on d~ ~ due to ~me s~ng ~er. ~ ~gk yo~ ~ ~e ~P~;~ of ~h{, comm~i~ to un~.dm~g~e~h ho~, of~e ~e s~g e~ p~ce at ~ ho~ of the ~y ~ybe ~ wo~ ~ 1o slow do~ ~e ~ing, ~d m~e ~ose who ~e do~g ~e sp~n~ to ~in~ ~ b~o~ ~c~{-g ~e sp~ Hmit ~ong ~h{~ ~tch of roadways. =~o~s~ce ~ ~ app~t~ conc~g ~hN ~c problem. Edward G. WoodricJa 6g2 East J St. Chula Vista, California 91910-6541 cc: Council ~ City Manager 'Traffi'~'~Eng±neerin~ '"~ S~t. Coulson David Krogh 712 ~t "J" Stree; Chula Vista, CA 01910-6530 January 25. 2000 City. of Chula Vista Anention: City Council 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 Re: City Council Meeting 1/25/2000 - Agenda Item Number 6 (Appeal o£Installmion of Ali-Way Stop Signs at East ".V' Strem and La Senda Wa>,) Thank you for responding to my request at the Council meeting of December 7, 1999 by putting this subject on ~e City Council agenda. I received an advance copy of the 1/18/2000 Counc/l Agenda Statement for this agenda item submitted by the Dkector of Public Works and reviewed by the City Manager. That Statement contains the Recommendation that Council deny this appeal, and is silem about any of the specific concerns that I rased at the Safety Commission meeting of November 11, or in subsequent discussions with Traffic Engineering department staff'or management, or at the December 7 City. Council meeting. I b~eve that my obj~fions have merit. I am disappointed that my conce,"ns have apparently been disrn/ssed without any substantive response of any kSnd, and would like to have them considered on tbek merits. Therefore, I have put my concerns into writing in the attached dissenting Report. I underrrand that the CiD' Council can consider my concerns and reverse the Safety Commission decision. Altemateiy, ffthe Council prefer, perhaps the manet can be referred back to the Safer)' Commission for reconsideration based on the addkional information I have pointed out in my dissenting Report: -Fnank you for your consideration, Sincerely yours. -~ \~, a_,, S~op -Eas: ".F' S~ec; and La Senda Way pa,.^ , Diss~n,,ing Repo~. Council Agenda Statement hem Number: 6 Meeting Date: lL~5/_000 Item Title: Dissenting Re'pon - .MI-Way Stop at the intersection of East "I" Street and La Senda Way Submitted By: David Krogh, resident, 712 East "Y' Street The Traffic Engineering department of the City ofChula xrnm. a has recommended to the Safety Commission of the City of ChuJa Vista that ,all-Way Stop Si~ums be installed at the intersection of East 'T' Street and La Sanda Way. This Dissenting Report takes issue with Traffic Engineering department's jus'tificafion. Recommendation: City Council should reverse Safety. Commission decision of November l 1, 1999. .~dternately, refer the matter back to the Safety Commission for reconsideration based on concerns raised in this report, so that ekher (a) Traffic Engineering department and/or Safety Commission can reverse their o~ recommendation and/or decision, or Co) respond to the City Council regarding this Dissenting Report Executive Summon': The body of this r~:por~ e.xpl~inu in detail several reasons why installation of.<l Way Stop sigmas at East "J" Street and La Senda Wa.v (hereafter referred to as "The Stop Si~s') is not necessary at this time. Although every reader may not _agree with eveD, reason advanced below, I believe that most readers will find sufiiciem persuasive reasons below to support acting in accordance with the ~bove recommendation: ] ) In a very short period of time, an unnecessary and excessive number of All Way Stop Signs have been proposed a~ approved for installation on East ".F' Sweet. 2) It appears that the cumulative impact of these numerous Stop Si_ma has not been given coordinated consideration by the Traffic En~eerfiag departmem ("Engineering") or the Safety Coramission (Commission). 3) EngLueering's justification for The Stop Si~ does not s'mnd up to close critical scruimy. It appears to be factually incorrect and misleading. 4) 'i-~e most important and fi'equenfly stated reasons for citizen's request and Commission's approval of The Stop Si_mas contradicts many of the tern~ of the City Council Policy beLqg cited to justify The Stop Si_mas. 5) Engineering staffhas consistently and carefully used euphemistic terms to attempt to remedy (4) ano e. However, that does not change the fact that Commission is ~ making its decision on _m-ounds conu'ary to the Policy. Moreover, facts exist which contradict staff's euphemistic rationale; however, staff does not acknowledge or ~ve any credence to those facts. 6) Of the four new Stop Si~ considered and approved for East ".l' Sweet in the past six months, the ~ subject interse,,"tion has the lowest tra~c counts, lowest accident counts, lowest staled "preventable ; accuaents to be realized l'om placement of All V~ ay Stop Signs. Perversely, althou~mb, in prior years' consideration of All Way Stop Si_mas along East "J" Sweet, La Senda had a lower than average "warfare score" now, somehow, in 1999, it has been assigned the highest wore (61) of any inters,.,."~don on all o£Ea~t "Y" Sweet. This result is contrary, to common sense, and seems to invite closer comparative erzm;rmlion of the reasonableness of the method of determining that score. 7) Engineerin~ Commission, and even the City Coun~ Policy appear to give little or no balanced consideration of the trade-offs of(l) safety and (2) right of the public to reasonably expeditious zram~, ortafion. Engineering reports state that every intersection recently approved for Stop zj; Way Stop - Easn "Y" Street and La Senda Wa~ Pa2e ; Dissenting on ~ "F Street h~ a~id~nt rates lower or si~ificamly lower th~ the stole average. Nev=nhd~, ~e S~ Co~ssion f~is ~mpelled to ~op in multiple Stop Si~s, at ~ Sendk ~ere thtre hav~ b~n no stat~ a~dents in the p~ sever~ y~ ~ax would have b~ pr~mt~ by the pr~.~ or.ch Stop si~. T~ app~s to r~msent ~ u~nablt i~ng~ by ~ CiW on ~ p~c=~l enjo~ent by dfizms of the utdiW of th~ public at.ts h is not h~d io ~ne ~at w~-~tmfioned ~, ~mtty mogvaled to volum~ to m~ a S~ety Co~oa ~l hav~ ~ unconscious bi~ towed ~ng d~slons u~o~ly skewed low~d ~pro~ng ~, d~pit~ que~ionable cost-benefit tmde-o~. If the Co~s~on r~onab}y ~t~n a b~ p~eaive, it is the r~onabhi pr~ogaxive ~d responsibility of th= CiW Coundl to a~ to ~e r~on~le ~d b~cM results. S) It ~pp~ ~at a ~afic, ~n~ effort h~ b~ ~de~cn by En~fing ~d Co~ssion to modiff ~c flow ~d ~s on E~ 'T' S~t ~d o~er CiW m~. T~s conc~ed effort never m~on~ ~ ~y of~e En~ r~ons used to justi~ pla~ment of~l Way Stop Si~s. but h~ b~ appg~t ~ ~e ~ments ~d ~l~a~ons of Co~ion C~ ~d Ensnaring ~ R~ ~ sight wo~d ~ to be w~t~ for ~clusion ~ repo~s, o~e~dse, que~om ~d ~se ~n~g motives for ~clu~ng tach i~o~afion. 9) CiW Co~ Poli~ ~t~ s~ v~ ~ong r~m for not ~g ~ Way Stop Si~s. It then pro~d~ for a n~c sm~g ~ toj~ ~c~tio~. ~e ~fio~ poh~ h~ app~ently been d~op~ ovg the p~ ~o y~ spryly in order to more ~yj~ ~lafion of~l Way Stop ~. Since its eff~ve date sk monks ~o, a r~h of new ~ Way Stop Si~ have b~ approved ~ over to~. Sco~ m~Ms us~ by En~n~g ~d~ ~e ~c~fions poli~ app~ to be ~b~y ~d ~on~ly sk~ ~ ~vor ofj~g new ~1 Way Stop Si~s, I~ b~ on ~p~c~ of~e ~ Sen~ ~t~on 103 .Mte~v~ to .~ Way Stop Si~ should be s~ously ~mid~. En~g co~ts r~se doubts in my ~d tMt ~ convenfion~ ~te~fives or ~five ~temafives have b~n seriously co~idere~ 1 l) R~t ~Ml~t{on ofn~ Stop Si~ a n~y ~t~om ~ ~dy ~ ~g adverse co~um~ tach ~ long ~c delays ax p~ t~c pmods. Back_m-ound and Discussion: I am a thirty year resident of Chula ¥~s'm I have lived on East ".1" Street for ovea- sixteen years, about one qua.:x~r mite east of the intersection of East "Y' Street and La Senda Way. The La Senda intersection is locmred jus~ ~ ora rise in East "J" Street. My house is virtually the same distance east of another nsc 5; Eaz ..j., Street. I KNOW w'nat the trmqSc is like on East ".P' Street, and I 'know what k is I/ke to earn right and I~ onto East "J" Street;, I have v/finally identical visibility at my driveway es the intersection at La Senda. NO ONE in Engineering or on the Cornn~sion is more familiar vhth traffic on East "J" Stree~ or turning fight or left omo East ".F' Sweet than I am. I and my family are heavy, users of East "3" Street. Mx, wile takes my. children to school, and brings them home on East "J" Street every dayl We travel on.East "J" Street to my wife's mother's house several times a we-'~c We travel Frost "Y' Street to go downtown to shop, get a haircut, get car repairs, get a car wash. and even to go to m~-~in~ ax City Hall. Our trips throu~ the intersect/on ax La Senda gray average 40 per w~k. when school is ~n session, and probably over 1,500 per year. We represent the motoring public on East ~J" Street, wkich averages 5,800 trips a day through that intersection. With the ex/sting Stop Sign, and four new stop si_~res already approved, we will be stopping ax .4,11 Way Stop Si~tms on Eest~'Y' Street 7,500 times during the next year. That's a lot of stopping! That's why I'm taking the time to v,,'rite this dissenting report for the benefit of myself, my family, and the rest of the East "J" Street motoring public. Il is said "you can't fight City HalF. I don't want to riehl I just would like to be able to enjoy using East J Strut as we formerly could. When I ~st raised this issue about Stop Signs ax La Send~, I was motivated by fine apparent unre~sorabteness of stop si_m~s at that location. I now- realize that. even if this baffle is won. the ~-~i V, ay S~op - East ".F' Strut and La Senda V.'a~ F'a~e 5 D~ssen:ing Repo,~ w~- h~s still becn lost. due to the numerous other stop signs lhat have already gone in. However. there is sul] m,~'it in mitigating the degree o£damage lo the motoring pubiin. Hence. 1 maintain my objemion to the in~z/iation of Stop Signs al La Senda. l auended the November I 1 Safety Commission meetin~ the December 7 Cily Council meeting, laB:ed five times to various Engineering dept members, and attended the January 13 Commission meeting. I will attend the January 25 Council meeting. I've read over a dozen Engineering reports, spent two hours observing tra~c, interviewed residents at the subject intersection and another interseclion where glop signs were recently ins'ailed, and talked to a couple dozen folks to see how they feel aboul these Stop signs. Please read on. I) In a yeO, short period of time, an unnecessaO. and excexsia~e number of All Way Stop Signs hm,e been proposed and approved for installation on £axt "J" Stree~ . For years, there were no Stop Signs anywhere along East "Y" Street fi-om Fralltop Drive to Pasen Del Rey. Then, once. several yeats ago, one Stop Sign was installed at East "T' Stree! and Floyd, righl nexI to Hal.-rest Elemunmry School. An inconvenience, but the resulting safety benefit for hundreds ofelememary school children who cross that street every day al that corner would be difficult for anyone to contest. For years, life went on. Ea~ "J" Street is a somewhat busy street to live on, but not intolerably or unreasonably so. A good distance of East "T' Sweet traverses slopes, and in some places East "Y" Street is wider than the average in many parts of town. Some traffic in excess of the speed Ii_mit is observed, lulled by the wide open road, the pull of _m-avity, and overmuch haste by some. The occasional immature young driver travelling al patently excessive speeds or passing uns~ely is also observed. The occasional driver travelling at 25 or even 20 MPH is also observed. However, on the whole, most are faro/liar with the road, adjust as required, and relatively few accidents have occurred. Then, in 1999, all ora sudden, a flood of Stop Sign~ has arrived. Stamment~ at Safety. Commln~ion menfings and by Engineering department staffinform the c~.soal observer that East "Y' Street has been comidered a festering problem for years, and al long last the ultimate solution is al hand. Oh. Having merely lived on the srr~t~ for 16 years, I hadn't realized Even allowing that some improvements might be beneficial~ why th/s sudden undue hasle to bart'age the s:r~t? "E~ in haste, repent at leisure" goes an old salving. Not so with tr,~ffic control devices. Ac~ordS~g to explanation of the Safety. Commission Chairman al ~he November i 1 meeting, he can't recall, EVER. the removal ora'traffic control device in ~avor ora less restrictive traffic control device, since remo~l would be I/keiy to confuse motorists, and thu~ actually create a .mfety issue. This observation gained by many years on the Commission and on duty as a Chula 'vista Polieema~ Okay. I'm convinced. Traffic control devices such as these Stop Sign are a "one way street"; they only go in, they don't come out ... even if it might have been a mistake to pm one ir~ Thai would seem to me m jurdfy restraint and deliberate pace in putting them in. But, that's not what is going on now. 2) It appears tha~ the cumulative impact of these numerous Stop Signs ~ not been given coorddnnt~d conMdm-axion bi, the Traffic Eno~neering department or the ~ SafeO' Cotnmissiora Al the Safety Commission meeting o£November 11, 1999. Commission Chairman Liken explained how Chula 'vim has gxown quite a bit, and franc is overloading the roads. Especially ffusm-aling curremly are those roads under expansion to better sug/pon the increased tmtiSc loads (6g Telegr-dph-Cafi~n-R~-ad at 1- 805). Tnerefor~ some frustrated motorists are ~ak-lng shortcuts on East "J" Street to ~ their f:mstration and avoid the crush on the preferred arterial routes of East "H" Street and Telegraph Canyon Road. Some Commission members somewhat sheepishly Cl~ut actually proudly) state how sure th~' are ofth/s fact, ~; Way S~op - Eas~ ".F' Stre~ and La Senda Way D~sseming Report bemuse ~ey ~h~e!v~ ~e doing it. ~le I*m ~re ~me fellow ~t "~ Stre~ ~ residenIs have no:iced ~d m~y o~, I ~n~ly had no~ p~c~ly noticed or ~d~ them doln~ so. However, I ~.~LY notice ~d obj~ to si~fi~tly inm~efing M~h ~ ~ Str~ ~c by lo~ Ea~ "T' S~x residents by dropping in a ~fdo~ ~op si~s ~ disinc~tives for om-of-~ fol~ to ~ploit the "~dd~ li~ie secre~ Ch~a ~' (~e Ion~ fo~efly un~red, ~retch of~ ~Y' S~ Mthout Stop si~s). Pl~e don't ~ve mC. ~e ~lufion is mom p~n th~ the problem. Oh ~ I~ "don't ~ve me so much.'* How many Stop si~ is enou~ to ~e some people from dfi~ng ~ou~h the ~? I don'~ know, but we ~r~dy have Stop si~ at P~ Dd R~, Loft ~e, ~oyd, Nacio~ ~d soon Melro~. I've heard t~ ~oth~ is pl~ we~ of Melrose. That s~ ~e mom th~ enou~ ~agemeat ~dy. Mus; · ~e ~so be moth~ at ~ S~? I'm ~u~ed. But I We here. ~d you're ~g me offofmy ~. ~y mu~ I ~ff~ such p~ ~ ord~ ~at I be "~v~"? At ~e J~ 13 Co~ission m~n~ En~n~ng supe~sor ~. ~ph Le~a e~l~n~ ~t the md ~t ~proach h~ b~n to "~d~ ~eh int~on on its ~d~ m~m." However, be went on to ~ ~ pubic h~g ~ Ending d~m~ consideration of cumu~tive eff~t of installation of Ail Way Stop Signs would be a good id~. ~ ~. Lm's do ~. Coundl ~da Smt~t ofDir~or of~blic Wor~ w~ ~uen B~O~ 1 chfll~g~ ~e Co--sion in ~ m~g of 1/13/2000, md ~. L~a ~ ~t ix wm a good idea. ~ t~t ~ a good r~on for Ci~ Co~ to ~e r~o~ended a~on to revue or r~o~ider ~e La Sen~ d~ision. 5) En~neering'sjusdfication for The Stop Signs does not stand up to close critical scru~ny. It appears to be factually incorrea~ and misleading. A si_m~ica~ element of the jus~cation for The Stop Signs is "Unusual Conditions". To quote the CiW Policy 478-03, page 3, "Where uausml conditions ex/st ... points are nssigaed on the basis o£ engineering jud_maaent...." A half dozea types o£Uausual Conditions are specifically reco?iT~xt, and seven points may be awarded for each .type of Unusual Condition. En~eering's judgraent at this time appears to be tha~ the full seven points should be assigned whenever a spec~c Unusual Condition exists to any d _egr~. The most ex~eme irony of this method is illusuated in the case of the Unusual Condition ~Lntersecfion is on 'Suggested Route To School' and no other controlled crossing is located vAthin 600 f~t". Yes, Easz Strut is a rou~e that c. aa be used by pedes~ans or vehicles to travel to Halecrest Elementary School and other local schools. However, every other conceivable fact in regard to this Unusual Condition cries out to a~rd only partial points or NO POEWi'S for this factor..&U other schools besides Haleru:est are nfiJes away Locad topo~m'aphy is such that ix makes no sense for A_NY pedestrian to cross East "Y' Stru.~t at La Senda Way to get to .~ry school. Field observations on a sample day (see Exl~bit _) determined that no elementary school students cross East "Y' Stre~ at La Sen& ~) TI~ rno~t important and frequently stt,~,d reasons for citizen's request and Commission's ~ approval of The Stop Signs contradicts man), of the terms of the ~ CouncilPolicy being cited to juxri, l~v The Stop Sign& Slowing down speeders is the biggest singl_ e reason for All Way Stop Si_m~s, both by requesteEs_ _an4 by_ Safe~ Commission members. However, according to Council Policy 478-03 pages 1 an~ 2: All-way stop signs are vet5, re~rictive conumls since they require all motorists entering the intersec*don to stop at all ~es. When mop signs ~re installed for speed control anWor there is no ~.i; Way Stop - East "J" Stre~ and La Senda '0,'a~ Pz:? : D~ssent~ng Report apparent traffic reason for the stop (little or no cross traffic) mo~or'ists regard the s~op sign as an unnecessary impediment and often times do not make a complete stop. When this occurs the expectations of*he other drivers and pedestrians are altered, thereby jeopardizing *he safe,w. performance of the imersection. Al*hough speeds will be lower in the vicinity of*he stop. speeds may be higher midblock as motorists try. to make up for the perceived time Iost at the stop sign ... A Traffic Enginenr's primary goal is to maintain safety and reduce vehicle delay .... According to Federal and State traffic control ~midelines. alt-way stop installations should be reserved for the control of'vehicular traffic conflicts at intersections and should not be used as devices to control spend .... Stop signs are not to be used for speed control. Thee appears to be significant tension between the policy and the re. al world motivations of requesters of .~dI Way Stop Signs. and the Safety Commission's actions. It appears that Stop Signs ARE being requested and being used for spend control. It also appears that the policy statement *hat one of Traffic Engineer's primary goals is to reduce vehicle delay is being g/yen inadequate consideration. Engineering staff has consistently and carefully used euphemistic terms to attempt to remedy (4} abovr Howe~er, that do~s not change the fact that Commission is still making its decision on grounds contrary to the Policy. Morcover, fac~s *a:istwhich contradict sttqy's euphernistic rmionale; howevo', staff does not acknowledge or give any credence to those facta Some members ofEnginenring staffexhibited an awareness of the violation of policy explained in *he previous section. They. very carefi.dly avoid use of term "speed control", and inmend focus their rationale on "effec:~.ive assi_m~'nent of right of way". This is based on Council Policy. 478-03, pages 1 and 2: The purpose of a fully justified, properly installed all-way stop i~ ro effectively assign righi of way, mazgraln safely and reduce vehicle delay. Generally, alt-way stops are installed where traffic signals are warramed and/or an accident history has been indicated by reported accidents of a type suscepffDle to correction by an all-way stop~ ... A fully justi:fied, properly installed all-way stop can effectively assign fight of way, reduce vehicle delay, and decrease accidents. Generally, an all-way stop is r~erved for the use at the intersection of two through hi.ways, and only as an interim traffic corra'nl measure prior to si~m'~aliT~*io~.. Stop signs are aot to be used for speed control. Staffs dedication to the "effective assi_mu"nent of right of way" theory appears to be based more on political come.ness (avoiding *he sensitive term "speed oontroF). I base this conclusion on *he fa~ *ha reduction of vehicular delay, ~c m~mioned in the same semences of*he policy is not given equal consideration. that mention of fac',s supporting the conclusion thai there is no rig. hr of way or safety problem at La Senda appears to get no true consideration. 6) Of the four new Stop Signs co~ and approved for East "J' Street in the past six rnonthx, the subje~ intersection has the low~st traffic counts, lowest a~r4tl~tt courts, lctwest stated "preveJ~able ~. to be r.t~li~d frorn phzcornent of AII Way. Stop Signx perverse, l); although in prior years' coushttmztion of All ~"ay Stop Signs along East "J' StreW, La Senda hatl a ltm,er than average %oarrant score" no~, somehow, in ~ 999, it has been assigned the hight~ score (61) of an), intersection on all of East "J' Stre~ This result is contrary to common sens~ and se.e. ms to invite closer comparative ~,~nination of the reasonableness of the m~hod of~ning thal score: The Exhibits attached to ~ report indicate that the reason that the La Senda intersection has the highest score is due to non--comparable scoring (compared with intersections at Lori, Mekose, and Nation). Co.coted scoring, based on Engineering's method of scoring, would indicate that La Senda would not be the intersemion with the highest score· Fur*herraore, use of non-biased scoring (i.e. that eliminates Enginenring's apparent bias toward juaifyin. ' g installation of all-way stop si_mas), indicates that La Senda '4ay ~o~ - Ez~ "T' S:ree: and La Senda V.'av p:?_,.: -. have the LO~,T-ST score, a.nd not mee~ the minimum standard (35 ~)oims) ~ojustifi,' an exception and all-w'av s~o~ simms. N~rnelv. scores of La Senda. Lod Melrose. and'Nation would it" 1" ~ ..... ._4. _..-6. and respecuve, y. (S~ Exhibits for details) Engineering, Commission, and e~,en thc Cfly. Councll Policy appear to give little or no balanced consideration of the trade-offs of (1) safety and (2} right of the public to reasonably axpeditious transporf~ior~ l~ngineering reports state tlmt every intersection recently approved for Stop Signs on East "J' Street has accident rates lower or significantl, v lower than the state averaga Pi~r~hel~ss, the S~FEIT Commission feels compeJled to drop in multiple Stop Signs, including al La Sendt~ where there have been no sta~ed accidents in the past several years that would have been preveated by the presence of such Stop sign& This appears to represent an unreasonable infringement by the ~y on the peaceful enjoyment by citizens of the utilitp of the public stree~x It is not hard to imagine that well-intentioned citizens, sufficiently motivated to volunteer to man a Softy Commission. tnight have an unconscious bias toward making decisions unreasonably sk~,ed toward improving safety, despite qu~nionable cost-benefit tradc- off~ If the Cornmission cannot reaSonab~ maintain a balanced perspec~iv~ it is th~ reasonable prerogative &nd responsibility of the ~ty Council to act to assure reasonable and balanced msult~ Therefore. CID., Council consideration of the actions of the Safety Commission is considered reasonable. 8) R appears that a s)~ternatic, conch-tod effort has been und~tal~n by Engineering and Commission to modify traffic flow and speeds on East "J' Street and othtm Chy. s'lreeac This conco'ted effort is nm,er mentioned in any of the Engineering reports used toju.v~ify placement of All FP'~ Stop Signs, but has been apparent in the comments and exphm,,~_,,ns of Commission Chairman and Engineering ~ Reasons so significant would segm to be warranted forinalusion in reports, oth~rwis~ que~'tions could arise conc~-ning motives for ercJuddng such informatiora The comments of multiple members of Enginenring and the Commission indicate a long-[eama historical issue aborn East J Street. i2volviag speed corr~ol issues and the undesirable affects upon Chula 'vista ora State Ia,;,'. These sound Like significant issues, but are no~ mentioned ia the ret)orr. Efforts have apparently been ralren, including support of legislation to change the State law. These m2e also not mentioned ~u any rra/:fic en_~meering repor'~s. Non-disclosure of relevant ira'ormmlon deprives the pubi/c of awareness ofth~ e ';xJ~t. ence ap.d sta. ms of othea- alternatives to the requested all-way stop sigras, and therefore biases the ac,ions .~;~. be the ciri--enr), of ClruIa l"isla would prefer the Ci~. to more v~gorous~purxue efforts to amend Staze ta~; and less vigorous.iv instal! all-way slop signs. Or at least, th~. would be willing to wait longer before ms~aiiing more all-am.' sop signs. 9) CiO' Council Policy states several very strong re~z~ons for not installing Ail tVa,, Stop Sign.c It then provides for a numeric scoring s)wtern to justify exception& The ozcepti~nspolicy has ~ apparently been developed over the past two years speeifically in order to more eusilyjustify inszaIlation of All tVay Stop sig~ Since its effective rl~t, six months ago, a rash of new AH ~P'a.v Stop Signs have been approved alJ over towta Scoring rtu~Jugls used by Engineering under the exceptions policy appear to be liberail), and unreasonaMy skewed in favor of jus~i-~ing new Ail tVt~ Stop ~igns~ -at ~eas~ ~based ~n ~p-p~ ~f the La Senda in~e~e~:tion - report S~ co,'mmenrs under (5) above See Exhibks. ~,1: ',ga}' S~op - Ets; ".F' S~reet and La Senda 9. a~ P::u:' - .gissen~ing Repo,n ] O) .4 IternaXives to All I~by.' Stop Signs should be seriously cott~id~red Engineering commcnt~ raise doubts in my rrdnd tt~at all conventional alternatives or creative alternatives tttn,c been seriously considered Council Policy 478-03, page 3, indicates that alternatives should be considered and used before resorting w use o£all-way stop signs: "only if less restrictive controls have not corrected a documented problem." Discussions with Engineering staffand comments in public Safety Commission indicate an attitude that the public disregards speed limit signs and nothing but stop signs will be effc'~,ive. Comments in Safety Commission meeting indicate that speed problem may have gouen worst since the last traffic study (43MPH vs 39MPH). Other comments sLmultaneously indicate a possible reduction in police enforcement of the 35 M~PH speed limit. Which is worse: public or police disregard of the speed limit? I believe that enforcement affecu compliance. The country of Singapore is a world famous example. We probably don't have to lzo ~o the extremes of Singapore to improve compliance, but some degree of enforcement, apparently a greater degree, may be required. I'm not aware ora "Bike Route problem" on East J Street. Interestingly, there are twice as many Bike Route signs as speed limit si_mas on East J Street ia the vicinity of La Senda (fi.om Paseo Del Rey to Floyd). lfwe have a speed problem, perhaps more speed limit si~s could help. Engineering staff'ex'press concern about assuring right of way and safety of La Senda northbound traffic ~m'ning lei onto westbound East J Street. It is stated thai a curve with limited visibility, and excessive spuds pose a risk to that traffic. Intererdngly: (a) there have be, an no accidents in recent years (this attribtnabie in part to Engineering dept. palating the curb red in the past). (b) motorist view of a speed limit si_sm on the approach to this "dangerous curve" is obscured by tree branches thai have not been trirmned. (c) said speed limit sip is poorly placed (after the start of the curve), seriously limiting its usefulness in warning ongoing motorists to slow for the curve. (d) Suggestions for proactive si?~Ee changes to help the situation generate only "reasons why not" comments, and no apperent serious considermion of abemal~ves or creative measures. We have as many ".Neighborhood Watch" signs as Speed Limit si_m.s. If we can put up si_m~s to encoura.~_~e voluntary action to safeguard neighborhood crime sax'ety measures, maybe we need to put up "Speed Limit Watch" si_m~s.to nofiI~ motorists that residents object to motorist speeding_. Maybe prevention of additional ciW placement of stop si_mas could be motivation for better, voluntary motorist compliance with current sp~,~..d limit. Sounds v, n3d, but we could at least TRY SOMETt-IING OTHER THAN MORE .aNT) MORE STOP SIGNS. Hey, what about photo-enforcemem? What judge wou~d want to throw out tickets if we only ltave them to vehicl~ documented as travelling over two standard deviations above the speed limit? Photo)r~dar enfor, c. ement targeted at the ~op fi.ge perceat of speeding vehJ¢tes would probably make a huge dent in speenmg. I k,'now the t~hnolo~, exists; it may have drawbacks, but maybe it should be considered. ! Le'.'~ consider alternatives to Stop Si_~s. 11) Recent installation of new Stop Signs'a~ Am:ion -and Melrbse has Mf~idy'saartgd c~t,~ng- ..... z, ii Way S:op - Ea~ ,-.r' StrteI and La Senna '4ay D~ssenung Re?on .4.~ peak traffic limes, trar"fic can be observed on East "J Stree~ hacking up 10-20 vehinies deco al Nacion On the ,firs! re, al day of egect o£the new Melrose All 'Way Slop Si~s. wezbound trar'~c on ~-~.st J Stree! hacked up from Melrose all the way to Nacion, and past Na¢ion to HaJecrest £1ementarv School. deiays of up !o five minutes. These are adverse consequences CAUSED by A/I Way Stgp Si~s on Eas~J Street. Let's stop our hasty placement of Ail Way Stop Signs on E~t "J~ Street. Let's take more time to plan observe results, before acting further now, in hasle Or, we could go ahead. Maybe, in that case, we need to request the placement of Stop LIGHTS at Naoion and Melrose. What would those cost? 5;100,000 or more, apiece? Quite a difference from the "few hundred dollars" cost estimate for All Way Stop Signs. See Exhibits in sepm'ate document attached. -L? \:~av S~o[, - Eas: "£' Stree: and La Senna u,'~x : ..... Exhibits ~o Dissemin~ Report Exhibits: ] Tr~c Volumes I ] Summ~ ].2 Comp~tive - T~c at ~ch intersection as Percent of To~ at ~ch intersection 1.3 Comp~tive - T~c at ~ch inters~ion as Percent of Total at busiest intersemion 14 Histo~ of MI-Way Stop Signs on E~t "Y' Str~ 2 All-Wav Stop Point Svmem Crit~ia 2.~ Ofi~n~ 2 3 Adjumed, Comp~able 3 Hourly Ira~c Volume ~ysis 3.1 ~n~, Come.ed 3.2 Adjured, Comp~able 4 Tr~c Obs~afions g ] D~mber 27, 1999 -.~ Nov~ber 19, 1999 Inte~rmmion of E~ibits: 2 ) E~bit I. ] indi~t~ ~at To~ T~c at La S~ ~d ~t J is tow~ of ~y int~e~on. 2~ Ex~blzs ! .2, L3 indi~es ~at Non~Sou~bound ~c at La Sen~ is low~ of~y inte~e~Jon. 3) E~bit 1.4 shows hi~o~ of~l-Way Stop Signs on Ea~ 'T' S~ indicting t~ a long period of no .Mt-Way Stop Si~ in place, fo~owed by a r~t fl~. ~) E~bit 2.1 shows ~l-Way St~ ~int s~r~ ~ ofi~n~ly pubfish~ by Ending dept, which app~ to ~dicme ~ La S~ ~ ~e~ (wo~) ~re of~y int~ion 5) ~bit 2.2 shows ~l-Way Stop po~t ~s ~ Mju~ to ~e ~r~ for Loft ~e ~mp~ble to ~ Sm~ scofi~ (co~on ~i~tM in bold and unded~). S~ ~bit 3.1 for d~l. 6) E~bit 23 shows .M1-Way Stop point scores ~ Mj~M to more r~ de~ of appli~bil~ of ~ch ~t~ ~ ~ ~tl a~d ofpoinu for ~x~ ~ or o~ questionable ~a ~1~ e~l~fion ofrafionfle far ~ch Mju~ score is ~. 7) E~bit 3. I sho~ de~ls of ~ion of Ending dept. ~r~ for ~fi L~e. ~ ~ E~ibk 3.2 shows d~ of ~iu~ed T~c Vol~es points ~d ~es ~o~e. ~s supports ,he relat~ ~ent m ~b~t 2.~. 9) E~bk 4 shows mmm~ of ind~ndent field obse~atio~ ~ ~ S~ ~d ~ "Y' Str~ ~ax con~ ~fing dep~ ~d~0n of~out6~O School", ~d ~ ~ Turn ~0m La S~ to w~bo~d ~ J S~ ~ ~ "~i~ent ofd~ ~y ~d s~ problem requiting melioration.' Conclusions me ~ed in ~t reg.& ~d ~ rapport of~e relm~ w~ent in E~bit 2.3. Conclusions: ] ) ~ven ~e fl~ of.~l-Way Stop Si~s rec~fiy placed on E~ "Y' S~ ~d h~t~ time to rime to ev~e ~e eff~iveness ~&'or adverse impa~s of those new Stop Si~, plammem of ~o~ Stop Si~ m ~s time is premature ~d ~e~. 2) : Of~e ~t~ons on ~ "Y' S~ re~ntly ~idered for ~l-Way Stop Si~, ~e int~ection at ~ S~ ~d ~ J S~ is ~e ~t~s~on ~at ~AST ~B placement of~ ~l-Way Stop Si~ Fo~n~ely, due to ~id~fion offs ~p~, ~evo~le ~on ~ not y~ b~n ~ ~-~d ~e is ~ op~ ~o c~ge the-ofi~n~ decisiom 3) S~eD' Co~ission d~ision of November l 1, 1999 (to pla~ ~l-Way Stop Signs at ~ S~da ~d E~t "~ S~r) should be r~ersed by City Council. ~h~m'ise, ~s isle ~ be sent back to the SafeD' Co~mission for r~valuation in view of the infomafion in t~s do~menL ~Wor other favors tk~ have b~n identified since November 11 -'.]i \Va'~ Stop - Ea~ ".F' S~reet and La Senda Wa'~ Pa'_.e E,:kibits Io Dissenting Report Exhibit ] - Tragic Volumes: Exhibit ] t - Summa.D' } La Senda & E.J. [ Loft & E.J. [ Melrose & E.J. {Nacion & E.J East bound ] 2673 I 2677 [ 3769 [ 3742 West bound { 2625 [ 2559 I 3222 t 3222 North bound [ 478 I 732 [ 323 [ 1798 Somh bound I [ ] 458 I Total [ 5776 5968 I 7772 I 8762 Source: t SC 1 I/17/99 #7 SC 9/9/99 #6 I SC 1/13/00 #8 [ SC 10/14/99 #7 SC = Traffic Engineering Report in for Indicated Safety Committee Meeting Date and Agenda hem# Exhibit 1.2 - Comparative - Traffic at each intersection as Percent of Total at each intersection ', [ La Senda & E.J. I Lori & EJ. Melrose & E.J. Nacion& i East bound ! 46% [ 45% 48% 43% } West bound [ 45% { 43% 41% 37% ', North bound ; 8% I 12% 4% 21% I South bound ] { 6% i Total ~t 100% [ I00% 100% 100% Exhibit 1.3 - Comparative - Traffic at each intersection as Percent of Total at busiest interse~ion La Senda & E.J. Loft & E.J. Melrose & E.J. I East bound 31% 31% 43% West bound 30% 29% 37% North bound 5% 8 South bound Torzl 66% 68% 89% I 100% Exhibit 1.4 -Histo~ of Ail-Way Stop Signs on East ,j., Street Intersection Date Placed E~x "Y' Street & FLOYD "Ten Yea.rs A~,o" Ea~ "Y' Street & LORI LANT - O~ober 1999 (rhree Momhs A~zo~ Eas/' "J" Sweet & NACION - December 1999 (One Month A~o) Ea~ -.r' Street & MEI.ROSE January 2000 (Two Days A~,o) _. East "J" Street & LA SEN-DA Under :~ppeal ':: Wa', Slop - Ea~ '-.F' S;reet an~ La Sen,da ~,'a~ :~-, ... : £xmbns ~o Dissen:ing Report £xhJbh 2 ] - Alt-Way Stop Point System Criteria - Original La Senda & E.J. Loft & E.J. Melrose & EJ. I Nacion& £ J Accident Warrant 0 5 5 ] 0 Unusual Condition Adjacent to School, etc. Curves. sic, hr dist. 7 7 Intersection from collector to armrial Steep grades 7 Route to School 7 7 7 7 I High Approach 7 7 7 Soeed Pedestrian Volume 4 4 4 4 Traffic Volume 24 12 24 24 Traffic Vol. Diff. 2 _5 1 5 "Bonus" 10 10 0 Total 61 55 55 50 Exhibit 2.2 - .~il-Way Stop Point System Criteria - Corremed La Senda & E.J. Lori & E.J. Melrose & E.J. Nacion& E.J Accidents 6 years 1 yr ('95) 1 yr ('98) I ~. ('97) (vrs/ffcorrectible) 0 acc. 1 acc. 1 acc. 2 acc. Accident Warrant 0 5 5 10 Unusual Condition Adjacent to SchooL etc. Curves, sight dist. 7 7 Intersection from collector ~o ar[erial St~p ~ades Route to SchooI 7 7 7 7 F!i_~h .approach 7 7 7 _? Sp~d , Pedestrian Volume 5 Ur&_ 8 Unk. (1-19: 4 poirF~s) 4 4 4 4 85Percentile Sp~'d 39 38 38 37.5 TmJShc Volume 24 24 24 24 T~c Vol. Diff 2 3 ] 5 "Bonus" 10 l0 Total 61 67 55 57 A'.i Way Slop - Ea~ "J- Strut and La Senda Way Y~'z'e:' z Exb. ibns to Dissenting Report Exhibi! 23 - Att-Way Stop Point System C,'-imria - Adjusted. Comparable La Senda & E.J. Lori & E.J Melrose & E.J Nacion& EJ A~iden~ 6 years I )T ('95) Iyr ('95) lyf. ('97) (~'#correctible) 0 acc. I acc. 1 acc 2 acc. Accident Warrant 0 5 5 l 0 Unusual Conditions: (~ max. 7 poim~) Adjacent to School, etc. Curves, si~t di~t. 3 4 Intersection from collector to arterial Steep grades 7 Route to School 0 2 ,1 4 High Approach 4_ 3 _3 3_ Soe~i (max 7poims) Pedestrian Volume 5 Unk. 8 Unk. (I-19 = 4 points) 1 _1 2 / 1 85Percentile Sp~'d 39 38 38 ! 37.5 Traffic Volume 14 14 24 ] 24 Traffic Vol. Difi5 2 3 I i 5 "Bonus" 0 0 j Total 24 32 46 i 47 Points to warrant 35 35 35 , 35 All Way Stop Si_mqs Basis for afljustmen'3 Unusual conditions: Curves -Number ofpoims assigped subjectively based on perceived seriousness of unusual condition Route to SChool - Number of points assi_maed subjectively based on perceived seriousness of unusual condition: La Senda has no school-related pedestrians crossing, others have low crossing volume, or alternaxfi safe-crossing points nearby. ltigh Approach Speed -Number of points assigned subjectively based on de~ee of speed in excess of speed limit. Pedestrian Volume - Number of points assi_maed approx, prom based on traffic volume Traffic Volume - Number of poims assi_maed as indicated by Exhibit 3.2 Bonus - Eliminate "Case 3 bonus poims" auxibutable to '~pa.mllel arterial kighway thru can be used as an altem, afire rome" (presumably referring_ to East "H" S=eet and Telegraph Canyon Road). 5~ak~ scores for La S~nda and Lori Lane more comparable to scores for Nacion and Melrose..Alternate major surface routes are not equally serviceable routes for local traffic ori~nating in the ~a~ J, La Senda, Loft Lane area. ~.ii Way S~op - Earn "J" Stree~, and La Senda Wax Pau-: ~ Exb. iN:s to Dissenting Repot, Exhibit 3.1 - Hourly Traffic Volume Analysis - Original. Co~=-qed La Senda & EJ Loft 8: E.J Melrose & E.J Nation & EJ Accidems 6 years 1 .vt ('95) Iyr ('gs) 1 yr. ('97) (vr.s/~correctible'l 0 acc. I acc 1 acc. ~" acc. 0600 55 59 90 89 0700 240 158 308 358 - 0800 488 3 496 0 3 688 3 902 3 - 0900 398 3 333 488 - 588 -- ]000 266 305 422 - 495 - IlO0 304 339 457 - 556 -- 1200 381 3 379 - 517 -- 545 -- I300 367 - 500 3 68l 3 767 3 1400 330 421 0 3 534 3 624 3 1500 461 3 487 0 __3 517 3 592 3 ~ 1600 595 3 520 3 640 3 672 3 1700 568 3 508 3 664 3 733 3 ,1800 626 3 616 3 740 3 758 3 t900 424 3 470 0 _3 564 3 577 3 2000 273 377 -.6_ 506 - Total 5776 24 5968 12 24 7772 24 8762 24 ComDarazive 66% 100 68% 50 1001 89% 100 100% 100 Exhibit 3.2 -Hourlv Traffic Volume Analvsis- Adjusted. Comparable La Senda & E.J. Lori & E.J. Meh-ose & E.J. Na¢ion & Accidents 6 years 1 yr ('95) 1 yr ('98) 1 y'r. ('97) (ws/~Jcorrec'tible) 0 acc. 1 acc. 1 acc. 2 acc. 0600 55 59 90 89 0700 240 158 308 358 0800 488 1 496 1 688 3 902 3 0900 398 1 333 488 - 588 -- I000 266 305 422 - 495 - llO0 304 339 457 - 556 -- 1200 381 I 379 - 5t7 3 545 -- !300 367 - 500 I 681 3 767 3 1400 330 421 I 534 3 624 3 t500 461 1 487 1 517 - 592 3 1600 595 3 520 3 640 3 672 3 1700 568 3 508 3 664 3 733 3 ' 1800 626 3 616 3 740 3 758 3 I900 424 1 470 I 564 3 577 3 2000 273 377 - 462 - 506 -- Total 5776 1..,~4 : 5968 ~ 7772 24 8762 24 Comoarative 66% 58 68% 58 89% 100 100% 100 350-500 = 1 ' 500- = 3 minx 8*3=24 ' - Based on observations in Exhibit 4.1, as$ig_nment of full points for "70% vehimalar.volume warrant £amor =affic volume" is considered unwarranted based on ~.c~ that no appreciable problem Mth "waiting tame". "assi~mament of right of way". or sax*etv was observed for trat=fic in ii'mt volume range. Instead, when 8? percentile speed ex'.ds 351viPi-L awar{~ I point per hour instead ofthr~ points per Tour in the range 350-500 veh/cles per, hour (i.e. 70-10CY% levels). :.ii '¢. av S'[o? - Ear,, 'T' Stret: aaa La Senda Way Ex:,ib;:s lo Diss~n:ing R~pon ExhibJl 4 - Traffic Exhibit 4 1 - Monday December 27, 1999, 5pm-6pm Number Per Hour % of Turning % of Total Waiting (# Cars) Average \Vai~ (Seconds) Turning: La Senda North 2 3% <1% 0 0 To EJ. West La Senda North 35 56% To EJ. East East J East to 5 o, 8 ..'* 1% 0 0 La Senda South East J West to 20 32% 5% 8 2 La 5enda South Sub-Total 62 l 0(~/; 15°,/0 19 < 2 seconds Su-a/¢ht: ', East J. West 143 ~-~ .,o 0 0 East J. East 206 50% 0 0 Sub-Total r 349 85% 0 0 Tom] I 411 ] 00% 19 Seventeen vedestrians were observed Only one crossed East J St. at La Senda. Three crossed La Senda. Exifibk 4.2 - Friday November 19, I999, Sam-9am Number Per Hour La Senda North 10 To E.J. West La Senda North ] 6 To E.J. East. East J East to 6 La Senda South La Senda South Sub-Total 40 Four pedestrians were observed. None crossed East J S=eet at La Senda. Two adults crossed La Senda. Only two elementary, school students were observed during this hour (prime rime for any child pedestrian "route to school" traffic); neither crossed either .East J Stre~ or La Senda. Conclusions: 'Ur/ERE IS NO PEDESTRJ_~,N "'ROUTE TO SCHOOL" TILMrFIC II THIS LN IgKSECTiON. There is very little cross- East "I" Street pedestrian traffic at peak evening hour either. There is no need to place .~!l-Way Stop Signs at La Senda to aid pedestrian traffic. Such All-Way Stop Si_m~s would only inconvenience the 85% of traffic fiat does not use La Senda, and benefit less than 1% of the motorists using the inters~'~--tion Cliff Swanson From: Allan Walker [awalker@king.cts.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2000 3:53 PM To: cswanson@ci.chula-vista.ca.us; drowlands@ci.chula-vista.ca.us; jmoot@ci.chula-vista.ca.us; spadilla@ci.chula-vista.ca.us; pdavis@ci.chula-vista.ca.us; msalas@ci.chula-vista.ca.us Subject: All-way stop signs on E. J Street To: City Council Members, City Engineer, City Manager 1. I recently attended last Thursday's meeting of the Safety Commission concerning the installation of another all-way stop sign on E. J Street. This one was proposed at the intersection of La Senda Way and E. J Street, which is one block west of where I live at 887 Entrada Place. 2. I was disappointed in the outcome of the meeting. While it appears that the engineering staff has studied the situation in detail, (although the adequacy and appropriateness of their observation time frames was questioned by one speaker), even by their criteria, the "point count" is dramatically down from the prior hearing and barely supports the installation of the signs. Nevertheless, the motion to install the new signs was carried without a dissenting vote. 3. I would like to make'the following observations for your consideration: A. Most testimonies presented, including that from citizens in favor of the added signs, the police dept. and a portion of the'engineering report, focused on concerns with excessive speeds along East J. However, by the admission of one commission member AND as stated in City Council Policy 478- 03 "Stop signs are not to be used for speed control" and as further quoted in CCP 478-03 per Federal and State traffic control guidelines all-way stop installations "...should not be used as devices to control speed....". I would suggest that we consider employing other means to reduce speeds - including more aggressive enforcement, and perhaps photo radar. I have no objection at all to the 35 MPH posted limit, which I adhere to rigorously, and I travel this street several times each day. It is, of course, the only way out of where I live! B. Note that, contrary to the Safety Commission's agenda statement of 3/9/00, Mr. Woodrich's original letter of 8/2/99 to the City Council (as included with the agenda statement packet) did NOT request the installation of an all-way stop at La Senda, but only makes reference to excessive speeds and requests that action be taken for greater police enforcement in the area. It would appear that someone in our government organization considers all-way stops to be the item of choice for speed control, in direct opposition to the stated City Council Policy as referenced in the preceeding paragraph. C. Of particular interest, were the speed problem addressed, the proposed installation at La Senda would likely NOT meet the established point criteria as (1) 7 points under "Unusual Conditions 6" would not be awarded, and (2) the "traffic volume" points would be reduced to 4 rather than 8 due to considering only those hours with more than 500 vehicles/hour rather than 70% of 500 as in the present report. D. Although the "Notice of Proposed Stop Sign" reader boards were posted at this intersection for about a week prior to the meeting, when I attempted to call the telephone number posted on the sign (as I recall, 691-5026) a couple of days prior to the meeting during normal business hours, the number was not answered. E. In the last 6 months we have added 3 new all-way stops (Lori, Nacion, Melrose) in addition to the pre-existing one at Floyd in a less than one mile stretch of road beginning with Lori barely 1/3 mile west of the proposed all-way stop at La Senda. We are thus changing the nature of East J. from an arterial "collector" street to one that requires coming to a stop every few blocks for little apparent reason, due to the very Iow ratio of side traffic at any of the new or proposed all-way stop locations, except perhaps for Lori. Not only does this cause some minor additional delays and irritation, but it increase both gasoline consumption and air pollution due to the need to brake to a stop and accelerate again. F. The Safety Commission states that it does not develop it's own lists of intersections to be studied, but reacts only to citizen requests. I would suggest that perhaps we have been over-eager to install new all-way stops in response to the receipt of a few isolated citizen requests. Rather, I would encourage that we review the situation as a whole, considering several miles of East J, doing a more comprehensive review of the speed problem and developing an overall solution, rather than sticking all-way stops in every few blocks. G. One of the citizens speaking at the meeting last Thursday stated essentially that "even us on East J have a right to a stop sign too". I would suggest that when the residents along East. J purchased their homes it was obviously a thru-route arterial collector street. I, instead, chose to live on a dead-end side street so that I would not have the traffic volume in front of my house. While I support safety concerns, I don't think that adding all-way stops to change the nature of the ONLY major collector road in the vicinity is the correct answer. H. Despite the engineering diagrams, measurements and analysis and the supposed emphasis on safety, the facts remain that no accidents that would be avoided by a stop sign have occured at this intersection, and while being on the "Suggested Route To School" one of the observers reported at the meeting that no school children were observed crossing through the intersection. I pass through this intersection regularly, both moving along E. J and when coming up La Senda from the shopping center on Telegraph Canyon Rd. The difficulty in getting from La Senda onto E. J is no more than when exiting from my own street (Entrada Place, one block East) onto E. J. The conditions are very similar, except for the slight curvature of E. J. The traffic is rarely so heavy on E. J that I need to wait for more than a few seconds, and I have never experienced any concern about being able to get onto E. J, or around the corner from E. J onto La Senda due to the speed of oncoming "hidden" cars beyond the clear line of sight. The issue here is not "safety" from the point of view of hazards at the intersection. As stated by Mr. Woodrich in his letter of 2 August, his concern is speeding along E. J and the difficulty in backing out of his driveway. I. The turnout of citizens at the recent meeting was very meager, as was the number of phone calls tallied by the engineer's office. While the latter may be due in part to no answer on the phone number on the signs as I mentioned earlier, I suspect that in today's world there are just too many other time demands to expect detailed input from any but the most agitated citizens on any given issue if they have to call during office hours or drive to an evening meeting. Might I suggest that rather than just sending out a postcard advising that "A matter that may concern you will be considered at the meeting .... ", if you really want citizen input, you might formulate a one page questionnaire and send it out. I would hope that the response would be more substantial. Additionally, you might consider a larger coverage area. While I must regularly go through the Lori Lane intersection a couple of times per day in order to travel to/from the west of my house (such as when accessing 1-805), we did not receive a postal notification of the meetings in connection with the proposal of it's all-way stop installation last Fall. Please share my comments with Mr. Liken, Chair of the Safety Commission. I was unable to locate an e-mail address for the Commission on your web site. I appreciate your attention to my concerns. Sincerely, Allan W. Walker 887 Entrada Place Chula Vista CONSENT CALENDAR (Continued) 6. REPORT DENYING THE APPEAL OF AN ALL-WAY STOP AT THE INTERSECTION OF EAST J STREET AND LASENDA WAY (CONTINUED FROM 1/18/2000) This report was generated as the result of a request by Mayor Horton for a report to Council after a request to appeal was made by David Krogh, a member of the public, under oral communications at the Council meeting of Tuesday, December 7, 1999. Based on the provisions of the Safety Commission Policy, adopted by resolution of the City Council on March 14, 1995, whenever the Safety Commission and the City Engineer concur on the implementation of a traffic safety improvement, the resolution of the issue ~s considered final unless appealed by a member of the Council within 10 days of the decision of the Safety Commission. The Safety Commission decision was reached at its meeting of Thursday, November 11, 1999. Staff recommendation: Council accept staff s report and direct staff to proceed with said installation. (Director of Public Works) Motion to refer the item back to the Safety Commission for further consideration (5-0). 7. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AMENDING THE FY I999-00 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP) BUDGET TO A) ADD THE DISCOVERY PARK SNACK BAR CONSTRUCTION PROJECT (PR 230), AND APPROPRIATE $45,000 THEREFOR FROM RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION TAX FUNDS; B) APPROPRIATE $77,200 OF STATE GRANT FUNDS TO THE PARKWAY POOL RESURFACING/RELAMPING PROJECT (PR 223), AND REDUCE THE PARK ACQUISITION AND DEVELOPMENT (PAD) FUNDS BY $69,700; C) APPROPRIATE $15,000 OF UNAPPROPRIATED AND UNALLOCATED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBC;) FUNDS TO ADA MODIFICATIONS PROJECT (GG144) FOR THE YMCA FACILITY ON FOURTH AVENUE; D) APPROPRIATE $1,000 OF UNAPPROPRIATED AND UNALLOCATED CDBG FUNDS TO SIDEWALK REHABILITATION, PHASE IV PROJECT (STL203); E) APPROPRIATE $2,000 OF UNAPPROPRIATED AND UNALLOCATED CDBG FUNDS TO DOWNTOWN STREET LIGHTING, PHASE II (RD226); F) APPROPRIATE $4,510.23 FROM TRUNK SEWER CAPITAL RESERVE TO THE "C" STREET SEWER EXTENSION PROJECT (SW213); AND G) APPROPRIATE $12,432.67 FROM THE SEWER FACILITY REPLACEMENT FUND TO THE SEWER MAIN INSTALLATION - SHIRLEY STREET PROJECT (SW217) (4/STH'S VOTE REQUIRED) Staff is proposing various clean-up items for a number of CIP projects, as well as proposing a new CIP project. These proposals involve amending the approved 1999-00 CIP budget, as well as appropriating funds from various funding sources. Staffrecommendation: Council adopt the resolution. (Assistant City Manager Morris) Resolution No. 2000-025 was adopted (5-0). Page 3 - Council Action Agenda 01/25/2000 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CHULA VISTA SAFETY COMMISSION Thursday, November 11, 1999 Council Chambers 7:04 p.m. Public Services Buildin0 CALL TO ORDER 1. Roll Call: Present: Chair Liken; Vice Chair McAlister; Commissioners, Gove, Lopez, and White Absent: Commissioners Acton and Cochrane Also present: Ralph Leyva, Sr. Civil Engineer; Majed AI-Ghafry, Civil Engineer; Sgt. Treul, Traffic Bureau; and Florence Picardal, Recording Secretary MSC (Liken/McAlister) to excuse the absences of Commissioners Acton and Cochrane (5-0-2-0) 2. Pledge of Allegiance/Silent Prayer 3. Opening Statement - Opening statement was read by Chair Liken. 4. Approval of Minutes There were no minutes to approve. MEETING AGENDA Chair Liken stated there were a number of requests to speak for Items 6, 7, and 8. Item 7 was taken out of order (time sensitive for a public speaker). 7. Report on request for all-way stop at East "J" and La Senda Mr. AI-Ghafry presented staff report and slide show. Staff recommendation: That the Safety Commission recommend the installation of an ail-way stop on East "J" Street at La Senda Way. Public hearing opened. David Krogh, 717 East "J" Street, Chula Vista, CA 91910 - Mr. Krogh spoke in opposition to staff's recommendation. Mr. Krogh stated that compelling safety interests should be used as a criteria for installation of all-way stops and he felt that one accident in five years did not seem "compelling". He felt with several thousand vehicles driving through that intersection and to bring those vehicles to a complete stop is a great inconvenience. He stated that an all-way stop here and at Lori Lane are an undue restriction of people's "right to transit" and urged the Commission to not hastily install the stop signs. He stated traffic is "pretty fast" and with the curve there is a rise in the roadway, but he feels that it is safe. He feels that it was a great convenience to live on East "J" Street and be able to travel down to Hilltop, once upon a time, without stop signs at all. He feels that an all-way stop at this location is not warranted and once again urged the Commission to not install the stop signs. Jean Oowan, 383 Nova Place, Chula Vista, CA 91910 - Ms. Cowan spoke in opposition to staff's recommendation. Ms. Cowan agreed with Mr. Krogh's comments and stated it was "ludicrous" to put up so UNOFFICIAL MINUTES Safety Commission Minutes November 11, 1999 Page 2 many stop signs. She stated there were no reasons for so many signs and perhaps a little more police enforcement between 4:00 and 6:00 is required. Chair Liken stated that a phone call was received from Ms. Marion Bisheimer, 662 East ~J" Street, Chula Vista, CA. She stated she was unable to attend tonight's meeting, but was in favor of staff's recommendation. Chair Liken asked Mr. Leyva to give a brief explanation of the Ali-Way Stop Policy. Mr. Leyva stated that it has taken 18 months to develop the Revised Ail-Way Stop Policy. The old policy had a maximum number of points of 54 and required 30 points to justify an all-way stop. There were many cases when City staff and the Safety Commission disagreed regarding installation of all-way stops. Many intersections didn't have enough points for installation of an all-way stop, so staff would recommend against the installation. Consequently, the City Council received many appeals on these recommendations. Council gave City staff instructions to look at the Ali-Way Stop Policy and develop a more comprehensive and responsive policy to the factors that go into putting in an all-way stop. In the Revised Policy, total number of points went up from 54 to 100 points; the number of points required to justify the all-way stop went from 30 to 35 points. Since that time, staff has received many requests for all-way stops and all of them have been up in the 40s, 50s, and 60s for number of points. Mr. Leyva stated that in his past experience all-way stops in neighborhoods will generally divide the neighborhood. Half will support and the other half will oppose the all-way stop. All-way stops provide a safer area and a controlled location for pedestrians to cross. In this particular case, there were two written requests in favor of the stop and two who spoke against. Chair Liken asked if staff received any calls on this item. Mr. AI-Ghafry stated that six calls were received, four in favor and 2 against. Chair Liken stated that western Chula Vista is laid out in a grid system. The streets are laid out in approximately ¼ mile intervals. Most of the minor streets (2 lane) have stop signs installed at the intersections. Over the years, signals were placed on the major arterials [n order to control traffic movement. As development started moving eastward, the grid systems were not being used and streets such as East"J" Street at one time ran from Hilltop to Paseo Del Rey with no stops. With the expansion towards the east, traffic congestion developed on East "H" Street and Telegraph Canyon Road. Motorists started using residential streets as shortcuts to avoid construction hold-ups and traffic congestion. Eventually residents started complaining about traffic and speeding. Over the last 2-1/2 years there have been many requests for stop signs. Stop signs were requested for East "J" and Lori Lane three separate times. After the third request, the stops were finally recommended (with new Revised Ali-Way Stop Policy) Chair Liken stated that City staff has not kept up with the growth of the City. There are the same number of motorcycle officers as 10 years ago and the City has grown quite a bit. He stated that he believes the Safety Commission tries to give the residents some kind of relief for the concern of speed problems in their neighborhoods. Years ago, Council stated that stop signs were not to be used as speed control devices. Studies were done before and after stops signs were installed, and by and large stop signs show a positive effect in decreasing speeds. Commissioner Gove stated that the letter dated August 2, 1999, from Mr. Woodrich asked for more police enforcement of East "J" Street and La Senda. She stated she would like to table this item and see if the stop sign at Lori Lane and East "J" Street (which was installed October 6) doesn't alleviate some of the speeding problems. She asked Sgt. Treul if there has been additional enforcement at East "J" and La Senda since August 2n~. Sgt. Treul stated that East "J" was patrolled on East "J" between Paseo Del Rey and Nacion on three different occasions and are actively working that location and will continue to do so. Commissioner Gove asked Sgt. Treul if there has been any improvement (more or less tickets written) with the added stop at Lori Lane. Sgt. Treul responded he would check on the figures. Commissioner White stated that on his way to tonight's meeting, he traveled via La Senda Way and made a left on East "J" and found it rather imposing. He stated that on East "J", drivers tend to go faster than the speed limit. He asked if it would be possible to revisit Lori Lane if the La Senda intersection passes. UNOFFICIAL MINUTES Safety Commission Minutes November 11, 1999 Page Chair Liken stated that anytime a measure has been implemented, it can be revisited by a request from a resident or commissioner, in the past, staff has stated that once a control device goes in, it is very likely staff would come back with a recommendation against removing a control device because of safety reasons. To his knowledge, he did not believe there was ever a stop sign placed and removed without a greater measure going in such as a signal. Commissioner White stated he found the left turn at La Senda more imposing than the one at Lori Lane. He stated that the housing development east of Paseo Del Rey is going very strongly and westbound traffic on East "J" would be increased. Commissioner McAlister stated he also looks for alternative ways to get to 1-805. He has traveled on East "J" Street and finds that most speed violators are not residents of the "J" Street area. He stated that having stop signs would help mitigate the speeding. There are "s" curves and rises in the road on East "J" between Lori Lane and Paseo Del Rey that restrict the views off of Lori Lane and La Senda. Because of the combination of restricted views and increased speed in those areas, he is in favor of an all-way stop. Chair Liken asked staff to go back to slide #24 and #25. He noted there was a sight distance problem pulling out to East "J" Street. He asked staff if the 100-vehicle radar counts (which shows ranges of speed) are still being conducted and are speed surveys only being used. Mr. Al-Ghafry stated that only speed surveys are used if the speed survey is current. If the speed survey is not current, special counts are taken. Chair Liken stated that radar counts are valuable tools. Mr. Leyva stated that the speed survey shows a range of speeds. The range of speed is from 53 mph to 27 mph between La Senda and Paseo Del Rey. The section between Cassia Place and La Senda is 46 mph to 24 mph. Chair Liken stated that the "s" curves and horizontal raises affect the sight distance significantly. He stated he sees a safety problem at this intersection. He stated that if this intersection is not controlled, there is a .7-mile spacing between Paseo Del Rey and Lori Lane. If speed control is to be done on East "J" Street, making it safe for residents to get in and out, traffic controls spaced closer would be more effective. He is in favor of all- way stops at La Senda. In response to Commissioner Gove's comment regarding Mr. Woodrich's letter, Mr. Leyva stated staff also received several communications from Mr. Woodrich, as recently as two days ago, and he did request the all- way stop. Mr. Al-Ghafry stated that Mr. Woodrich was out of town and could not attend tonight's meeting. Chair Liken asked the height of the retaining wall at La Senda and East "J" Street. Mr. Al-Ghafry stated it was approximately 40 inches from the pavement. MSC (Liken/McAlister) to accept staff report and recommend the installation of an all-way stop at East "J" Street and La Senda Way. (4-1-2-0, Gove voting no; Cochrane and Acton absent) 6. Report on the request for all-way stop at Norella Street and rancho Del Rey Parkway Mr. Al-Ghafry presented staff report and slide show. Staff recommendation: That the Safety Commission accept this report and recommend installation of an all- way stop control on Rancho Del Rey Parkway at Norella Street. Chair Liken asked about pedestrian counts and if school was in session. Mr. Al-Ghafry stated that the majority of the pedestrians were utilizing the park. A member of the audience stated that the school was in session at the time the counts were taken. Commissioner McAlister asked about crosswalks in the vicinity. Mr. Al- Ghafry stated that particular stretch of roadway has no controlled crosswalks. Chair Liken asked if crosswalks UNOFFICIAL MINUTES MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CHULA VISTA SAFETY COMMISSION March 9, 2000 Council Chambers 6:30 p.m. Public Services Buildin~l CALL TO ORDER 1. Roll Call: Present: Chair Liken; Vice Chair McAlister; Commissioners, Acton (arrived at 7:00 p.m.), Cochrane, Gore, Lopez, and White Absent: None Also present: Ralph Leyva, Sr. Civil Engineer; Majed AI-Ghafry, Civil Engineer; Sgt. Treul, Traffic Bureau; and Florence Picardal, Recording Secretary Meeting was called to order at 6:38 p.m. 2. Pledqe of Alleqiance/Silent Prayer 3. Openinq Statement - Opening statement was read by Chair Liken. 4. Approval of Minutes of November 11~ 1999 MSC (Liken/Gove) to accept minutes with correction (adding speaker under Oral Communications - Pat McCarragher- spoke regarding speeding problem on East "J" Street and requested police enfomement. Item was referred to Sgt. Treul) (5-0-2, Acton and Cochrane abstain) 5. Oral Communications - None MEETING AGENDA 6. Report on request for all-way stop re-evaluation at East "J" Street and La Senda Way Mr. Ai-Ghafry presented staff report and slide show. Mr. AI-Ghafry stated seven calls were received, 5 in favor, 2 against. Chair Liken asked about staff's recommendation on the Council report. Mr. AI-Ghafry stated that the recommendation in the Council report concurred with the Safety Commission recommendation to install the all-way stop. Chair Liken asked about the expiration of time on the appeal and appeal process. Mr. AI-Ghafry stated that the appeal time had expired, but the appeal was granted. Chair Liken asked for clarification on the differences between the 11/11/99 and 3/9/00 Safety Commission reports. Mr. AI-Ghafry responded that instead of 61 total points, it is now 44 points; 24 points for traffic based on total intersection volume were previously assigned, it is now 8 points. Chair Liken asked staff if any residents who spoke at the public hearing have changed their positions. Mr. AI-Ghafry responded that there were no responses. A letter in favor of staff's recommendation was received from Earl Pressen, 893 Bien Tiempo Drive, Chula Vista. Chair Liken read the letter into record. Staff recommendation: That the Safety Commission. recommend the installation of an all-way stop on East "J" Street at La Senda Way. Public hearing opened. The following persons spoke in support of staff's recommendation: Patrick McCarragher, 703 East "J" Street Chula Vista, CA Leroy Johnson, 698 East "J" Street, Chula Vista, CA Lloyd Heycht, 660 East "J" Street, Chula Vista, CA UNOFFICIAL MINUTES Safety Commission Minutes March 9, 2000 Page 2 The following persons spoke in opposition of staff's recommendation: David Krogh, 712 East "J" Street, Chula Vista, CA Tom Latsco, 1124 Del Rio Ct., Chula Vista, CA Public hearing closed. Commissioner Gove voted against staff's recommendation on 11/11/99. At this time, Commissioner Gove stated she is in favor of staff's recommendation. MSUC (Acton/McAlister) to accept staff report and recommendation. (7-0-0) 7. Report on for all-way stop request for the installation of Camino Miel at East "J" Street Mr. AI-Ghafry presented staff report. He stated that three calls were received: 2 supporting, 1 opposing. Staff recommendation: That the Safety Commission accept this to deny the installation of an all-way stop at the intersection of Camino Miel and East "J" Street based on the location receiving 33 points out of a possible 100 points pursuant to Council Policy 478-03 and the marking of red curbs 20' east of the intersection and 15' west of the intersection along the northerly curb of East "J" Street for sight clearance purposes. MSUC (Liken/McAlister) to accept staff report and recommendation. 8. Report on request for all-way stop control at the intersection of Greensqate Drive and N. Greensview Drive Mr. AI-Ghafry presented staff report. He stated that three calls were received: 2 opposing, 1 supporting. Staff recommendation: That the Safety Commission accept this repod and recommend installation of an all- way stop control on N. Greensview Drive at Greensgate Drive based on the location receiving 60 points of a possible 100 points pursuant to Council Policy Number 468-03. Public hearing opened. David Eastwood, 1050 Waterville Lake Rd., Chula Vista spoke in favor of staff's recommendation. Public hearing closed. MSUC (McAlister/Lopez) to accept staff report and recommendation. (7-0-0) 9. Report on request for all-way stop at Auqusta Place and N. Greensview Drive Mr. AI-Ghafry presented staff report and slide show. He stated that one call was received in support of staff's recommendation. Staff recommendation: That the Safety Commission accept this report to deny the installation of an all-way stop at the intersection of Augusta Place and N. Greensview Drive based on the location receiving 23 points out of a possible 100 points pursuant to Council Policy 478-03. Public hearing opened. Warren Goetze, 1112 Augusta Place, Chula Vista, CA spoke in opposition of staff recommendation. Nazarro Ryal, 1125 Augusta Place, Chula Vista, CA spoke in opposition of staff recommendation. UNOFFICIAL MINUTES Safety Commission Minutes March 9, 2000 Parle 4 Mr. AI-Ghafry stated that as of 3/7/00, Council reinstated one of the Assistant Engineers in the Traffic Engineering Section and also approved an additional Intern. Chair Liken stated a letter was received last month from Suzanne Santos, 635 Mission, Chula Vista, regarding the installation of an all-way stop at the corner of East "J" and Melrose. The letter was read into record. Commissioner Gove stated traffic is stacking on the east side of Melrose on "J" Street. It backs up to the driveways to the daycare center and egress is very difficult. Chair Liken asked about staff's interpretation of traffic volumes on a report from tonight's agenda. Mr. Leyva responded. Mr. Leyva commented on the Statewide accident rates used on staff's reports. He discovered that the rates are onlyfor State highways. In the future, once the Accident Records System is up and running, he would like to do a city-wide accident rate for roadway segments and intersections based on the classification of roadway. It would be more pertinent to this area. Chair Liken reiterated the need for accurate documentation of accidents even though a report has not been taken. Commissioner Gove questioned why minutes are three months late, it is unacceptable. She would like the internal data done by the Traffic Section brought to the Commission. She expressed her frustration with the binders being delivered at 6:00 p.m. on Monday. Mr. Leyva responded that the Traffic Section has been understaffed and the workload is very heavy. The additional staff will improve the timeliness of the preparation of the packets. He stated that a tentative agenda can be mailed on Friday, after the Safety Commission meeting so that the Commissioners have a preview of the upcoming meeting. Regarding the minutes, detailed minutes were provided for the 11/11/99 meeting due to the appeal; the minutes were included as part of the staff repor-[ for the Council. He stated that the Recording Secretary is the Secretary for the Public Works Director and Deputy Public Works/City Engineer. This has been discussed with the Recording Secretary and City Clerk on previous occasions and one possibility would be abbreviated minutes (not detailed). Commissioner Gove asked if there was an assistant or clerk who could type the minutes. Recording Secretary Picardal responded there is no available staff in the department for that function. MSUC (ActordGove) to try a better method of minutes (abbreviated) for the next two meetings (retroactive to January) (7-0-0). ADJOURNMENT AT 9:25 P.M. to the next regularly scheduled meeting of April 13, 2000. Respectfully submitted, Florence Picardal, Recording Secretary H:'d~ OM E~E NG IN E ER~SAFE"FY~030900_ MIN do3 UNOFFICIAL MINUTES ITEM #14: CONSIDERATION OF ACCEPTANCE OF A REPORT ON ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING OPTIONS FOR SR-125 IMPLEMENTATION Will be delivered tomorrow, Friday April 28, 2000. COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT ltem //7/ Meeting Date 5/2/00 ITEM TITLE: Report on Additional Information Regarding Options for SR-125 Implementation SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public Works/'t~ REVIEWED BY: City Manager ~ (4/5ths Vote: __ No X ) At the meeting of April 18, 2000, Council considered a report on the pros and cons of public ownership of Toll Road SR-125 by Smith and Kempton, governmental relations consultants. Council directed staff to come back as soon as possible with a mom comprehensive report on issues and the possible JPA. RECOMMENDATION: That Council accept the report and direct staff to spend an adequate effort to investigate the necessary actions and commitments needed for the City to be involved in a public Toll Road. BOARDS/COMMISSION: Not applicable. DISCUSSION: The construction of SR-125 is absolutely necessary for the orderly development of Chula Vista and the South Bay. Chula Vista has supported and worked with California Transportation Ventures (CTV) for 10 years to site and build a Toll Road in the SR-125 Corridor. The mason that Council has supported a private Toll road is because funding was not available for the foreseeable futura to build a freeway. Even though a Toll Road was not preferred, a Toll Road was superior to no road. It is expected that the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) will sign the Record of Decision (ROD) this first week of May. That action in essence will allow the project to begin the design and property acquisition phase and allow CTV to finalize financing for the project. As was mentioned in the last report, CTV has expressed an interest in converting this project to a public project if private financing proves to not be feasible. Council raised several concerns at the meeting of April 18,2000 in response to that report. Issues raised included: · How will the City and General Fund be protected if a JPA is created? · Is legislation necessary to form a JPA and how long would it take? · How would the financial advisor be selected? · What am issues involving financing? · What type of liability is the City exposed to? ,, Are there more disadvantages than mentioned in the previous report? Page 2, Item / a/ Meeting Date 5/2/00 Most of the above concerns will need a concerted effort taking considerable time to develop a full response. They are the exact issues that staff and consultants would address before making a final recommendation to Council on other options to a private Toll Road. Staff wants to assure Council that until a decision is made to pursue a public road, the City will experience no cost to the general fund. The city will also not receive any liability or risk while examining these issues. There will be some staff and consultant costs involved, that can properly be charged to non- general fund accounts. Attached as Exhibit 1 is the updated report by Smith and Kempton. Exhibit 2 is the original report by Smith and Kempton submitted at the meeting of April 18,2000. Will Kempton will be at the meeting to answer questions of the Council. Exhibit 3 is a letter from CTV requesting the City to investigate alternate financing. FISCAL IMPACT: At this point the only fiscal impact may be consultant costs, that can be included in an existing contract with Smith and Kempton. H:~rtOME~ENGINEER~AGENDA\sr 125~jpl.doc Smith & Kempton C(msulting and (;o~crnmcntal Relations MEMORANDUM To: Mr. David Rowlands, City Manager City of Chula Vista From: Will Kempton and Mark Watts Date: April 26, 2000 Subject: Additional Information Regarding Options for SR 125 Implementation Following the Council's consideration of the question as to whether it makes sense to explore potential options for implementing the SR 125 toll facility, you asked us to expand our previous report to include some of the downside impacts of the City's possible involvement in an alternative financinffoperating arrangement for the toll road. First, we want to reiterate that the Council is not being asked at this time to decide on an alternative approach to implementing the SR 125 facility. We do believe it is prudent for the City to investigate other alternatives should private financing delay the project significantly or the City discovers that the needs of the public are better met through other financing mechanisms. The recommendation to exarmne other alternatives is based on the undeniable premise that construction of SR 125 is extremely important to the economic vitality of the City of Chula Vista and will have significant positive impacts on traffic circulation within and through the City· Recognizing the importance to the City of early completion of this facility, we are recommending that the Council authorize an exploratory review of alternatives to project implementation which might be acceptable in the event that the current franchisee cannot proceed or runs into substantial delays in moving forward on this project. It is also possible that an alternative approach may provide more benefits to the City and its residents, a potential we want to fully explore. We stress that the objective here is to exarmne various alternatives and to more explicitly determine the pros and cons of a potential public structure for financing and/or operating a SR 125 facility. We are not asking the Council to comrmt to an alternative structure, but to authorize an exploratory review of possible options· Our previous memorandum outlined some of the benefits which might accrue under a public structure. Obviously, there are also potential drawbacks to a larger public role. Among these drawbacks is the potential for the political perception that government is assisting the private sector. Depending on the structure of any financing package, there would be a financial risk to '),q() Nint}~ 5trc'ct. Sui~c 1560 Sacramento, CA c~5814 'Jdcphonc (9 t 6) 44f,-5508 F.AX (916) 446-1499 April 26, 2000 Page 2 any involved public agencies which doesn't exist today. Another significant negative to increased involvement has to do with the inherent liability exposure which would come with a direct role in the project. Maintenance and reconstruction responsibilities could also increase that financial exposure; however, in Orange County, the public agencies involved in the toll corridors there obtained legislative relief assigning those responsibilities to Caltrans. In short, there are potential drawbacks to a larger City role in this project. However, some of the benefits we outlined in our memorandum would offset some of these risks. Public ownership through a Joint Powers Agreement, for example, may mitigate the City's direct liability for some of the issues discussed above. Given the timeline we are looking at for project implementation, we believe that now is the time to explore all prudent alternatives for getting this facility in place. As we anxiously await a Record of Decision from the Federal Highway Administration, CTV is gearing up to put a financing package together to begin construction of the toll road. At this point, CTV is looking at two basic options: financing through the private market place, and a possible tax exempt financing through creation of a 501(c)(3) organization and a transfer of ownership to the non- profit corporation. If CTV is successful in obtaining financing, and construction can move forward quickly, there may be other benefits (earlier retirement of debt, public control of toll rates, etc.) that suggest a larger role for the City in any event. We are not advocating for that expanded role at this time. We are simply suggesting that the City take a more in depth look at alternative financing and operating structures in parallel with CTV's efforts to pursue financial backing. What we are talking about here is an exploratory effort. We have no preconceived perspectives on this subject and no predetermined solutions to recommend at this time. However, in the event that CTV does have difficulty in the financial markets, or if we are looking at undue delay for any number of reasons, it makes perfect sense that the City would be prepared to at least consider other options for getting this facility in operation. For its part, CTV has indicated a willingness to look at a public financial and/or operating arrangement to bring this project to conclusion should the City determine that it is in its best interest to participate in such an arrangement. CTV fully intends to pursue private financing or a tax-exempt strategy as outlined above. However, the organization is willing to consider other options as well, and the Council received a letter from CTV on this subject prior to the last Council meeting. The review that we are proposing will be conducted at no additional expense to the City as the cost will be covered under our existing contract. Given the importance of this project to the City of Chula Vista, we think it is in the Council's best interest to at least look at other options for project implementation. CI'IY OF CHULA VISTA MEMORANDUM April14,2000 To: The Honorable Mayor a_nd City Council From: David D. Rowlands, ity Manager Subject: SR-125 The attached white paper prepared by Smith & Kempton will be presented by Mark Watts and Will Kempton at next Tuesday's Council meeting. The intent of the paper is to allow the Council to fully discuss the ramifications of public financing of SR-125 and to give the Council the opportunity to give direction to staff on this issue. DDR:mab Attachment APR-14-8O l~:o? FRO~- T-888 P 02/OB F-g08 Smith Kempton Consulting and Governmental Relations MEMORANDUM Mr. David Rowlands, City Manager City of Chula Vista Frorrt Will Kempton and Mark Watts Dat~.. April 14, 2000 Subject. Pros and Cons of Public Financing of SR 125 You have requested that we prepare this document to examine the arguments for and against the public financing of the SR 125 Toll Facility. As we have recently learned, the present franchise holder for the right to construct and operate the SR 125 Toll Road, California Transportation Ventures, :[nc. (CTV), has indicated that they are considering the possibility of selling their interest in the franchise. Moreover, they have already initiated an exploratory effort to seek prospective buyers, including potential non-profit, public benefit corporations and public entities. With this development, it is important for the City Council to review and understand the merits of possible public ownership and to further consider the potential of the participation of the City in such a venture. BACKGROUND SR 125 is a ten-mile, four lane (ultimately 10 lane) facility that is intended to connect 1-905 in Otay Mesa with SR 154. The project is being developed under the auspices of the private developer, CTV, who was awarded a franchise by Caltrans in a statewide cor:npetitive bid process. Legislation approved in 1989 (AB 680) authorized Caltrans to un~lertake a public-private demonstration program to explore the receptivity of the private sector to invest in California infrastructure. Four projects were authorized under the enabling legislation, producing franchises around the state: (1) SR 91 Express Lanes in Orange County, (2) Mid-State Toll Way in Contra Costa County, (3) SR 57 Toll Facility in Orange County and (4) the SR 125. Of these four projects, only the SR 91 Express Lanes project has become operational, with a start date of 1995. SR 125 is on-line to become the second project to move into the financing, design, construction and operational phases. The environmental clearance process is nearing 980 Nind~ Street, Suite ] 560 Sacramento, CA 95814 Telephonc (916) 446-5505 FAX (916) 446-I499 APR-!~-O0 15:08 FROM- T-~88 P 03/06 f-~Og completion with a Record of Decision (ROD) for the NEPA document anticipated to be approved shortly by the federaJ government. This was preceded by State approval of the CEQA document and formal adoption of the highway route. l~n the normal sequence for highway/toll way development, the developers would next begin to pursue financing, design, and construction of the project. With the ROD in hand, crv is expected to issue RFQ's for potential design-build contracts. However, at this juncture the principals are considering selling their interests in the franchise. It is our view that in addition to responding to re-focusing of priorities by the parent companies, CTV also sees at least two other advantages to a potential this policy shift at this time: (1) CrV has spent about ten years and considerable funds to bring the franchise to this point and a sale at this time would allow them the maximum opportunity to capture the investment to date; and (2) transfer to a public benefit corporation or public entity would result in less expensive financing, as will be outlined below. One recent development with respect to one of the other AB 680 "demonstration" projects (the SR 91 Express Lanes) has important ramifications for the Council to consider. The holders of the SR 91 franchise, forming California Private Transportation Company, after becoming operational, determined that they wanted to off-load their interest in the franchise and to re-coup their investment and opportunity costs of lost future profits, tn their case, the approach they chose was to transfer their interests to a non-profit, public benefit corporation called Newtrac. They were able to obtain Caltrans approval of the transfer of interest, but as they attempted to finance the exchange, both the public entities involved and the bond market alike raised significant questions about the propriety and the viability, respectively, of the project. The resulting controversy, which drew in the Davis Administration, the Legislature, and the Counties of Riverside and Orange, became so intense that the CPTC withdrew their offer to sell and are presently considering their alternatives. This controversy is fresh in the minds of the Davis Administration and the Legislature, and it is our belief that a transfer to any entity other than a public entity will raise considerable alarm and opposition. CONSIDER.AT[ON OF pL. JBLIC F]~NANCING OF SR 125 Financing ~ Tax-exempt bonding: California state law authorizes governmental entities to voluntary exercise their existing powers jointly, in doing so the law expressly declares that such joint powers agencies may issue "tax exempt" bonds to finance capital costs for building projects. The advantage of this to a public entity is that the issuer's costs for debt service and related reserves and sinking funds are less costly, resulting in more flexibility for the public entity. For example, the ^P~-I~-OO 15:0~ F~O~- T-688 P Q4/06 F-gOg entity can choose to reduce the redemption period, financing the bonds over 20 years, rather than 30 years. Or, the entity can reduce the costs, in this case, the tolls, that comprise the revenue stream for redemption purposes. In contrast, transfer of the franchise contemplated by CTV to another private entity would bear the relatively higher burden of non-exempt, taxable bonds. However, there is a special potential mitigating circumstance in this instance, in that CTV has secured a specific federal authorization qualifying them to access a new federal innovative financing program CI~F~A), which offers a line of credit at reduced rates. Property Taxes: Because the proiects authorized under the AB 680 demonstration program are private improvements on land that is leased from the state, they are subject to a possessory interest tax, which is "in-lieu" of the local property tax. According to Caltrans staff, the County of Orange collects in excess of $:1 million annually for the SR 91 project, and based on the costs for the improvements to SR 125 will result in taxes on the order of the $3 million. In contrast, a public entity would be able to construct and operate the SR 12.5 facility without this "property tax" burden, resulting in a significant cost burden being lifted of the total costs financed by tolls. California joint powers law expressly exempts joint powers authorities from property taxes. > State participation: One source of potential assistance in reducing the cost burden for this project would be a grant of state funds. ~t is well established that the state is experiencing explosive revenue growth and a legitimate public purpose could be justified in providing direct funding assistance in the form of a grant because it would reduce the cost to the general public users of the facility. However, as discussed above, we believe that the SR 91 project has "poisoned the well" in the near term for state involvement or assistance for Ali 680 projects in general. It is not clear that this same level of resistance would exist for a project that has been taken over by a public entity. At the very least, a good case can be made, in the event that SR 125 is transferred to a public entity, that this facility should enjoy the same level of state benefits that are involved in the three toll roads operated by the Transportation Corridor Agencies in Orange County. These roads are operated by a legislatively authorized joint powers agency and the enabling legislation expressly provided that the state would assume the responsibility for costs of maintenance and policing. Clearly this is not a direct benefit that would flow to a public entity, but this would be an achievable task, that would benefit the project by reducing maintenance and policing costs on an ongoing basis. APR-14-OO 1~:08 FROM- T-688 P 05/06 F-go@ Governance > Local Control: Any operator of a toll road facility in California, public or private, will be subject to intense public scrutiny simply due to the unique nature of the facility in contrast to California's long-standing involvement with toll-free freeways. Establishing a public entity to control and operate SR 12_5 will ensure that the users and the traveling public will have a high degree of responsiveness to issues of operational flexibility and quality of the toll road experience. This is not to say that a private operator would not be as responsive, just that the public entity would have a project that is not perceived to be motivated by the "bottom-line" only, and the pubic would view local officials as having a stronger interest in being responsive. Limited city obligation: One benefit to California joint powers [aw is that it contains a bar on obligating the "parent" local government agency from obligations that the joint agency are committed to. This would free the city to participate in a public acquisition of the SR 125 facility without concern that the City would be somehow "underwriting" the acquisition. Thus the city can consider the relative merits of public acquisition, whether as participants or not, without concern that their decisions would obligate the city to a burden that is too costly. POLI'CY CONTROL Toll rates: The most probable scenario for a public acquisition of the SR 125 facility would involve the sale of bonds to purchase the franchise rights and the financing of the design, construction and initial start-up costs of the toll facility. The bonds would be paid by the revenue stream from the tolls that would be imposed. However, as we have seen above, there are several aspects of public ownership that are beneficial in that they significantly reduce the costs to operate the facility, and, thus, in the absence of a profit motive, can require tolls at a lesser rate than would otherwise be required. A locally established public agency would be in a position to control the toll rates in a manner that is more responsive to local public interest. Term of Franchise: The franchise term granted under AB 680 for each of the four franchises is 35 years from the start of operations. Under private ownership, the franchise holder will be responsible to bond holders and corporate parents to maximize the return on investment for the maximum allowable period. In contrast, a public agency will have the opportunity to negotiate a term less than the fully allowable 35 years, if it is financially sound. This would provide a APR-14-O0 1§:09 FROM- T-888 P 06/06 F-~08 tangible benefit to local residents and toll users to enjoy the benefit of SR 125 free of tolls at an earlier time than would otherwise be possible. DISI:;:tJSSION The benefit to the City of the advancement of SR 125 as a result of the flexibility granted under AB 680 cannot be understated. If required to rely on pre-existing state and local resources, without the involvement of the private sector, local residents would not be on the verge of receiving the transportation benefit of SR 125 for another decade or more. Nevertheless, given that the current franchise holders have determined to explore the possibilities of transferring their interest to a willing buyer, if available, the question arises as to whether the public agencies can organize themselves to offer to acquire the franchise rights and whether this is of benefit to the City and local residents. Clearly, there are major benefits to public acquisition of the franchise and facility, principally in the ability of public agencies to access cheaper financing. This in turn allows a public agency to turn the reduced costs into a local benefit by possibly offering access to the facility at reduced rates or freeing up the facility from tolls at an earlier point in time, both policy considerations not available under private control. April 18, 2000 v,,,.~,,.,. The Honorable Shidey Herren Mayor, City of Chula Vista 7~7 Broadway 276 Fourth Avenue San aego, Ca~ Chula Vista, California 91 910 921o1 619338.8385 FAX 619-338-8123 Dear Mayor Norton: We have received and reviewed the Memorandum dated Apdl 14, 2000, from Smith & Kempton to the City of Chula Vista, explaining the benefits to the City of acquisition of the SR 125 South Project Franchise. We thank you for the opportunity to review this document, which was sent to us at the request of the City Manager and which we understand will be presented to the City Council on Apdl 18. As you are aware, California Transportation Ventures Inc. (CTV) currently owns the SR 125 South Franchise and is planning to finance the project through privately placed financing. Our current schedule calls for dose of financing in the fall of this year, and construction commencing in late 2000 or eady 2001. With the aid of the recently awarded Federal TIFIA loan and related credit enhancements, the prospects for expediently moving forward look highly promising. The support of the City of Chula Vista throughout the planning, development, and environmental clearance stages of the SR 125 Project has been exemplary, and we appreciate the continuing efforts that you and your staff have maintained to assure that the project moves forward. The project development process to date has been an exercise of creative public-private partnership of which we can both be proud. To our mutual credit, the project was touted at the Amedcan Road and Transportation Builders (ARTBA) annual meeting in November 1999 as one of the two best examples of cooperation between local government and the private sector currently underway in the United States. We appreciate and understand the City's potential interest in acquiring the Franchise as we jointly move forward with implementation of the project. As you know, CTV has carried forward a public financing option as a complement to the private financing structure to preserve our options at the time of project financing. A tax-exempt public financing structure could provide additional benefits to the traveling public by potentially lowering toll rates or allowing eadier retirement of project debt. While our nominal public finance option has assumed the common approach of utilizing a not-for-profit structure as a conduit for tax-exempt financing, we have also considered the possible acquisition of the Franchise by an existing government or special-purpose joint powers authority. Should the public financing option prove to be a more viable financing structure than the nominal private structure, CTV will be amenable to receiving an appropriate indication of interest or offer for purchase from the City. We recognize that a partnership with the City of Chula Vista or City-sponsored JPA could provide substantial positive benefits for both the City and CTV. Thus, while we are continuing to pursue the private financing structure, we will commit our full cooperation to the City and/or its appointed agents in working toward the development of a viable public ownership structure upon confirmation by the City of its interest in purchasing the Franchise. To consider a public ownership and financing option, a number of factors will, of course, be important to CTV. These factors include, at a minimum (1) overall monetary value of the Franchise at the time of transfer; (2) contractual arrangements with CTV and its parent organizations to continue project development and undertake construction management and project operations; and (3) the timing and structure of payments for acquisition and development. CTV is willing to entertain an indication of interest or offer from the City that provides benefits commensurate with the value of the Franchise, and we are willing to enter good-faith negotiations with the City and/or its agents to reach this goal. We look forward to receiving a communication or initial offer from the City, and we reiterate our commitment to seek a financing structure that is mutually beneficial to the City and to California Transportation Ventures, and ultimately to the users of SR 125. S incerelyF/~_.~ Mi hae~ S~chneidor Chairman C T¥