Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009/07/14 Item 14CITY COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT ~`~~ CITY OF CHULAVISTA 7/14/09, Item ITEM TITLE: PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER TESTIMONY FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2009/2010 LEVY OF ASSESSMENTS AND COLLECTION AGAINST THOSE ASSESSMENTS FOR CITY OPEN SPACE DISTRICTS 1 THROUGH 11, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20, 23, 24, 26, 31, 33, EASTLAKE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1 (ELMD #1), TOWN CENTRE AND BAY BOULEVARD MAINTENANCE DISTRICT A) RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA LEVYING THE ASSESSMENTS AND COLLECTIBLES FOR CITY OPEN SPACE DISTRICTS 2 THROUGH 11, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20, 23, 24, 26, 31 AND 33, EASTLAKE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1 (ELMD #1), AND BAY BOULEVARD MAINTENANCE DISTRICT B) RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA LEVYING THE ASSESSMENTS AND COLLECTIBLES FOR CITY OPEN SPACE DISTRICT 1 C) RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA LEVYING THE ASSESSMENTS AND COLLECTIBLES FOR THE TOWN ENTRE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT SUBMITTED BY: DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS ' REVIEWED BY: CITY MANAGE ASSISTANT CITY ANAGER ST 4/STHS VOTE: YES ^ NO SUMMARY The City administers and maintains 36 Open Space Districts and associated zones that have been established over the last 30 years. The Districts provide a financing mechanism to maintain the public open space areas associated with each particular development. The City CoLmcil's approval of the levy is required by the First week of August in order to meet the deadlines established by the County Tax Assessor. This item allows for the assessment of currently approved levy amounts in order to ensure that the County Tax Assessor deadlines are met for all 36 of the City's Open Space Districts. 14-1 7/14/09, Item ~~{ Page 2 of 7 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed activity for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that the activity is not a "Project" as defined under Section 15378 (b)(4) of the State CEQA Guidelines because it involves an intention to levy and collect assessments for existing activities in the Open Space Districts and does not involve any new activities, therefore, pursuant to Section 15060 (c)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines the activity is not subject to CEQA. Thus, no environmental review is necessary. RECOMMENDATION Council conduct the public hearing and adopt the resolutions. BOARDS/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Not applicable DISCUSSION Open Space Districts (OSD's) were established in conjunction with each particulaz development to ensure financing for perpetual maintenance of common open space areas. OSD's provide a mechanism for the City to levy an annual assessment and collectible to cover the costs of maintenance associated with each OSD. Once City Council approves the annual collectible amount, it is sent to the County for inclusion on the tax bill. Each year Council must take two actions before levying the annual assessment. First, Council approves the Engineer's Report on Open Space Districts, declares its intention to levy the annual assessment, and sets the date and time for a public hearing. The second action is to conduct the public hearing, take and consider public testimony, levy the annual assessment and set the amount to be collected against the assessment. Tonight's action is the first step in the annual process. Pursuant to state law and Municipal Code, the City Engineer has prepared and filed the annual report for all existing Open Space Districts that aze included as Attachments 1 and 2 to this report. The annual report allows Council to review the history of the Open Space Districts. The report includes information regarding: ^ The proposed budgets ^ Funds remaining in the account The proposed assessment (based upon prior year assessment plus an inflation factor) The. collectible (the amount needed from each property owner to provide sufficient funds for the following fiscal yeaz's maintenance) Table 1 lists the names and locations of the Districts. 14-2 7/14/09, Item Page 3 of 7 Table 1. Open Space Districts Within the City of Chula Vista ~~ .~.: 1 ~ y St 2 ' 't -5 il J ~ II e ... .~~ ,.~aime £e. T. i~^£r.e5?.. El Rancho del Re Units 1 - 4 { , ~ . ~INk '' 3`" ~ of ~:~ 1L4: ."4 S a ik i ~`#. ~ i ~t r ~r .o:. ik3i2im ~_Y«"':'..kG~}W*~F1'~+7... ~~~+~t[~ni.4...._...( ., ..irota..i~~ ¢.Q East of Paseo Ranchero - H Street & Tele a h Can on Road 2 Lazk Haven South and East of Loma Verde Park 3 Rancho Robinhood Units 1 & 2 South of Allen School Lane 4 Bonita Ridge Camino Elevado north of Otay Lakes Road 5 South Ba Villas North end of Crest Drive south of E Street 6 Hilltop Vista Camino Vista Real north of Telegra h Can on Road 7 Zenith Units 2, 3, and 4 North & South of Palomar, east of I-805 8 Rancho Robinhood Unit 3 Surre Drive southwest of Ota Lakes Road 9 EI Rancho del Re Paseo del Re ,north of Tele a h Can on Road 10 El Rancho del Rey 6, Casa del Re West of Paseo Ranchero - H & J Streets 11 Hidden Vista Villa e East H Street, east of I-805 14 Bonita Long Canyon North of East HStreet - Otay Lakes Road & Corral Canyon Road 15 Bonita Haciendas Canyon Drive, east of Otay Lakes Road 17 Bel Air Ride Northeast of Paseo Ladera & East J Street 18 Rancho del Sur East end of East Na les Street 20 Rancho del Rey North of East H Street, west of Otay Lakes Road 23 Ota Rio Business Park West of Herita e/Ota Valle Road, south of Ota Rio Road 24 Can on View Homes Rut ers Avenue, south of East H Street 26 Pazk Bonita West of the intersection of E Street & Bonita Road 31 Tele a h Can on Estates North of Ota Lakes Road, west of SR-125 33 Broadway Business Home Villa e West side of Broadway - J & K Streets Eastlake Maintenance District No. 1 Eastlake I, Eastlake Greens, Salt Creek 1, OTC, Telegraph Canyon Channel Bay Boulevard Maintenance District gay Boulevard - E & F Streets Town Centre Maintenance District Third Avenue - E & G Streets Improvements and Services The facilities and items to be maintained by the Open Space Districts currently consist and will remain, in general, of the following: Irrigation • Aerification ^ Insect infestation control Removal of noxious plant material Public walkway cleaning ^ Weed abatement Pedestrian light maintenance Pruning of trees and shrubs • Irrigation equipment upgrades ^ Encroachment trims Replacement of dead or diseased plant material Fertilization ^ Pest Control Removal of weeds, trash and litter ^ Trail maintenance Low flow and brow channel maintenance Pond equipment and maintenance Signage within trails/canyons • Repair of irrigation equipment ^ Brush cleazance ^ Fencing maintenance 14-3 7/14/09, Item ~ 7 Page 4 of 7 Assessments & Collectibles The City of Chula Vista Municipal Code makes the distinction between the assessment and the amount that the City may collect against the assessment (i.e., the collectible). The assessments for FY 2009/10 aze proposed at the FY2008/09 amounts adjusted by the inflation factor of 0.62% pursuant to the Municipal Code. Each yeaz, the prior yeaz's maximum assessment amount is adjusted by an inflation factor, pursuant to the Municipal Code. This inflation factor is based upon the lower of two separate, published inflation factors: the San Diego Metropolitan Consumer Price Index (CPI), and the Governor's California 4`h Quarter per Capita Personal Income Index. In the mid-1990's (and for all Open Space Districts established after that date), Council approved the assessments with an inflation factor. Since that date, Council may annually increase the assessment by this inflation factor without this increase being subject to a protest vote under Proposition 218. The collectible, on the other hand, is the amount to be actually collected from the property owner and is equal to, or lower than, the proposed assessment. As detailed in Attachment 2, the collectible is based on the budget, the reserve requirement, savings and fund balances, earned interest and prior yeazs' savings. The proposed assessments and collectibles for FY 2009/10 are as follows: Table 2. Historical Open Space District Zone $117.54 54.52 373.25 394.24 384.44 190.11 132.81 606.70 mss 116.03 117.41 377.44 362.12 173.34 409.62 Proposed 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 s 10 11 14 15 17 18 20 1 - Desilting Basin 2 -Rice Canyon 3 - H Street 4 -Business 63.31 4.80 6.85 191 116. 118. 379. 174. 412. FY 2009/10 Assessments/Collectibles $110.00 54.00 373.25 388.00 339.00 162.00 132.00 591.00 1 sa.oo 115.00 101.00 373.00 354.00 111.00 253.00 Proposed FY 09110 $112.0( Increase I Decrease ($) $2.00 0.00 1.75 3.00 8.00 7.00 1.63 11.00 7.00 1.00 4.00 5.00 (16.00) 6.00 13.00 Increase / Projected ecrease % Revenue 1.82% $73,65fi 0.00 % 13,44E 0.47% 47,625 0.77% 82,11C 62.00 4.80 6.00 39 161 116 117 4.32% 27,378. 1.23% 13,897. 1.86% 66,220. 4.55°/ 61,824. 0.87% 76,068. 3.96% 138,709. 1.34% 32fi,214. 4.52% 19,266. 5.41% 5,382. 5.14% 115,710, (26.00) -41.94% 31 0.02 0.42% 14 0.00 0.00% 3E :r 53.19 53.52 53.00 53.00 0.00 5 - SPA I 384.63 387.01 347.00 365.00 18.00 6 - SPA I I 295.54 297.38 206.00 216.00 10.00 14-4 0.00% 137,931 5.19% 655,17° 7/14/09, Item ~7 Page 5 of 7 one 7 -SPA III 182.43 183.56 182 .00 183.00 1.00 0.55 % 215,352.3 one 8 - N Desilting Basin 42.06 42.32 40 .00 40.00 0.00 0.00 % 4,752.80 Zone 9 -Tel Cyn Channel 33.39 33.59 33 .39 33.59 0.20 0.60°/ 1,762.17 23 564.46 567.96 564 .46 472.00 (92.46) -16.38% 42,508.32 24 701.78 706.13 496 .00 523.00 27.00 5.44% 20,920.00 26 550.78 554.20 480 .00 506.00 26.00 5.42% 9,614.00 31 568.96 572.49 269 .00 281.00 12.00 4.46% 96,383.00 33 1,406.12 1,414.84 N/A (5) N/A (5) N/A (5) N/A (5) 0.00 ELMD No. 1 0.00 0.00 Otay Lakes Rd(1) N/A N/A 2 .50 2.50 0.00 0.00 31,716.75 Zone A - Eastlake I 13.03 13.11 12 .00 13.00 1.00 8.33 % 109,589.78 one B -Eastlake Greens 21.30 21.43 16 .00 20.00 4.00 25.00°/a 67,527.60 Zone C - Oly Training Ctr 176.41 177.50 6 .00 5.00 (1.00) -16.67% 2,500.00 Zone D - Satt Creek I 235.28 236.74 168 .00 173.00 5.00 2.98 % 73,248.20 Zone E -Tel Cyn Chnl(2) 33.55 33.76 26 .00 8.65 (17.35) -66.73% 3,169.11 Bay Boulevard(3) 3,258.38 3,278.58 2,330 .00 1,822.00 (508.00) -21.80%x . 11,642.58 Town Cen[re(4) 0.12 0.12 - 0.12 - - 0.00 TOTAL PROJECTED REVENUES 2,803,852.30 (1) Zones A - D Share in the cost of Otay Lakes Koatl meaians antl On-sne parkways. ~.ouecnoie anu pwleueu level iue iui v~ey Lakes Road are reflected in collectible and projected revenue for Zones A - D. A budget for Otay Lakes Road is currently pending. (2) Portions of Eastlake I and Eastlake Greens are in this benefit area. (3) Bay Boulevard rates are based on acres. (4) Town Centre rates have been based on parcel square footage since FY 2001102. However, a Downtown PBID replaced this District in 2001, but the City determined that there was some potential long-term exposure for the City based on the remote possibility that the PBID is not renewed. (5) OSD 33 was formed several years ago in anticipation of development. The project has not progressed and consequently there is no maintenance required. Should the project develop in the future, staff would recommend collecting money for maintenance. Other District Issues Town Centre LMD: A downtown Property and Business Improvement District (PBID) replaced Town Centre Landscape Maintenance District (LMD) in 2001. At that time, it was anticipated that the Town Centre LMD would be dissolved. However, the City determined that there was some potential long-term exposure for the City based on the remote possibility that the current PBID might not receive sufficient support for re-approval in the future. Should the PBID not be re-approved at some future date, and if the Town Centre LMD were dissolved, there would no longer be a fimding mechanism for downtown landscape maintenance. Based on this possibility, the Town Centre LMD is kept open as a "ghost" district. This means that the City will set the maximum assessment amount for the District on an annual basis, even though property owners will not be billed any sum on the tax roll. Should the PBID not be re- approved, the Town Centre LMD will be in place and provide the necessary funding mechanism for downtown landscape maintenance. The current PBID was renewed with the adoption of Council Resolution No. 2006-222, for a period often (10) years, so the Town Centre LMD remains as a "ghost" district. The assessment amount in FY 2009/10 is $0.121 per square foot. 14-5 7/14/09, Item ~~{ Page 6 of 7 Current Condition of Failed Proposition 218 Districts In 2007 the City initiated the Proposition 218 ballot process to consider an increase to assessments in nine of the 36 existing Open Space Districts/Zones because the estimated cost for service requirements was anticipated to exceed the amount of revenue that could be generated by current maximum assessments. Eight of the nine districts that were taken to ballot failed, and as a result certain service level reductions were made due to a lack of available resources. The budgetary reductions were needed in order to stay within the confines of the revenue that could be generated from the allowable maximum assessment. Table 3 illustrates the impacts of these service level reductions on the failed districts. Table 3. Service Level Impacts on Failed Proposition 218 Districts ~~ ~ ~ ~~ District 3 Weed abatement has decreased and dried grass and overgrowth on walkways to Allen School Elementary. Meters aze being changed to smaller sizes in ho es of monet savin s. District 7 The most noticeable impact is overgrown weeds and brush on the irrigated slo es. Browns ots are startin to a ear on the same slo es. District 9 Clearing of brush has slowed on the slopes and by the park on Paseo Del Re causin over owth in weeds. District 20 -Zane 2 Ruts located on Rice Canyon Trail need to be filled with stabilized DG and are being graded less often due to funding shortage. Drought resistant vegetation was added for water savings. City staff is currently working on a I in fora ant to hel fund additional brush clearance. District 20 -Zone 7 Maintenance has been focused on the highly visible areas along East H Street. Minimal 5re clearance is being performed in this area. More brown atches area earin alon the slo es. District 23 Palm trees along Main Street leading up to Knott's Soak City and Cricket Wireless Amphitheatre are maintained less often. Overgrown plants and vegetation is appearing on the medians. No funding is available to replace stolen wire for decorative li blip of the median landsca in . ELMD No. 1 - Zone A Minimal changes have occurred in this district. The trails along the northern boundary have begun to brown. Changes in service levels have allowed this district to recou and stabilize its'reserves. ELMD No. 1 - Zone D Tar plant areas around the Salt Creek neighborhood are receiving less maintenance, which have caused some overgrowth around the fencing of the area. Slo es have be un to turn brown and tree trimmin has decreased. These districts will continue to be monitored, and adjustments will be made, as necessary to ensure that adequate funding is available for continued maintenance. Stapdard Notice Process for Annual Levy The public hearing will be noticed pursuant to Government Code 6061, which requires that a notice be published in a newspaper of general circulation at least 10 days before the public hearing. Tonight's resolution approves this report and sets the date and time for a public hearing to consider the levy of assessments and the collection of the funds. 14-6 7/14/09, Item Page 7 of 7 DECISION MAKER CONFLICT Staff has reviewed the property holdings of the City Council and has found a conflict exists, in that Council Member McCann has property holdings within 500 feet of Cpen Space District 1, which is the subject of Resolution B of this action. Staff has reviewed the property holdings of the City Council and has found a conflict exists, in that Council Member Castaneda has property holdings within 500 feet of the Town Centre Maintenance District, which is the subject of Resolution C of this action. CURRENT YEAR FISCAL IMPACT Expenditures are recovered through the OSD collectible and reserves detailed on the District Cost Summary worksheets (Attachment 2). The current collectible amount will provide $2,803,852.30 in revenues. In some districts, current reserves are providing enough funds to cover budgeted expenditures. Other districts are limited in the maximum allowable assessment and cannot provide enough revenues to cover budgeted maintenance costs. All necessary steps will be taken to provide only the essential maintenance responsibilities in the areas where the maximum assessment cannot meet the budgeted maintenance costs. ONGOING FISCAL IMPACT None. ATTACHMENTS 1. District Maps 2. District Cost Summaries Prepared by: Tessa Qx~icho, Administrative Analyst!!, Engineering Department J: IEngineerlAGENDAICAS2009107-/4-091FY0910 Pupblic Hearing OSDs.doc 14-7 ATTACHMENT 1 District Maps 14-8 J I®® om ~®`~ ? 0®® ®® O " "U ~ ]p ~ ~ ^ ~ ~ a V 5 ~ CJ u O1]7 u i I~ 1' >- ,t Wi W ~~ o~ P° r, l 1 I. I.. ,I ~ ~ I \ ~ --~-fY!/ U ~ ~ v • 1 , ® ~ l ~®® DATE: 4/8103 NOTES: ~ TirLE: ~ ~ ~ ~ _\\1// PREPARED BY: T.M. Nd (0 8eele "sStrLC~ #~ -Lark Haven ~„ 9 DATE: MB/03 NOTES: /~ TITLE: ~ \11//_ PREPARED BY: T.M.. Not toSwle Rancho Robinhood Units Y-`~ 61UUW7q DATE: ~ MB/D3 NOTES: ~ N TITLE[ \llf/ •• PREPARED BY: T.M. ~ Not to Scale T .~ ~ZStTLCt ~~// ~"f' - Bonita Ridge a,t,~yg7p r% .I i ~_~~ ~_ ;~~! I I i ~vl 'I ~~ DATE: MB103 NOTES: ~ T1TLE: PREPARED BY: T.M. ~ Not to Scelo ,µ DiStf'1Ct "~5 - Sou'thbay ViZICis qua y~q 1 ~~ -' ~. ~-'~.,\~t \. ~~ ®® T ~® ~. ®® CnCn ®®®~ ~~' , ~® . eo¢~ ®~ . ~ ~ w~ RgpH ~ ~~ ~ ~, DATE: MB/D3 NOTES: ~ TITLE: ~ ~ „~. PREPARED BY: T.M Not to scale District #6 -Hilltop Vista Q{~q yp7p i 3i_..1 t ~\~:: ~\ ~y nn.E: DATE: 4/9lD3 NOTES: ~~{!~ ~ District #7 - ~. PREPARED 8Y: T.M. Nol to Scale Zenith Units 2, . 3 and 4 aiuu vuTn ~~ l' ~~®/ ®~ ~~ ~ O ~~ IY DATE: MB/03 NOTES: Ttn.E: ~l~// Diystrict #9 - ~ _ PREPARED BY: T.M. Not to Scale E[ Ranc)i® de t Rei/ a~u°v~n v a GATE: M8103 NOTES: /\ TITLE: `~lV/ N~ D~StI'ICt #'IO ~ '~" PREPARED BY: T.M. ~ Not W Scale E1 Rancho dei Rey 6, Casa dei Rey ~ ~y~A i,~o s ~~ F~FF a ~'~y DATE: MB/03 NOTES: N ~i T~T~E~ District r #11 ~ \lf// PREPARED BY: T.M. NotbSeela Hidden. Vista Vilage CHUU YISTA DATE: 4/8/03 NOTES: ~~' ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~ PREPARED BY: T.M. - NatW8cele pO}'I.ItQ ,Id(JQg i.QILyOrI. _ G4UU VISfA ~~~~ ~P 1', 1`; ~~ O P DATE: M9/03 NOTES: TITLE: ~ \\U/ District #15 - ~- PREPARED BY: T.M. ' NoltnScele Bonita Haciendas ~ ~cuuv~sC;t r ~- ,, ~`~~ % i-~ _i ;4 DATE: MB/03 NOTES: ~ nnE: PREPARED BY: T.M. NolmScela /, yy y ~Sfr~C~ 71 i ~ -Bel Air Ridge cHU~visrn ~~T~F~~ '~ Rsq~ DATE: M10/03 NOTES: 7 TITLE: ' District #24 - PREPARED BY: T.M. ~ Not fn 9~1e CaifLllon View HofYLes Q~INa VDTA ~\ ~~ i ~~ \©~ i O P P~~ G `.~,GNMoN 6~N~~~ DATE: M70103 NOTES: ~ n~E '' ' a t~~~~ PREPARED BY: T.M. Not to9cele ~CC ,/, / y ,D~StrLCt 2V -Park Boli~tl Q{q illll ., !'~, ~~~. I ..~ ~:: DATE: M10f03 NOTES: I ^ I ~strjCt ~~ y _ ,( I ~ I PREPARED BY: T.M. Not to BCele Canyon Estates Telegraph 4iU/A~15TA ~r ~ S~ e e e e e . Bm 08 00e ~ B m ~~ ~o UN 2 FL K~pFiN~~ ~~ ~. ~~ 0 ~~o v~ ~. DATE: A/10103 NOTES: TITLE: ~\{/~ .District #33 - PREPAREDBY:T.M. Not toScele BroadulayBusiness,~iomeViliage atM~ ~ \/ ~~ {\\\\\ n ~ ,~ /• .... ~ - ,-".~ \1\~". lit - ®~ ~ .,. ~~~ •\ / ~ .. - \"~~ ~1 ~ TITLE: J\V~ DATE: 4/6!01 NOTES: N ~+My PREPARED BY: T.M. Not Io Scaie Tow»< Centre Mainten[Ynce D>tstrict CHU~ VLSTA `\, ,~\ \ ~~ ~ 't DATE: M10103 NOTES: ~ Nair, nTie: Bay Boulevard \~f// PREPARED HY: T.M. Not to SCale Maintenance Distr-lct QIUTA VISTA ~ ~'~ ~ ~ 'ddI n~ M10103 ~ NOTES: BY; T.M. TITLE: Eastlake Maintenance ~_ , Not to scale D1StriCt #1 ~ a•ua~~ ATTACHMENT 2 District Cost Summaries 14-33 CITY OF CHULA VISTA OSD 1 (El Rancho del Rey Units 7-4) 2009110 Fiscal Year District Cost Summary ~- tt~ I tt: r• ~ tr t: Personnel Services $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Utility Charges 716.00 716.00 716.00 Trash Collection & Disposal Fees 1,400.00 1,400.00 1,400.00 Water Charges 24,042.00 20,041.00 21,041.00 Services to maintain structures, grounds 1,270.00 1,270.00 1,270.00 City Staff Services 15,200.00 11,887.00 11,217.00 Contractual Services 22,491.00 21,420.00 20,398.00 Landscape Supplies 980.00 980.00 980.00 Materials to maintain structures, grounds 4,523.00 4,523.00 4,522.00 Backflow Certification 0.00 0.00 0.00' Professional Services 25,400.00 5,400.00 2,525.00 Supplementals 0.00 980.00 1,129.00 Other Commodities 0.00 0.00 0.00 Adverfising 0.00 0.00 0.00 Transfer: Corporate Yard Debt Services 0.00 0.00 527.00 Storm Maintenance 0.00 0.00 0.00 Specialized Services 1,300.00 0.00 0.00 Special Maintenance Fund 0.00 0.00 0.00 Estimated Maintenance Cost $97,322.00 $68,617.00 $65,725.00 Reserve Requirement (1) $70,071.84 $68,617.00 $59,481.13 Reserve Percent 72% 100% 90.50% Special Reserve 0.00 20,000.00 0.00 Fund Balance (2) 94.257.67 84.809.19 50.949.62 Net Assessment (3) $73,136.17 $72,424.81 $74,256.51 Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDU's) (4) 657.65 657.65 657.65 Collectible/EDU $111.21 $110.13 $112.91 Percent change from prior year 1 % -2% 32% Misc. Adjustments $0.00 $0.00 ($0.03) Ce(rtt~rtK~ek~.~~h ~ Rte; ', $1?~41a ~' tt ; ~" ~1~~ Revenue from even dollar payment $73,656.80 $72,341.50 $74,314.42 A~Sv Ss~M,E., ~' . ,. ., ~1$#7r~ a `°s ~kt~'4'.M~ I ssessmentwd $118.26 $117.54 girdge„y~ED~~ .,, "t . `' ~~" n ~"i.~~~s ~. ~ ~.. _ $'~~'~,.. , n ~: ' '$4,~$4 Percent change from poor year 42% 4% 5% aelctcgrte'nti?C`(6Y _ , . ~ ~ `` :, , .,., ~~ ~ s ~, 5.0~" (1) Reserve Requirement =Estimated Maintenance Cost x Reserve Percent (2) The estimated June 30, 2009 fund balance was projected on May 19, 2009. (3) Net Assessment = Estimateq Maintenance Cost + Reserve Requirement + Special Reserve -Fund Balance (4) EDU's have been projected tiased upon Fiscal Year 2008/09 information (5) CPI Change for Fiscal Year 2009/2010 = O.fi2% (6) Delinquency Rate is as of 5/15/2009 14-34 CITY OF CHULA VISTA OSD 2 (Lark Haven) 2009110 Fiscal Year. District Cost Summary ~ 11' 1 • 11 : 1' 1'i 1 • Personnel Services $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Utility Charges 360.00 3fi0.00 228.00 Trash Collectlon & Disposal Fees 0.00 0.00 0.00 Water Charges 3,622.00 3,018.00 3,018.00 Services to maintain structures, grounds 1,500.00 1,500.00 1,160.00 City Staff Services 2,691.00 2,746.00 3,219.00 Contractual Services 5,544.00 5,280.00 5,029.00 Landscape Supplies 337.00 337.00 337.00 Materials to maintain structures, grounds 836.00 836.00 836.00 Backflow Certification 0.00 0.00 0.00 Professional Services 494.00 494.00 494.00 Supplementals 0.00 210.00 247.00 Other Commodities 0.00 0.00 0.00 Advertising 0.00 0.00 0.00 Transfer. Corporate Yard Debt Services 0.00 0.00 123.00 Storm Maintenance 0.00 0.00 0.00 Specialized Services 200.00 0.00 0.00 Special Maintenance Fund 0.00 0.00 0.00 Estimated Maintenance Cost 515,584.00 514,781.00 514,691.00 Reserve Requirement (1) $13,558.08 $14,041.95 $7,639.32 Reserve Percent 87% 95% 52% Special Reserve 0.00 0.00 0.00 Fund Balance (2) 15.834.60 15.346.00 9.359.91 Net Assessment (3) 513,307.48 513,476.95 512,970.41 Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDU's) (4) 249 249 249 Collectible/EDU $53.44 $54.12 $52.09 Percent change from prior year -1 % 4% 2% Misc. Adjustments $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 ~~ t _ , .... a .,~ ,0 Ut, Revenue from even dollar payment 13,446.00 $13,446.00 $13,197.00 E 8^.~ ,. ssessmen wl 54.85 $54.52 ~~~, ~_ $~SQfO Percent change from prior year 5% 1 % 3% ~ n~~~ t32°u (1) Reserve Requirement =Estimated Maintenance Cost z Reserve Percent (2) The estimated June 30, 2009 fund balance was projectetl on May 19, 2009. (3) Net Assessment =Estimated Maintenance Cost+ Reserve Requirement+ Special Reserve • Fund Balance (4) EDU's have been projected based upon Fiscal Year 2006/09 information (5) CPI Change 4or Fiscal Year 2009/2010 = 0.62% (6) Delinquency Rate is as of 5/152009 14-35 CITY OF CHULA VISTA OSD 3 (Rancho Robinhood Units 1 8 2) 2009/10 Fiscal Year District Cost Summary , Pef9onnel Service$ $x•00 $0•~Q $~'~~ Utility Charges 835.00 835.00 835.00 Trash Collection & Disposal Fees 500.00 500.00 1,400.00 Water Charges 16,070.00 15,080.00 16,580.00 Services to maintain structures, grounds 0.00 990.00 990.00 City Staff Services 7,622.00 8,224.00 9,340.00 Contractual Services 16,000.00 16,000.00 20,400.00 Landscape Supplies 0.00 0.00 207.00 Materials to maintain structures, grounds 1,000.00 1,000.00 3,997.00 Backflow Certification 0.00 0.00 0.00 Professional Services 1,000.00 1,000.00 3,008.00 Supplementals 0.00 625.00 946.00 Other Commodities 0.00 0.00 0.00 Advertising 0.00 0.00 0.00 Transfer: Corporate Yard Debt Services 0.00 0.00 432.00 Specialized Services 600.00 0.00 0.00 Storm Maintenance 0.00 0.00 0.00 Special Maintenance Fund 0.00 0.00 6 635.00 Estimated Maintenance Cost 543,627.00 $44,254.00 $64,770.00 Reserve Requirement (1) $7,525.66 $13,276.20 $0.00 Reserve Percent 17.25% 30% 0.00% Special Reserve 0.00 0.00 0.00 Fund Balance (2) 3 558.34 10 058.59 10.765.04 Net Assessment (3) $47,594.32 $47,471.61 $54,004.96 Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDU's) (4) 127 127 127 Collectible/EDU $374.76 $373.79 $425.24 Percent change from prior year 0% -12°/, 21 % Misc. Adjustments $0.00 ($1.27) $0.00 CO~~F-~E;TtB~.F,e,~?~!wr~t±?~4riv '.' j ,~„ St3T+. ` .. 'S~'~3•"? 5~°; Revenue from even dollar payment 47,625.00 $47,401.48 $46 342.30 /tSSESSMEl!kT ', ;: 2 ri . a 6%t:9{I~ _. ssessmen wd 375.56 $373.25 Pement change from prior year -1 % -32% 23% def~n~j5fiat~16k1. ; ~ w t ... ~. °~ ~7:i4~i s (1) Reserve Requirement =Estimated Maintenance Cost x Reserve Percent (2) The es8ma[ed June 30, 2009 fund balance was projected on May 19, 2009. (3) Net Assessment =Estimated Maintenance Cost + Reserve Requirement+ Special Reserve -Fund Balance (4) EDU's have been projected based upon Fiscal Year 2008!09 information (5) CPI Change for Fispl Year 20092010 = 0.62 (6) Delinquency Rate is as of 5/152009 14-36 CITY OF CHULA VISTA OSD 4 (Bonita Ridge) 2009/10 Fiscal Year District Cost Summary s- . tt• r ~ • rr: t~ • it t: • Personnel Services $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Utility Charges 1,621.00 1,621.00 1,621.00 Trash Collection 8 Disposal Fees 1,400.00 1,400.00 1,400.00 Water Charges 20,610.00 17,175.00 17,175.00 Services to maintain structures, grounds 960.00 960.00 960.00 City Staff Services 13,952.00 13,837.00 13,142.00 Contractual Services 40,100.00 38,190.00 36,374.00 Landscape Supplies 1,103.00 1,103.00 1,103.00 Materials to maintain structures, grounds 5,774.00 5,774.00 5,774.00 Backflow Certification 0.00 0.00 0.00 Professional Services 8,065.00 5,065.00 3,065.00 Supplementals 0.00 1,250.00 1,329.00 Other Commodities 0.00 0.00 0.00 Advertising 0.00 0.00 0.00 Transfer: Corporate Yard Debt Services 0.00 0.00 636.00 Specialized Services 1,200.00 0.00 0.00 Storm Maintenance 0.00 0.00 0.00 Special Maintenance Fund 0.00 0.00 0.00 Estimated Maintenance Cost $94,785.00 $86,375.00 $82,579.00 Reserve Requirement (1) $74,880.15 $86,375.00 $65,206.86 Reserve Percent 79% 100% 79% Special Reserve 0.00 0.00 0.00 Fund Balance (2) 87 705 88 91.303.65 66.848.20 Net Assessment (3) 581,959.27 $81,446.35 $80,937.68 Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDU's) (4) 210 210 210 Collectible/EDU $390.28 $387.84 $385.42 Percent change from prior year 1 % 1 % 7% Misc. Adjustments $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Revenue from even dollar payment $82,110.00 $81,480.00 80,938.20 MSS y .. ~~~~.~€ 3 ~ _ S±f„ , ssessmen wit $396.68 $394.24 Percent change from prior year 10% 5% 12% 6B n, "90k~k ~°o (1) Reserve Requirement =Estimated Maintenance Cost x Reserve Percent (2) The estimated June 30, 2009 fund balance was projected on May 19, 2009. (3) Net Assessment =Estimated Maintenance Cost + Reserve Requirement+ Special Reserve -Fund Balance (4) EDU's have been projected based upon Fiscal Year 2008/09 information (5) CPI Change for Fiscal Year 20092010 = 0.62°/, (fi) Delinquency Rate is as of 5/152009 14-37 CITY OF CHULA VISTA OSD 5 (Southbay Villas) 2009110 Fiscal Year District Cost Summary ~- rr• r ~ • rr: r• • rr r: • Personnel Services $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Utllity Charges 245.00 245.00 245.00 Trash Collection & Disposal Fees 280.00 280.00 280.00 Water Charges 11,817.00 9,817.00 11,817.00 Services to maintain structures, grounds 1,010.00 1,010.00 1,010.G0 City Staff Services 10,382.00 7,083.00 7,448.00 Contractual Services 13,913.00 13,250.00 12,615.00 Landscape Supplies 947.00 947.00 947.00 Materials to maintain structures, grounds 2,010.00 2,010.00 2,010.00 Backflow Certification 0.00 0.00 0.00' Professional Services 25,000.00 5,000.00 2,000.00 Supplementals 0.00 575.00 659.00 Other Commodities 0.00 0.00 0.00 Advertising 0.00 0.00 0.00 Transfer: Corporate Yard Debt Services 0.00 0.00 338.00 Specialized Services 800.00 0.00 0.00 Storm Maintenance 0.00 0.00 0.00 Special Maintenance Fund 0.00 0.00 0.00 Estimated Maintenance Cost $66,404.00 $40,217.00 $39,369.00 Reserve Requirement (1) $43,162.60 $40,217.00 $39,369.00 Reserve Percent 65% 100% 100% Special Reserve 0.00 20,000.00 0.00 Fund Balance (2) 67.238.34 59.104.33 34.933.69 Net Assessment (3) $42,328.26 $41,329.67 543,804.31 Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDU's) (4) 122 122 122 Collectible/EDU $346.95 $338.77 $359.05 Percent change from prior year 2% _g°/, 58% Misc. Adjustments $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 C©ktE,~TIBLEs,~,eilerkaFnf}~(Y ' ,sue".. . _ SQS~'- ~34t4Q 36Q., Ot Revenue from even dollar payment 42,334.00 $41,358.00 $43,920.00 A~SSESSi1AEt~~, .. _. s ?~ ~s'ra u ~ _~ 868 ' .~' .. ' ;~8~ „_a''. ssessment wlt $386.82 $384.44 Bud4,~... a .. t2' ""~ `~( .' ' ~329~f5~ . _ $322~k~; Percent change from prior year 65% 2% 7% Delr~,c~~e~oy(~Rate„~(ti6 . ' ~ . - .. (1) Reserve Requirement =Estimated Maintenance Cost x Reserve Peroent (2) The estimated June 30, 2009 fund balance was projected on May 19, 2009. (3) Net Assessment =Estimated Maintenance Cost + Reserve Requirement+ Special Reserve -Fund Balance (4) EDU's have keen projected teased upon Fiscal Year 2008/09 information (5) CPI Change far Fiscal Year 2009/2010 = 0.62 (fi) Delinquency Rate is as of 5/15/2009 14-38 CITY OF CHULA VISTA OSD 6 (Hilltop Visfa) 2009110 Fiscal Year District Cost Summary t. , 11' 1 ' 11: i' ii 9: Personnel Services $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Utility Charges 313.00 313.00 313.00 Trash Collection & Disposal Fees 280.00 280.00 280.00 Water Charges 8,834.00 7,334.00 6,559.00 Services to maintain structures, grounds 1,010.00 1,010.00 1,010.00 City Staff Services 5,544.00 4,492.00 4,190.00 Contractual Services 6,374.00 6,070.00 5,782.00 Landscape Supplies 311.00 311.00 311.00 Materials to maintain structures, grounds 2,010.00 2,010.00 2,010.00 Backflow Certification 0.00 0.00 0.00 Professional Services 6,500.00 500.00 494.00 Supplementals 0.00 350.00 339.00 Other Commodities 0.00 0.00 0.00 Advertising 0.00 0.00 0.00 Transfer: Corporate Yard Debt Services 0.00 0.00 171.00 Specialized Services 500.00 0.00 0.00 Storm Maintenance 0.00 0.00 0.00 Special Maintenance Fund 0.00 0.00 0.00 Estimated Maintenance Cost 531,676.00 $22,670.00 521,459.00 Reserve Requirement (1) $26,291.08 $22,670.00 $21,459.00 Reserve Percent 83% 100% 100% Special Reserve 0.00 10,000.00 0.00 Fund Balance (2) 30.603.35 29.102.63 16 563.72 Net Assessment (3) $27,363.73 $26,237.37 $26,354.28 Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDU's) (4) 162 162 162 CollectiblelEDU $168.91 $161.96 $162.68 Percent change from prior year 4% 0% 45% Misc. Adjustments $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Revenue from even dollar payment $27 378.00 26,244.00 26,406.00 SS . „ ~ .. ~sessmen wt 1.29 19 190.11 . BrTF!~eEII ~€'~ S'~ Percent change from prior year 40% 6% 11 f : ~ ~ 09a (t) Reserve Requirement =Estimated Maintenance Cost x Reserve Percent (2) The estimated June 30, 2009 fund balance was projected on May 19, 2009. (3) Net Assessment =Estimated Maintenance Cost + Reserve Requirement+ Special Reserve -Fund Balance (4) EDU's have been projected based upon Fiscal Year 2008/09 information (5) CPI Change for Fiscal Year 2009/2010 = 0.62% (6) Delinquency Rate is as of 5/15rL009 14-39 CITY OF CHULA VISTA OSD 7 (Zenith Units 2, 3 & 4) 2009110 Fiscal Year District Cost Summary ~_ rr• r ~ ~i: ~• rr r• . Personnel Services $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Utility Charges 211.00 211.00 211.00 Trash Collection 8 Disposal Fees 0.00 0.00 0.00 Water Charges 4,550.00 4,550.00 4,550.00 Services to maintain structures, grounds 540.00 540.00 540.00 City Staff Services 3,183.00 3,012.00 3,096.00 Contractual Services 1,966.00 1,966.00 4,321.00 Landscape Supplies 234.00 234.00 234.00 Materials to maintain structures, grounds 2,065.00 2,065.00 2,065.00 Backflow Certification 0.00 0.00 0.00 Professional Services 500.00 500.00 500.00 Supplementals 0.00 180.00 242.00 Other Commodities 0.00 0.00 0.00 Advertising 0.00 0.00 0.00 Transfer: Corporate Yard Debt Services 0.00 0.00 116.00 Specialized Services 250.00 0.00 0.00 Storm Maintenance 0.00 0.00 0.00 Special Maintenance Fund 0.00 0.00 0.00 Operating Reserve Collection 0.00 0.00 2.221.00 Estimated Maintenance Cost $13,499.00 $13,258.00 $18,096.00 Reserve Requirement (1) $5,939.56 $8,352.54 $3,619.20 Reserve Percent 44% 63% 20% Special Reserve 0.00 0.00 0.00 Fund Balance (2) 5.562.21 7.909.59 8.247.32 Net Assessment (3) $13,878.35 $13,700.95 $13,467.88 Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDU's) (4) 104 104 104 Collectible/EDU $133.43 $131.74 $129.50 Percent change from prior year 1 % 2% 3% Misc. Adjustments $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 CoLLECT[BLE"-,eveh'$ amou`nt,_,<. <. ~~ $'~33i63 r . ,aa,. ;1..,,~ . - ' r, ,,.,'~i132.OQ; .__. :r ,'.',!: ~a$129$4 Revenue from even dollar payment $13,897.52 $13,728.00 $13,503.36 ASSESSMENT. ... ~ ,.~.',r,,. ..~ . ~ t ,.'..~._..~a S133i-~_ ..,.,: ;.4~i328'4r : ..: ~ :.$129x8 Assessment wdh 15 $133.63 $132.81 BudgetlED[.6 ~:~ .~x,'~....,,,, ~ ...,,~ ' / ,~ s...,$,i2'9:8D '~._,~., , ~`: , ,.~._ .~ .,,~$t2~48t °~ "' ", ~' _. $9T4~f10- % Percent change from prior year 2% -27% 28 Delirtquertcy Rate' &) ~~7.69% , " 5:29% (1) Reserve Requirement =Estimated Maintenance Cost x Reserve Percent (2) The estimated June 30, 2009 fund balance was projected on May 19, 2009. (3) Net Assessment =Estimated Maintenance Cost + Reserve Requirement+ Special Reserve -Fund Balance (4) EDU's have been projected based upon Fiscal Year 2008/09 information (5) CPI Change for Fiscal Year 2009/2010 = 0.62% (6) Delinquency Rate is as of 5/15/2009 Levv ApplOVal Signature Date 14-40 CITY OF CHULA VISTA OSD 8 (Rancho Robinhood Unif 3) 2009/10 Fiscal Year District Cost Summary n-,-',a`2 H" ~• . rr• r ~ • rt: r' • it r. ° Personnel Services $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Utility Charges 404.00 404.00 404.00 Trash Collection & Disposal Fees 280.00 280.00 280.00 Water Charges 20,200.00 16,900.00 16,020.00 Services to maintain structures, grounds 1,030.00 1,030.00 1,030.00 City Staff Services 11,183.00 10,467.00 10,120.00 Contractual Services 29,705.00 28,290.00 26,940.00 Landscape Supplies 422.00 422.00 422.00 Materials to maintain structures, grounds 2,925.00 2,925.00 2,925.00 Backflow Certification 0.00 0.00 0.00 Professional Services 7,240.00 2,240.00 1,240.00 Supplementals 0.00 920.00 1,004.00 Other Commodities 0.00 0.00 0.00 Advertising 0.00 0.00 0.00 Transfer: Corporate Yard Debt Services 0.00 0.00 480.00 Specialized Services 1,000.00 0.00 0.00 Stomt Maintenance 0.00 0.00 0.00 Special Maintenance Fund 0.00 0.00 0.00 Estimated Maintenance Cost $74,389.00 $63,878.00 $60,865.00 Reserve Requirement (1) $40,913.95 $61,322.88 $49,909.30 Reserve Percent 55% 96% 82% Special Reserve 0.00 0.00 0.00 Fund Balance (2) 49.188.59 60.278.52 45.809.97 Net Assessment (3) $66,114.36 $64,922.36 $64,964.33 Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDU's) (4) 110 110 110 Collectible/EDU $601.04 $590.20 $590.58 Percent change from prior year 2% 0% - 3% Misc. Adjustments $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 @Et;tz, e~eeia~~ ~~n . .. ~02m'~04 ' , Revenue from even dollar payment $66,220.00 $65,010'00 65,010.00 w. -S,SM .. H "" ssessmen wi $610.45 $606.70 E ~ &~~2,m ~ ~:~ i Percent change from prior year 16% 5°/, 9% (7) Reserve Requirement =Estimated Maintenance Cost x Reserve Percent (2) The estimated June 30, 2009 fund balance was p rojected on May 19, 2009. (3) Net Assessment =Estimated Maintenance Cost+ Reserve Requirement + Special Reserve -Fund Balance (4) EDU's have been projected based upon Fiscal Ye ar 2008/09 information (5) CPI Change for Fiscal Year 2009!2010 = 0.62°~ (6) Delinquency Rate is as of 5/15/2009 14-41 CITY OF CHULA VISTA OSD 9 (EI Rancho del Rey) 2009110 Fiscal Year District Cost Summary • Personnel Services $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Utility Charges 442.00 442.00 442.00 Trash Collection & Disposal Fees 1,020.00 1,020.00 2,520.00 Water Charges 23,595.00 19,595.00 22,095.00 Services to maintain structures, grounds 980.00 980.00 980.00 City Staff Services 13,090.00 8,368.00 13,027.00 Contractual Services 20,817.00 19,817.00 27,991.00 Landscape Supplies 0.00 0.00 1,005.00 Materials to maintain structures, grounds 4,400.00 4,400.00 4,400.00 Backflow Certification 0.00 0.00 0.00 Professional Services 15,540.00 3,540.00 3,540.00 Supplementals 0.00 875.00 1,337.00 Other Commodities 0.00 0.00 0.00 Advertising 0.00 0.00 0.00 Transfer: Corporate Yard Debt Services 0.00 0.00 618.00 Specialized Services 1,000.00 0.00 0.00 Storm Maintenance 0.00 0.00 0.00 Special Maintenance Fund 0.00 0.00 0.00 ,Operating Reserve Collection 0.00 0.00 10.365.00 'Estimated Maintenance Cost 580,884.00 $59,037.00 588,320.00 Reserve Requirement (1) $59,854.16 $59,037.00 $14,572.80 Reserve Percent 74% 100% 16.5% Special Reserve 0.00 10,000.00 0.00 Fund Balance (2) 79.147.39 69.053.61 38.567.16 Net Assessment (3) $61,590.77 $59,020.39 $84,325.64 Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDU's) (4) 384 384 384 Collectible/EDU $160.39 $153.70 $167.51 Percent change from prior year 4% -8% 3% Misc. Adjustments $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 CQEE~t~%~16~E~~,ev~ 3?T,ES~€Tik e ,_` r3( -c+~, "•' s~~~~ :. ... m$Y~a 4~s "`~ ., 16._'k Revenue from even dollar payment $61,824.00 $59,136.00 $64,550.40 ASSESSN}EI!t_ ' i ;.. v` 3w`• _.._: v s.c~"5~~x` ,~. >a as ~ ` ..k . _ ~g~=~0<" ssessmentwlt $173.01 $171.95 Btidge?jEQ ,, ~.. ~, M .'~ ~~, fYs& v Win: _,.. :5~~ ... S23ge~ Percent change from poor year 37% 33% 19% Delon uenlr at ` 6 ~, F ..3 4.~ . ~.. ~',~_ , ' ~,. . ;;±Z"29,°~ .~' °`~ ~r6t64"F (1) Reserve Requirement =Estimated Maintenance Cost x Reserve Percent (2) The estimated June 30, 2009 fund balance was projectetl on May 19, 2009. (3) Net Assessment =Estimated Maintenance Cost+ Reserve Requirement+ Special Reserve -Fund Balance (4) EDU's have been projectetl based upon Fiscal Year 2008/09 information (5) CPI Change for Fiscal Year 2009/2010 = 0.62 (6) Delinquency Rate is as of 5/15/2009 14-42 CITY OF CHULA VISTA OSD 10 (EI Rancho del Rey 6 8 Cassa del Rey) 2009/10 Fiscal Year District Cost Summary -- }r• r ~ , rr: r• rr r: , Personnel Services $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Utility Charges 383.00 383.00 383.00 Trash Collection & Disposal Fees 840.00 840.00 840.00 Water Charges 20,795.00 17,295.00 16,295.00 Services to maintain structures, grounds 850.00 850.00 850.00 City Staff Services 12,562.00 12,840.00 13,261.00 Contractual Services 40,026.00 38,120.00 36,304.00 Landscape Supplies 739.00 739.00 739.00 Materials to maintain structures, grounds 2,575.00 2,575.00 2,575.00 Backflow Certification 0.00 0.00 0.00 Professional Services 4,170.00 4,170.00 3,470.00 Supplementals 0.00 1,150.00 1,330.00 Other Commodities 0.00 0.00 0.00 Advertising 0.00 0.00 0.00 Transfer: Corporate Yard Debt Services 0.00 0.00 647.00 Specialized Services 1,000.00 0.00 0.00 Storm Maintenance 0.00 0.00 0.00 Special Maintenance Fund 0.00 0.00 0.00 Estimated Maintenance Cost $83,940.00 $78,962.00 $76,694.00 Reserve Requirement (1) $65,473.20 $71,065.80 $53,685.80 Reserve Percent 78% 90% 70% Special Reserve 0.00 0.00 0.00 Fund Balance (2) 73.550.98 74.415.96 56,429.93 Net Assessment (3) $75,862.22 $75,611.84 $73,949.87 Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDU's) (4) 655.76 655.76 655.76 Collectible/EDU $115.69 $115.30 $112.77 Percent change from prior year 0% 2% 3% Misc. Adjustments $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 ~,.. Revenue from even dollar payment $76,068.16 $75,412.40 $74,100.88 ssessmen w1 116.74 $116.03 Percent change from prior year 6% 3% 4% (1) Reserve Requirement =Estimated Maintenance Cast x Reserve Percent (2) The estimated June 30, 2009 fund balance was projected on May 19, 2009. (3) Net Assessment = Esdmated,Maintenance Cost + Reserve Requirement+ Special Reserve -Fund Balance (4) EDU's have been projected based upon Fiscal Year 2008/09 information (5) CPI Change for Fiscal Year 2009/20'10 = 0.62 (6) Delinquency Rate is as of 5/15/2009 14-43 CITY OF CHULA VISTA OSD 11 (Hidden Vista Village) 2009/10 Fiscal Year District Cost Summary >t- lt• f ~ • ir: r• • tt r: Personnel Services $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Utility Charges 687.00 687.00 687.00 Trash Collection & Disposal Fees 4,480.00 4,480.00 4,480.00 Water Charges 33,866.00 28,216.00 27,216.00 Services to maintain structures, grounds 10,000.00 10,000.00 10,000.00 City Staff Services 27,847.00 25,694.00 24,599.00 Contractual Services 58,170.00 55,400.00 52,763.00 Landscape Supplies 711.00 711.00 711.00 Materials to maintain structures, grounds 8,630.00 8,630.00 8,630.00 Backflow Certification 0.00 0.00 0.00 Professional Services 31,600.00 14,600.00 10,242.00 Supplementals 0.00 2,100.00 2,548.00 Other Commodities 0.00 0.00 0.00 Advertising 0.00 0.00 0.00 Transfer: Corporate Yard Debt Services 0.00 0.00 1,205.00 Specialized Services 2,200.00 0.00 0.00 Storm Maintenance 0.00 0.00 0.00 Special Maintenance Fund 0.00 0.00 0.00 Estimated Maintenance Cost $178,191.00 $150,518.00 $143,081.00 Reserve Requirement (1) $137,207.07 $150,518.00 $127,342.09 Reserve Percent 77% 100% 69% Special Reserve 0.00 30,000.00 0.00 Fund Balance (2) 177.108.13 197.499.24 120.352.58 Net Assessment (3) $138,289.94 $133,536.78 $150,070.51 Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDU's) (4) 1,321.04 1,321.04 1,321.04 Collectible/EDU $104.68 $101.08 $113.60 Percent change from prior year 4% -11 % 64% Misc. Adjustments $0.00 ($0.08) $0.00 COLLEG'~lB~~~,'~SY,e~rtartSau ~ t "f~,,~ -~` $ttl5,q~ ~ :. ;~~ ;.`. - ~tk'~QOr .j`,?§~' ,``$r<'kT4AQ' Revenue from even dollar payment $138,709.20 $133,424.96 $150,598.56 /ISSESSM,EN Y~~ ,~i: 9Fr10 ~'~'~ $~'~"?'~te °f"';r~, 'C4~7+8) ssessment cal 118.13 $117.41 BudgeClEUtI y"~ ~ .I ' "~ . Est .'~~~~ ,; ' "..I a.,._ ~~~4'Gs~~~~ .~.. "~, 'ia 1©1~ Percent change from prior year 18% 5°/, 2% e?'{fi . . , Del rnq~Tertc~g~?t ~ ~ ~ 'y } ~`~~~~4~% : ~ ss`4:Q~°~c fig" > ~ m : w~ _ .. , _ ., _ (1) Reserve Requirement =Estimated Maintenance Cost x Reserve Percent (2) The estimated June 30, 2009 fund balance was projected on May 19, 2009. (3) Net Assessment =Estimated Maintenance Cost + Reserve Requirement+ Special Reserve -Fund Balance (4) EDU's have been projected based upon Fiscal Year 2008/09 infonnatien (5) CPI Change for Fiscal Year 2009/2010 = O.fi2% (6) Delinquency Rate is as of 5/i5/2009 14-44 CITY OF CHULA VISTA OSD 14 (Bonifa Long Canyon) 2009/10 Fiscal Year District Cost Summary ~- ti• t ~ • tt: i• tt t: • Personnel Services $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Utility Charges 2,045.00 2,045.00 2,045.00 Trash Collection & Disposal Fees 5,600.00 5,600.00 5,600.00 Water Charges 117,205.00 97,705.00 97,705.00 Services to maintain structures, grounds 3,150.00 3,150.00 3,150.00 City Staff Services 56,432.00 53,779.00 54,281.00 Contractual Services 140,470.00 133,770.00 127,397.00 Landscape Supplies 3,176.00 3,176.00 3,176.00 Materials to maintain structures, grounds 12,940.00 12,940.00 12,940.00 Backflow Certification 0.00 0.00 0.00 Professional Services 42,115.00 22,115.00 12,115.00 Supplementals 0.00 5,000.00 5,605.00 Other Commodities 0.00 0.00 0.00 Advertising 0.00 0.00 0.00 Transfer: Corporate Yard Debt Services 0.00 0.00 2,732.00 Specialized Services 4,600.00 0.00 0.00 Storm Maintenance 0.00 0.00 0.00 Special Maintenance Fund 0.00 0.00 0.00 Estimated Maintenance Cost $387,733.00 $339,280.00 $326,748.00 Reserve Requirement (1) $290,799.75 $305,352.00 $248,326.96 Reserve Percent 75% 90% 76.0% Special Reserve 0.00 0.00 0.00 Fund Balance (2) 352.951.56 322.493.15 257.296.41 Net Assessment (3) $325,581.19 $322,138.85 $317,776.55 Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDU's) (4) 863 863 863 Collectible/EDU $377.27 $373.28 $368.22 Percent change from prior year 1 % 1 % 3% Misc. Adjustments $0.00 $0.00 ($8.63) ,FE€~""16~, a 6Lt7iu[i. -. 0 .."' ~i :6. Revenue from even dollar payment 326,214.00 $321,899.00 $318,429.74 ESSM ~ _, ~9~~ . , ssessmen wit 379.78 377.44 Batt" 1!E ~~ 3QB P ercent change from prior year 14% 4% 7% ~,~,{ . ~aSLt'uS,:', E. a .. ., tt~d . (1) Reserve Requirement =Estimated Maintenance Cost x Reserve Percent (2) The estimated June 30, 2009 fund balance was projected on May 19, 2009. (3) Net Assessment =Estimated Maintenance Cost+ Reserve Requirament+ Special Reserve -Fund Balance (4) EDU's have been projected based upon Fiscal Year 2008!09 information (5) CPI Change for Fiscal Year 2009/2010 = 0.62°~ (fi) Delinquency Rate is as of 5/15!2009 14-45 CITY OF CHULA VISTA OSD 75 (Bonita Haciendas) 2009/10 Fiscal Year District Cost Summary e- tr• r • rr: r• • IC t: • Personnel Services $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Utility Charges 179.00 179.00 179.00 Trash Collection & Disposal Fees 1,400.00 1,400.00 280.00 I Water Charges 6,600.00 5,500.00 7,000.00 Services to maintain structures, grounds 800.00 800.00 800.00 City Staff Services 5,843.00 4,175.00 4,223.00 Contractual Services 4,505.00 4,290.00 4,087.00 Landscape Supplies 204.00 204.00 204.00 Materials to maintain structures, grounds 1,710.00 1,710.00 1,710.00 Backflow Certification 0.00 0.00 0.00 Professional Services 12,620.00 2,620.00 1,120.00 Supplementals 0.00 310.00 322.00 Other Commodities 0.00 0.00 0.00 Advertising 0.00 0.00 0.00 Transfer: Corporate Yard Debt Services 0.00 0.00 172.00 Specialized Services 500.00 0.00 0.00 Storm Maintenance 0.00 0.00 0.00 Special Maintenance Fund 0.00 0.00 0.00 Estimated Maintenance Cost $34,361.00 $21,188.00 $20,097.00 Reserve Requirement (1) $21,097.65 $21,188.00 $15,273.72 Reserve Percent 61% 100% 76% Special Reserve 0.00 6,000.00 0.00 Fund Balance (2) 36.218.45 28.229.92 15,210.07 Net Assessment (3) $19,240.20 $20,146.08 $20,160.65 Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDU's) (4) 57 57 57 CollectiblelEDU $337.55 $353.44 $353.70 Percent change from prior year -4% 0% 47% Misc. Adjustments $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 CO~~~GT(~9~E'-;I~vg~artgui~ .. dt d ~. $33~E.Q,4r `, o 3~4~O;k _ ~~~'~4q Revenue from even dollar payment $19,266.00 $20,178.00 $20,178.00 .KSSESSMEI~ ;_. `, r.... , $36, .. ~ ~~k'~~ _ _ .~54`,Q2 ssessmentwl $364.36 $362.12 BltrdgetlED ., a'~ t4 ~ j`. _, m $fit)2~2~ ~ ,'tti~3m ~m ''. . ~ 2:58? Percent change from prior year 62% 5% 9% FSel.r.~rtlttienc~lTatk~`~8~? ~=i ~~~~ `! .rn - `: ~° 'i~ °~ ~ ~88a° ~ a ._ ., , . ,,~ . . m .k ; (1) Reserve Requirement =Estimated Maintenance Cast x Reserve Percent (2) The estimated June 30, 2009 fund balance was projected on May 19, 2009. (3) Net Assessment =Estimated Maintenance Cost + Reserve Requirement + Special Reserve - Funtl Balance (4) EDU's have been projected based upon Fiscal Year 2008/09 information (5) CPI Change For Fiscal Year 2009/2010 = 0.62% (fi) Delinquency Rate is as of 5/15/2009 14-46 CITY OF CHULA VISTA OSD 17 (Bel Air Ridge). 2009/10 Fiscal Year District Cost Summary ~• , 11• 1 • 11: 1' 11 1: • Personnel Services $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Utility Charges 0.00 0.00 0.00 Trash Collection & Disposal Fees 560.00 560.00 560.00 Water Charges 0.00 0.00 0.00 Services to maintain structures, grounds 0.00 0.00 0.00 City Staff Services 2,088.00 968.00 1,240.00 Contractual Services 1,250.00 1,250.00 1,190.00 Landscape Supplies 550.00 550.00 550.00 Materials to maintain structures, grounds 3,100.00 100.00 100.00 Backflow Certification 0.00 0.00 0.00 Professional Services 0.00 0.00 0.00 Supplementals 0.00 50.00 67.00 Other Commodities 0.00 0.00 0.00 Advertising 0.00 0.00 0.00 Transfer: Corporate Yard Debt Services 0.00 0.00 46.00 Specialized Services 200.00 0.00 0.00 Storm Maintenance 0.00 0.00 0.00 Special Maintenance Fund 0.00 0.00 0.00 Estimated Maintenance Cost $7,748.00 $3,478.00 $3,753.00 Reserve Requirement (1) $5,113.68 $3,478.00 $3,002.40 Reserve Percent 66% 100% 80% Special Reserve 0.00 3,000.00 0.00 Fund Balance (2) 7.515.42 4.864.89 1,451.54 Net Assessment (3) $5,346.26 55,091.11 $5,303.86 Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDU's) (4) 46 46 46 Collectible/EDU $116.22 $110.68 $115.30 Percent change from prior year 5%' -4% 42% Misc. Adjustments $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 ~~~~FTt "`~. ,orb,. ~ ~ 9~ ,~=Q Revenue from even dollar payment $5,382.00 $5,106.00 $5,336.00 E. dtE a `~ .- ssessmen cal $174.41 $173.34 m ~5~.~~ S~s& Peroent change from prior year 123% -7% -14% (1) Reserve Requirement =Estimated Maintenance Cost x Reserve Percent (2) The estimated June 30, 2009 fund balance was projected on May 19, 2009. (3) Net Assessment =Estimated Maintenance Cost+ Reserve Requirement + Special Reserve -Fund Balance (4) EDU's have been projected basetl upon Fiscal Year 2008/09 information (5) CPI Change for Fiscal Year 20092010 = 0.62M (6) Delinquency Rate is as of 5/152009 14-47 CITY OF CHULA VISTA OSD 18 (Rancho del Sur) 2009110 Fiscal Year District Cost Summary - e- tt' t ~ , tt: t• ll t: Personnel Services $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Utility Charges 996.00 996.00 996.00 Trash Collection & Disposal Fees 0.00 0.00 0.00 Water Charges 45,600.00 38,000.00 36,000.00 Services to maintain structures, grounds 5,870.00 5,870.00 5,870.00 City Staff Services 19,285.00 19,475.00 24,303.00 Contractual Services 44,835.00 42,700.00 40,671.00 Landscape Supplies 986.00 986.00 986.00 Materials to maintain structures, grounds 6,875.00 6,875.00 6,875.00 Backflow Certification 0.00 0.00 0.00 Professional Services 4,450.00 4,450.00 3,450.00 Supplementals 0.00 1,800.00 2,095.00 Other Commodities 0.00 0.00 0.00 Advertising 0.00 0.00 0.00 Transfer: Corporate Yard Debt Services 0.00 0.00 1,207.00 Specialized Services 1,600.00 0.00 0.00 Storm Maintenance 0.00 0.00 0.00 Special Maintenance Fund 0.00 0.00 0.00 Estimated Maintenance Cost $130,497.00 $121,152.00 $122,453.00 Reserve Requirement (1) $110,922.45 $96,921.60 $91,839.75 Reserve Percent 85% 80% 75% Special Reserve 0.00 0.00 0.00 Fund Balance (2) 125.921.33 108.205.58 118.146.00 Net Assessment (3) $115,498.12 5109,868.02 596,146.75 Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDU's) (4) 435 435 435 Collectible/EDU $265.51 $252.57 $221.03 Percent change from prior year 5% 14% 15% Misc. Adjustments $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Cc7~C:EP~~)B~F'e~te$mdyri _ , ~, ,; ,266~Qf~`r , '.'_ _. ~ ...< ~$~z4t~ 32~'~~g0,„ Revenue from even dollar payment $115,710.00 $110,055.00 $96,135.00 ASSESSME ~. ' . ~. '~`, &;!<. '. .. :'< $409<li'.~F ~e'", §4d44S~ ssessmen wl $412.16 $409.62 tlEq Bu d~ e . ,; ~ .$?9~~` .... _ ~,$27~&`a'16'~ $254:50 ~ , ° ,.. Percent change from prior year . 8% -1 % 6% Delrnyuency~,.~afw.,,(6 . " ~ :~, ,. ;'." "~W ' . 8~°~ ,~. ~' . a , '~fi'~°f° (1) Reserve Requirement =Estimated Maintenance Cast x Reserve Percent (2) The estimated June 30, 2009 fund balance was projected on May 19, 2009. (3) Net Assessment =Estimated Maintenance Cost + Reserve Requirement + Special Reserve -Fund Balance (4) EDU's have keen projected based upon Fiscal Year 2008/09 infonna6on (5) CPI Change for Fiscal Year 2009/2010 = 0.62 (6) Delinquency Rate is as of 5!15/2009 14-48 CITY OF CHULA VISTA OSD 20 (Rancho del Rey Zone 1) 2009110 Fiscal Year District Cost Summary ~- ~r• t ~ , tt: t• • at t: • Personnel Services $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Utility Charges 0.00 0.00 0.00 Trash Collection & Disposal Fees 0.00 0.00 0.00 Water Charges 0.00 0.00 0.00 Services to maintain structures, grounds 0.00 0.00 0.00 City Staff Services 5,334.00 5,824.00 7,368.00 Contractual Services 0.00 0.00 0.00 Landscape Supplies 0.00 0.00 0.00 Materials to maintain structures, grounds 0.00 0.00 0.00 8ackflow Certification 0.00 0.00 0.00 Professional Services 0.00 0.00 0.00 Supplementals 0.00 850.00 876.00 Other Commodities 0.00 0.00 0.00 Advertising 0.00 0.00 0.00 Transfer: Corporate Yard Debt Services 0.00 0.00 416.00 Specialized Services 500.00 0.00 0.00 Storm Water Maintenance 25,000.00 25,000.00 40,000.00 Special Maintenance Fund 0.00 0.00 0.00 Estimated Maintenance Cost 530,834.00 $31,674.00 $48,660.00 Reserve Requirement (1) $30,834.00 $31,674.00 $8,660.00 Reserve Percent 100% 100% 100% Special Reserve 0.00 75,000.00 138,667.00 Fund Balance (2) 30.834.00 84.089.95 142.129.17 Net Assessment (3) $30,834.00 $54,258.05 $53,857.83 Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDU's) (4) 876.26 876.26 876.26 CollectiblelEDU $35.19 $61.92 $61.46 Percent change from prior year -43% 1 % 350% Misc, Adjustment $0.00 $0.04 ($10.95) Revenue from even dollar payment 31,545.36 $54,328.1.6 $54,220.78 S 63~ _ ~_ ssessmen wrt $63.69 $63.31 _ ... ...' ,mom Percent Change from prior year -98% 266% -9% ~~ _.: .. .. .... .: ... .. 5~~~8r°~ ~. • ,° ,. , tl (1) Reserve Requirement =Estimated Maintenance C ost x Reserve Percent (2) The estimated June 30, 2009 fund balance was p rojected on May 19, 2009. (3) Net Assessment =Estimated Maintenance Cost + Reserve Requirement + Specia l Reserve -Fund Balance+Costs from monies previously collecte d + Amortized Costs (4) EDU's have been projected based upon Fiscal Year 2008/09 information (5) CPI Change for Fiscal Year 2009/2010 = 0.62% (6) Delinquency Rate is as of 5/15/2009 14-49 CITY OF CHULA VISTA OSD 20 (Rancho del Rey Zone 2) 2009/10 Fiscal Year District Cost Summary 3- 1 1• 1' • 1 1: 1• • 1 1 I • Personnel Services $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Utility Charges 136.00 136.00 136.00 Trash Collection & Disposal Fees 0.00 0.00 280.00 Water Charges 2,400.00 2,400.00 5,400.00 Services to maintain structures, grounds 100.00 100.00 250.00 City Staff Services 3,246.00 3,111.00 6,663.00 Contractual Services 7,678.00 7,678.00 19,519.00 Landscape Supplies 0,00 0.00 460.00 Materials to maintain structures, grounds 450.00 450.00 950.00 Backflow Certification 0.00 0.00 0.00 Professional Services 337.00 337.00 1,337.00 Supplementals 0.00 200.00 622.00 Other Commodities 0.00 0.00 0.00 Advertising 0.00 0.00 0.00 Transfer: Corporate Yard Debt Services 0.00 0.00 362.00 Storm Maintenance 0.00 0.00 0.00 Specialized Services 200.00 0.00 0.00 Special Maintenance Fund 0.00 0.00 0.00 Operating Reserve Collection 0.00 0.00 31,330.46 Estimated Maintenance Cost $14,547.00 $14,412.00 $67,309.46 Reserve Requirement (1) $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Reserve Percent 0% 0% 0% Special Reserve 0.00 0.00 0.00 Fund Balance (2) (27.652.64) (36.480.181 (12.253.39) Net Assessment (3) $42,199.84 $50,892.18 $79,562.85 Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDU's) (4) 3,959.38 3,959.38 3,959.38 CollectiblelEDU $10.66 $12.85 $20.09 Percent change from prior year -17% -36% 94% Misc. Adjustment $0.00 ($0.84) ($21.75) GQ~~E~~IBfw._ ~ vei~,5!~~o(AGL a ... . ,: - t ~#8. .x 3 . , sS~=B "tir';`~$~~~ Revenue from even dollar payment $19,084.21 $19,004.18 $18,547.74 ,t4SSESSMEN~. A .. , n w ,,. '~t~$g "' : ~`.lSt :. .... ~ $;' ssessment wlt . $4.82 $4.80 BudgetlFFA.m ,' .. ~h ": Y -". w" ~" m~;' , :. .,~ .a~ .u.~ ' ' I~$'~~' Percent Change from prior year 1 % -79% 90% DelrAngfirenc~~Rat~'(6)ic„*, a'~`m.~ `:~_~ ,~ m, :.~..r~ .."~.<,, '~a ' ~,..~ ~®. ~~'F~'~~ (1) Reserve Requirement = EsBmated Maintenance Cost x Reserve Percent (2) The estimated June 30, 2009 fund balance was projected on May 19, 2009. (3) Net Assessment =Estimated Maintenance Cost + Reserve Requirement + Special Reserve -Fund Balance + Costs from monies previously collected + Amortized Costs (4) EDU's have been projected based upon Fiscal Year 2008/09 informaticn (5) CPI Change for Fiscal Year 2009/2010 = 0.62 (6) Delinquency Rate is as of 5/15/2009 14-50 CITY OF CHULA VISTA OSD 20 (Rancho del Rey Zone 3) 2009/10 Fiscal Year District Cost Summary >ta 11' i , 11' 1 , 73 1: Personnel Services $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Utility Charges 409.00 409.00 409.00 Trash Collection & Disposal Fees 0.00 0.00 0.00 Water Charges 9,829.00 8,189.00 8,189.00 Services to maintain structures, grounds 500.00 500.00 500.00 City Staff Services 7,000.00 6,649.00 5,618.00 Contractual Services 16,842.00 16,040.00 15,275.00 Landscape Supplies 2,260.00 2,260.00 2,260.00 Materials to maintain structures, grounds 3,130.00 3,130.00 3,130.00 Backflow Certification 0.00 0.00 0.00 Professional Services 4,850.00 1,850.00 1,050.00 Supplementals 0.00 570.00 629.00 Other Commodities 0.00 0.00 0.00 Advertising 0.00 0.00 0.00 Specialized Services 600.00 0.00 0.00 Transfer: Corporate Yard Debt Services 0.00 0.00 303.00 Storm Maintenance 0.00 0.00 0.00 Special Maintenance Fund 0.00 0.00 0.00 Estimated Maintenance Cost 545,420.00 $39,597.00 537,363.00 Reserve Requirement (1) $36,336.00 $39,597.00 $37,363.00 Reserve Percent 80% 100% 100% Special Reserve 0.00 0.00 0.00 Fund Balance (2) 45.554.45 44.531.42 44.518.22 Net Assessment (3) 536,201.55 534,662.58 530,207.78 Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDU's) (4) 6,142.50 6,142.50 6,142.50 Collectible/EDU $5.89 $5.64 $4.92 Percent change from prior year 4% 15% 1 % Misc. Adjustments $0.00 $0.02 $0.00 even dollar payment o m Reven ue fr $36,855.02 $36,855.04 $30,712.52 ~ ~ r~ ~ C / ssessmen wrt $6.89 $6.85 - ft4,~~;~ 5- 5 Percent Change from prior year 15% 6% 2% $, u (1) Reserve Requirement= Estimated Maintenance Costx Reserve Percent (2) The estimated June 30, 2009 fund balance was projected on May 19, 2009. (3) Net Assessment =Estimated Maintenance Cost+ Reserve Requirement + Special Reserve -Fund Balance + Costs from monies previously collected+Amortized Costs (4) EDU's have keen projected hosed upon Fiscal Year 2008/09 information (6) CPI Change for Fiscal Year 2009/2010 = 0.62 (6) Delinquency Rate is as of 5/15/2009 14-51 CITY OF CNULA VISTA OSD 20 (Rancho del Rey Zone 4) 2009/10 Fiscal Year District Cost Summary ~- its t tt: t~ ~ tr t: Personnel Services $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Utility Charges 1,200.00 1,200.00 409.00 Trash Collection & Disposal Fees 280.00 280.00 280.00 Water Charges 28,795.00 23,995.00 23,995.00 Services to maintain structures, grounds 1,869.00 1,869.00 1,869.00 City Staff Services 20,971.00 14,202.00 14,004.00 Contractual Services 33,915.00 32,300.00 30,761.00 Landscape Supplies 860.00 860.00 860.00 Materials to maintain structures, grounds 2,380.00 2,380.00 2,380.00 Backflow Certification 0.00 0.00 0.00 Professional Services 44,000.00 4,000.00 2,500.00 Supplementals 0.00 1,180.00 1,372.00 Other Commodities 0.00 0.00 0.00 Advertising 0.00 0.00 0.00 Transfer: Corporate Yard Debt Services 0.00 0.00 657.00 Specialized Services 1,800.00 0.00 0.00 Storm Maintenance 0.00 0.00 0.00 Special Maintenance Fund 0.00 0.00 0.00 Operating Reserve Collection 0.00 0.00 56.242.53 Estimated Maintenance Cost $136,070.00 $82,266.00 $135,329.53 Reserve Requirement (1) $136,070.00 $55,118.22 $135,329.53 Reserve Percent 100% 67% 100% Special Reserve 0.00 0.00 64,032.00 Fund Balance (2) 136.070.00 92,551.65 115.503.69 Net Assessment (3) $136,070.00 $137,384.89 $219,187.37 Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDU's) (4) 2,602.49 2,602.49 2,602.49 Collectible/EDU $52.28 $52.79 $84.22 Percent change from prior year -1 % -37% 250% Misc. Adjustments $0.00 ($0.11) $0.00 C(JN:~EG~TIB~E~.e~ve5~$°ama~±~~; .~~ .`~,~ ,, 9~3°..t~ ~ ~ ° g~53 4r ~" ,. 52'xQ Revenue from even dollar payment $137,931.97 $137,931.86 $135,329.48 A~S,tSSlul~ _ _ ~ : ,,. &~ ?` ;?`.`;'~. _'`'$S33~"~w '~ _' .. _ ' `+° ' ~?,~?`~~r r,ate: $5~ 0A ssessmen wl $53.52 $53.19 Bktti~J,~~'_~~„.., c:.M+ ^ w .~ I .~^ p ,. $5252'NeA 4 " "~.n ~ t`k ~{ r:r ws I x' $52:~E Percent change from prior year 65% -39°/, 80% ETelinqueit~~Etat~:66+ e, ° ~ en« .` ; .~~ .:~rv~ ~'._''~. -~ .~,M .,~ _.. `~*~ ,1;~'[a°(a .;'~~..,°~;,s....~#~';`fi~~Q°fo (1) Reserve Requirement =Estimated Maintenance Cost x Reserve Percent (2) The estimated June 30, 2009 fund balance was projected on May 19, 2009. (3) Net Assessment = Estimated.Maintenance Cost + Reserve Requirement + Special Reserve -Fund Balance + Costs from monies previously collected + Amortized Casts (4) EDU's have been projected based upon Fiscal Year 2008/09 information (5) CPI Change far Fiscal Year 2009/2010 = 0.62 (6) Delinquency Rate is as of 5/15/2009 14-52 CITY OF CHULA VISTA OSD 20 (Rancho del Rey Zone 5) 2009110 Fiscal Year District Cost Summary Personnel Services $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Utility Charges 3,314.00 3,314.00 3,314.00 Trash Collection & Disposal Fees 3,360.00 3,360.00 3,360.00 Water Charges 154,218.00 129,218.00 149,218.00 Services to maintain structures, grounds 12,152.00 12,152.00 12,152.00 City Staff Services 103,103.00 106,731.00 111,720.00 Contractual Services 303,630.00 289,130.00 234,076.00 Landscape Supplies 7,700.00 7,700.00 7,700.00 Materials to maintain structures, grounds 18,798.00 18,798.00 18,798.00 Backflow Certification 0.00 0.00 0.00 Professional Services 93,093.00 93,093.00 61,093.00 Supplementals 0.00 9,800.00 10,877.00 Other Commodities 0.00 0.00 0.00 Advertising 0.00 0.00 0.00 Transfer: Corporete Yard Debt Services 0.00 0.00 5,669.00 Specialized Services 8,500.00 0.00 0.00 Storm Maintenance 0.00 0.00 0.00 Special Maintenance Fund 0.00 0.00 0.00 Estimated Maintenance Cost $707,868.00 $673,296.00 5617,977.00 Reserve Requirement (1) $368,091.36 $336,648.00 $444,943.44 Reserve Percent 52% 50% 72% Special Reserve 0.00 0.00 569,912.00 Fund Balance (2) 421.734.11 388.742.12 1 176.706.60 Net Assessment (3) $654,225.25 $621,201.88 $458,125.84 Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDU's) (4) 1,795 1,795 1,795 Collectible/EDU $364.47 $346.07 $254.11 Percent change from prioryear 5% 36% 3% Misc. Adjustments $0.00 , $0.00 $0.00 ~;Q&l~;, B~ , ~.. art+ii,. _. StOx S2~Si.00 Revenue from even dollar payment $655 175.00 $622,865.00 $457,725.00 ssessmen wlt $387.01 $384.63 - Percent change from prior year 5% 9% 4% (t) Reserve Requirement= Estimated Maintenance Costx Reserve Percent (2) The estimated June 30, 2009 fund balance was projected on May 19, 2009. (3) Net Assessment =Estimated Maintenance Cost + Reserve Requirement+ Special Reserve -Fund Balance + Costs from monies previously collected + Amortized Costs (4) EDU's have keen projected based upon Fiscal Year 2008!09 information (5) CPI Change for Fiscal Year 200912010 = 0.62 (6) Delinquency Rate is as of 5/15/2009 14-53 CITY OF CHULA VISTA OSD 20 (Rancho del Rey Zone 6) 2009/10 Fiscal Year District Cost Summary a a Personnel Services $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Utility Charges 818.00 818.00 818.00 Trash Collection & Disposal Fees 2,240.00 2,240.00 2,240.00 Water Charges 36,200.00 30,200.00 30,200.00 Services to maintain structures, grounds 9,690.00 9,690.00 9,690.00 City Staff Services 19,952.00 20,352.00 19,747.00 Contractual Services 50,610.00 48,200.00 46,379.00 Landscape Supplies 1,700.00 1,700.00 1,700.00 Materials to maintain structures, grounds 2,150.00 2,150.00 2,150.00 Backflow Certification 0.00 0.00 0.00 Professional Services 6,900.00 6,900.00 4,400.00 Supplementals 0.00 1,800.00 2,112.00 Other Commodities 0.00 0.00 0.00 Advertising 0.00 0.00 0.00 Transfer: Corporate Yard Debt Services 0.00 0.00 941.00 Specialized Services 1,800.00 0.00 0.00 Storm Maintenance 0.00 0.00 0.00 Special Maintenance Fund 0.00 0.00 0.00 Estimafed Maintenance Cost 8132,060.00 $124,050.00 $120,377.00 Reserve Requirement (1) $81,877.20 $74,430.00 $114,358.15 Reserve Percent 62% 60% 95% Special Reserve 0.00 0.00 0.00 Fund Balance (2) 91.743.48 81.597.55 127.858.47 Net Assessment (3) $122,193.72 $116,882.45 5106,876.68 Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDU's) (4) 568.21 568.21 568.21 Collectible/EDU $215.05 $205.70 $188.09 Percent change from prior year 5% 9% 32% Misc. Adjustment $0.00 $0.00 ($0.01) CQC~EEu~IB,LE~~~!e~?S~?4~t? "~` "~~ e ` . "_ "=`. $2,'46±<0 °~~~:r~,~: _ . .. SZg&.~6~ ,:-. t ;. ~89AfF, Revenue from even dollar payment $122,733.36 $117,051.26 $107,391.68 SSES„5)Gl~F7?.... - ~. ~`'?~. ~~3t5~ ".' .aµv tr?t9~. _~,..,,+ ' $!2Sva`i Y r~2B8;33=, ssess men wlt $2 9 7 3 7 $295.54 • y ~' B~~~~C)~ar v. .~¢p,~a S4FN~t~4~~ rv i iui+ [~y ~}.~'` SE~~3.. ,WL~~4YlIFn / ; p[µ~~ j 3. ixL~ryfYa ~m~0 BC~Sy~,S'~J. Y ff{ d_SM~~~~~~.: Percent change from prior year 6 % 3% 4% 9~e:'ijc~~t~t;`(,&~' ` . ~'~Y " "_. ,~ .. .. `"~~ '°;.. ,: -..:~7u &TM~ ~;°...'~j ; • t~' SetO"o (1) Reserve Requirement =Estimated Maintenance Cost z Reserve Percent (2) The estimated June 30, 2009 fund balance was projected on May 19, 2009. (3) Net Assessment = Estmated Maintenance Cost+ Reserve Requirement+ Special Reserve • Fund Balance + Costs from monies previously collected + Amortized Costs - (4) EDU's have been projected based upon Fiscal Year 2008/09 information (5) CPI Change for Fiscal Year 2009/2010 = 0.62% (6) Delinquency Rate is as of 5/15/2009 14-54 CITY OF CHULA VISTA OSD 20 (Rancho del Rey Zone 7) 2009/10 Fiscal Year District Cast Summary Personnel Services $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Utility Charges 1,159.00 1,159.00 1,159.00 Trash Collection & Disposal Fees 560.00 560.00 2,240.00 Water Charges 62,760.00 62,760.00 66,760.00 Services to maintain structures, grounds 3,000.00 3,000.00 17,150.00 City Staff Services 41,141.00 32,047.00 45,066.00 Contractual Services 115,835.00 89,850.00 110,319.00 Landscape Supplies 1,000.00 1,000.00 3,750.00 Materials to maintain structures, grounds 5,140.00 5,140.00 10,140.00 Backflow Certification 0.00 0.00 0.00 Professional Services 45,000.00 0.00 16,810.00 Supplementals 0.00 2,900.00 4,892.00 Other Commodities 0.00 0.00 0.00 Advertising 0.00 0.00 0.00 Transfer: Corporate Yard Debt Services 0.00 0.00 2,231.00 Specialized Services 3,200.00 0.00 0.00 Storm Maintenance 0.00 0.00 0.00 Special Maintenance Fund 0.00 0.00 0.00 Operating Reserve Collection 0.00 0.00 118,414.47 Estimated Maintenance Cost 5278,795.00 $198,47.6.00 $398,931.47 Reserve Requirement (1) $214,672.15 $198,416.00 $0.00 Reserve Percent 77% 100% 0% Special Reserve 0.00 45,000.00 0.00 Fund Balance (2) 278.795.00 227,979.07 148,786.83 Net Assessment (3) 5214,672.15 $213,852.93 $250,144.64 Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDU's) (4) 1,176.789 1,176.789 1,176.79 Collectible/EDU $182.42 $181.73 $212.57 Percent change from prior year 0% -15°/, 24% Misc. Adjustment $0.00 ($0.02) ($8.74) Revenue from even dollar payment $215,352.39 $214,175.58 $209,871.76 ssessmen wl $183.56 $182.43 FIe~.~s'' , .tai 829 .~:" ~„ _ , ~r Pe r cent chang from prior year e 41 % -50% 49% { [ ( ~ {e (1) Reserve Requirement =Estimated Maintenance Cost x Reserve Percent (2) The estimated June 30, 2009 fund balance was projected on May 19, 2009. (3) Net Assessment =Estimated Maintenance Cost + Reserve Requirement+ Special Reserve -Fund Balance + Costs from monies previously collected + Amortized Costs (4) EDU's have been projected based upon Fiscal Year 2008/09 information (5) CPI Change for Fiscal Year 200912010 = 0.62% (6) Delinquency Rate is as of 5/152009 14-55 CITY OF CHULA VISTA OSD 20 (Rancho del Rey Zone 8) 2009/10 Fiscal Year District Cost Summary a~ tt• t rt: r~ tt t: . Personnel Services $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 I Utility Charges 0.00 0.00 0.00 Trash Collection 8 Disposal Fees 0.00 0.00 0.00 Water Charges 0.00 0.00 0.00 Services to maintain structures, grounds 0.00 0.00 0.00 ~ City Staff Services 1,553.00 1,060.00 ~ 0.00 Contractual Services 0.00 0.00 0.00 Landscape Supplies 0.00 0.00 0.00 ' Materials to maintain structures, grounds 0.00 0.00 0.00 Backflow Certification 0.00 0.00 0.00 Professional Services 0.00 0.00 0.00 Supplementals - 0.00 0.00 0.00 Other Commodities 0.00 0.00 0.00 Advertising 0.00 0.00 0.00 Transfer: Corporate Yard Debt Services 0.00 0.00 0.00 Specialized Services 100.00 0.00 0.00 Storm Water Maintenance 3,000.00 3,000.00 0.00 Special Maintenance Fund 0.00 0.00 0.00 Estimated MaintenanceCast $4,653.00 $4,060.00 $0.00 Reserve Requirement (1) $4,653.00 $4,060.00 $0.00 Reserve Percent 100% 100% 75% Special Reserve 0.00 10,000.00 22,267.40 Fund Balance (2) 4.653.00 13.310.10 18.493.55 Net Assessment (3) $4,653.00 $4,809.90 53,773.85 Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDU's) (4) 118.82 118.82 118.82 Collectible/EDU $39.16 $40.48 $31.76 Percent change from prior year -3% 27% 202% Misc. Adjustments $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 ` OLE=`+EC~[BE, h ~eYeri*~S~~at3trn {. , "', . $AOOQ~ ' 1546k°Otl~ ~. $ 2k©~ » i , Revenue from even dollar payment _ . $4,752.80 , $4,752.80 .. , 4. „ $3,802.24 ASSN, SMEN~ , :r . ,~ ~ 23r q '"'""~. $42+06); , a :.. ~~Fr'~~' ssessmen wd $42.32 $42.06 BUd9e)/El?f1;)' ~'~-.ran , - r., inf. '. = 5 . r ~,~;344'k7~ ,„,, F~ktE;QO„ Percent change from prior year 15% 3317% 0% .., ., , D$)tnif~~tc~`r[2$t~(6~ ",: ~,~: ~a4°~o : !OQS°!u " ~~ ~., ,.~„ . ,- . .n ~ .r .~ (t) Reserve Requirement =Estimated Maintenance Cast x Reserve Percent (2) The estimated June 30, 2009 fund balance was projected on May 19, 2009. (3) Ne[ Assessment =Estimated Maintenance Cost+ Reserve Requirement + Special Reserve -Fund Balance + Costs from monies previously collected +gmortized Costs (4) EDU's have been projected based upon Fiscal Year 2008/09 information (5) CPI Change for Fiscal Year 2009/2010 = 0.62° (6) Delinquency Rate is as of 5/75/2009 14-56 CITY OF CHULA VISTA OSD 20 (Rancho del Rey Zone 9) 2009/10 Fiscal Year District Cost Summary ~- 11• f , tt: t• 11 t: • Personnel Services $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Utility Charges 0.00 0.00 0.00 Trash Collection & Disposal Fees 0.00 0.00 0.00 Water Charges 0.00 0.00 0.00 Services to maintain structures, grounds 0.00 0.00 0.00 City Staff Services 1,280.00 1,346.00 310.00 Contractual Services 1,435.00 1,435.00 1,435.00 Landscape Supplies 0.00 0.00 0.00 Materials to maintain structures, grounds 0.00 0.00 0.00 Backflow Certification 0.00 0.00 0.00 Professional Services 0.00 0.00 0.00 Supplementals 0.00 100.00 88.00 Other Commodities 0.00 0.00 0.00 Advertising 0.00 0.00 0.00 Transfer: Corporate Yard Debt Services 0.00 0.00 41.00 Specialized Services 100.00 0.00 0.00 Storm Water Maintenance 3,000.00 3,000.00 3,000.00 Special Maintenance Fund 0.00 0.00 0.00 Estimated Maintenance Cast $5,815.00 $5,881.00 $4,874.00 Reserve Requirement (1) $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Reserve Percent 0% 0% 0% Special Reserve 0.00 0.00 992.00 Fund Balance (2) 3.518.64 2.967.46 885.05 Net Assessment (3) $2,296.36 $2,913.54 $4,980.95 Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDU's) (4) 52.4611 52.4611 52.46 Collectible/EDU $43.77 $55.54 $94.95 Percent change from prior year -21 % -42°/, 204% Misc. Adjustment $0.00 ($0.96) ($2.21) Revenue from even dollar payment $1,762.17 $1,750.72 1,710.08 SESS;I~1E $33s`t`u<„ ssessment wl $33.59 33.39 8rid9eC~El~w Percent chang e f rom prior year -1% 214% -8% ~ p~ p (1) Reserve Requirement =Estimated Maintenance Cost x Reserve Percent (2) The estimated June 30, 2009 fund balance was projected on May 19, 2009. (3) Net Assessment = EsOmated Maintenance Cost + Reserve Requirement+ Special Reserve • Fund Balance + Costs from monies previously collected + Amortized Costs - - (4) EDU's have been projected based upon Fiscal Year 2008/09 information (5) CPI Change (or Fiscal Year 2009/2010 = 0.62% (6) Delinquency Rate is as of 5/15/2009 14-57 CITY OF CHULA VISTA OSD 23 (Ofay Rio Business Park) 2009/10 Fiscal Year District Cost Summary ~- rt• t ~ tr: t• • tt s: • Personnel Services $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Utility Charges 936.00 936.00 936.00 Trash Collection & Disposal Fees 560.00 560.00 560.00 Water Charges 7,169.00 7,169.00 7,669.00 Services to maintain structures, grounds 440.00 440.00 490.00 City Staff Services 9,409.00 10,246.00 9,467.00 Contractual Services 29,459.00 29,459.00 30,932.00 Landscape Supplies 660.00 660.00 660.00 Materials to maintain structures, grounds 900.00 900.00 1,500.00 Backflow Certification 0.00 0.00 0.00 Professional Services 7,500.00 7,500.00 7,980.00 Supplementals 0.00 850.00 1,100.00 Other Commodities 0.00 0.00 0.00 Advertising 0.00 0.00 0.00 Transfer: Corporate Yard Debt Services 0.00 0.00 440.00 Storm Maintenance 0.00 0.00 0.00 Specialized Services 800.00 0.00 0.00 Special Maintenance Fund 0.00 0.00 0.00 Operating Reserve Collection 0.00 0.00 7.078.71 Estimated Maintenance Cost $57,833.00 $58,720.00 $68,812.71 Reserve Requirement (1) $37,157.70 $29,947.20 $5,849.08 Reserve Percent 64.25% 51 % 8.50% Special Reserve 0.00 0.00 0.00 Fund Balance (2) 52.519.56 37,846.16 25.000.00 Net Assessment (3) $42,471.14 $50,821.04 $49,661.79 Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDU's) (4) 90.06 90.06 90.06 Collectible/EDU $471.59 $564.30 $551.43 Percent change from prior year -16% 2% 4% Misc. Adjustment $0.00 ($0.03) ($0.55) C©.~LEG~g~,E,~~~~N$,am4tf~4t°"wi.,. ~-~;~~'„'~, :$qr~2~~ .,..~k~~ "` &56,!~~a &~~~e' Revenue from even dollar payment $42,508.32 $50,835.24 $49,697.26 ,4; '1,°=`~~~ _:,~ ,~5&,~t96~ a~., . " :. ~~~~4~ as ~$&. '; ssessment wit $567.96 $564.46 Br~cfgeftEDCfa'`;~~+ ~`~. )tom ' .., w^??~'~:;,~~ ~ak!~~.,. °~'$~ffs~~ ~,`~, " &52 ~~~ .. ' $i~~:Q8 Percent change from prior year -2% -15% 13% DeLi~quency~.EEate (6,b~~ ~t,,:: ,... :~??) ..~~Cfi~`~"~ ,."f f` ~ ...±s'"'r { _,. ~~~% i~ a - dr~4~;~° (1) Reserve Requirement =Estimated Maintenance Cosi x Reserve Percent (2) The estimated June 30, 2009 fund balance was projected on May 19, 2009. (3) Net Assessment =Estimated Maintenance Cost + Reserve Requirement t Special Reserve -Fund Balance (4) EDU's have been projected based upon Fiscal Year 2006/09 information (5) CPI Change for Fiscal Year 2009/2010 = 0.62%a (6) Delinquency Rate is as of 5/15/2009 14-58 CITY OF CNULA VISTA OSD 24 (Canyon View Homes) 2009110 Fiscal Year District Cost Summary r- tt' t tr: r` • tt r: Personnel Services $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Utility Charges 136.00 136.00 136.00 Trash Collection & Disposal Fees 280.00 280.00 280.00 Water Charges 10,979.00 9,179.00 9,179.00 Services to maintain structures, grounds 710.00 710.00 710.00 City Staff Services 4,465.00 4,443.00 4,647.00 Contractual Services 7,224.00 6,880.00 6,555.00 Landscape Supplies 400.00 400.00 400.00 Materials to maintain structures, grounds 2,700.00 2,700.00 2,770.00 Backflow Certification 0.00 0.00 0.00 Professional Services 473.00 473.00 473.00 Supplementals 0.00 370.00 427.00 Other Commodities 0.00 0.00 0.00 Advertising 0.00 0.00 0.00 Transfer: Corporate Yard Debt Services 0.00 0.00 221.00 Specialized Services 500.00 0.00 0.00 Storm Maintenance 0.00 0.00 0.00 Special Maintenance Fund 0.00 0.00 0.00 Estimated Maintenance Cost $27,867.00 $25,571.00 525,798.00 Reserve Requirement (1) $27,072.79 $25,571.00 $21,928.30 Reserve Percent 97% 100% 85.0% Special Reserve 0.00 0.00 0.00 Fund Balance (2) 34.050.64 31 303.60 26.815.00 Net Assessment (3) $20,889.15 $19,838.40 $20,911.30 Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDU's) (4) 40 40 40 CollectiblelEDU $522.23 $495.96 $522.78 Pement change from prior year 5% -5°/, 8% Misc. Adjustments $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 ~~~ B .° rrj<S'rtf4.. $52310 $49,9 `' Revenue from even dollar payment $20,920.00 $19,840.00 $20,920.00 SSESSME ~~~ ~' ~_ ~ &~; ~8~ ssessmen wit $706.13 $701.78 ~» .~ttEQ fi.4&ct3~r1 , u . ' _ . .:.@3t~'„:2 . ~~. Percent change from prior year 9% -1 % 7% (1) Reserve Requirement =Estimated Maintenance Cost x Reserve Percent (2) The estlmated June 30, 2009 funtl balance was projected on May t9, 2009. (3) Net Assessment =Estimated Maintenance Cost+ Reserve Requirement+ Special Reserve -Fund Balance (4) EDU's have been projected based upon Fiscal Year 2008!09 information (5) CPI Change far Fiscal Year 2009/2010 = 0.62% (6) Delinquency Rate is as of 5/15/2009 14-59 CITY OF CHU~A VISTA OSD 26 (Park Bonita) 2009/10 Fiscal Year District Cast Summary ~- . rr• a + ll: r• • rl r: Personnel Services $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 'Utility Charges 133.00 0.00 133.00 Trash Collection & Disposal Fees ~ 0.00 0.00 0.00 WaterCharges 2,898.00 2,418.00 1,918.00 Services to maintain structures, grounds 450.00 450.00 650.00 City Staff Services 2,706.00 1,853.00 1,767.00 Contractual Services 2,678.00 2,550.00 2,428.00 Landscape Supplies 200.00 200.00 200.00 Materials to maintain structures, grounds 770.00 770.00 770.00 Backflow Certification 0.00 0.00 0.00 Professional Services 2,600.00 600.00 600.00 Supplementals 0.00 130.00 138.00 Other 0.00 133.00 0.00 Advertising 0.00 0.00 0.00 Transfer: Corporate Yard Debt Services 0.00 0.00 72.00 Specialized Services 200.00 0.00 0.00 Storm Maintenance 0.00 0.00 0.00 Special Maintenance Fund 0.00 0.00 0.00 Estimated Maintenance Cost $12,635.00 $9,104.00 $8,676.00 Reserve Requirement (1) $10,423.88 $9,104.00 $7,808.40 Reserve Percent 83% 100% 90% Special Reserve 0.00 4,545.40 0.00 Fund Balance (2) 13.457.88 13.649.40 7.554.18 Net Assessment (3) $9,601.00 $9,104.00 $8,930.22 Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDU's) (4) 19 19 19 Collectible/EDU $505.32 $479.16 $470.01 Percent change from prior year 5% 2% 11 Misc. Adjustments $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Cat~E~'~kBf=~~~~yj°n~&°amc,; ri -t . cx a.. ~#At~ ";' , v "`,~ ~5r~8Ot;OQ~ , , ~.~~~, 4 >RO Revenue from even dollar payment $9,614.00 $9,120.00 $8,930.00 ASSES~NLEN~.. ... , ~ , ,, `3„ ``?.~' ` S55Qr?r ,. ~ . x ° S~i3flt4fn ssessment wlt $554.20 $550.78 6ptlgeC/,EQ.. Itx ,~. ~ ~ . ~ $§fiSE x t:, ~3~~9r°'tfi~; .. .,..® , $,`$586 Percent change from prior year 39% 5°/, 4% Del~nq`ti,°'gn4y!tE~ate;(6);r" ."... `, 5~- ~~'m .~ .#' $.:fi....+., ,~~~°~ ~ ~`S~~~k°l (1) Reserve Requirement =Estimated Maintenance Cost x Reserve Percent (2) The estimated June 30, 2009 fund balance was projected on May 19, 2009. (3) Net Assessment.=Estimated Maintenance Cost + Reserve Requlrement+ Special Reserve -Fund Balance (4) EDU's have been projected based upon Fiscal Year 2008/09 information (5) CPI Change for Fiscal Year 2009/2010 = 0.62% (6) Delinquency Rate is as of 5!15/2009 14-60 CITY OF CHULA VISTA OSD 31 (Telegraph Canyon Estafes) 2009/'10 Fiscal Year District Cost Summary ~- rr• r ~ , rr: r• ' rr r: • Personnel Services $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Utility Charges 3,500.00 3,500.00 3,550.00 Trash Collection & Disposal Fees 1,960.00 1,960.00 1,960.00 Water Charges 40,751.00 33,951.00 31,851.00 Services to maintain structures, grounds 4,000.00 4,000.00 4,900.00 City Staff Services 21,071.00 19,337.00 22,311.00 Contractual Services 33,779.00 32,170.00 30,634.00 Landscape Supplies 2,092.00 2,092.00 2,092.00 Materials to maintain structures, grounds 5,200.00 5,200.00 5,200.00 Backflow Certification 0.00 0.00 0.00 Professional Services 25,150.00 13,150.00 13,150.00 Supplementals 0.00 1,700.00 2,068.00 Other Commodities 0.00 0.00 0.00 Advertising 0.00 0.00 0.00 Transfer: Corporate Yard Debt Services 0.00 0.00 1,083.00 Specialized Services 1,700.00 0.00 0.00 Storm Maintenance 0.00 0.00 0.00 Special Maintenance Fund 0.00 0.00 0.00 Estimated Mainfenance Cost $139,203.00 $117,060.00 $118,799.00 Reserve Requirement (1) $96,050.07 $117,060.00 $118,799.00 Reserve Percent 69% 100% 100% Special Reserve 0.00 11,000.00 0.00 Fund Balance (2) 139.203.00 152.862.53 144.966.00 Net Assessment (3) ;96,050.07 592,257.47 $92,632.00 Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDU's) (4) 343 343 343 Collectible/EDU $280.03 $268.97 $270.06 Percent change from prior year 4 % 0% 26% Misc. Adjustments $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 ~E~w '' Qti e~,~e' a~qu~ .H 2 Rt$` ., .269f~tt S2',k1 Revenue from even dollar payment $96,383.00 92,267.00 $92,610.00 S S ~ . _ Syr ?~ ~~ ~ : :± ssessmen wt 572.48 $568.96 Percent change from prior year 19% -1 % 5% 4~~Grl 5~. ~~sr 4 ' ,°~ o .., (1) Reserve Requirement =Estimated Maintenance Cost x Reserve Percent (2) The estimated June 30, 2009 fund balance was projected on May 19, 2009. (3) Net Assessment = Estimatetl.Maintenance Cost + Reserve Requirement + Special Reserve -Fund Balance (4) EDU's have keen projected based upon Fiscal Year 2008/09 information (5) CPI Change for Fiscal Year 2009/2010 = 0.62% (6) Delinquency Rate is as of 5/15/2009 14-61 2?JL"?i'I~J r75cu3 ~i ° J7 .a: ~" ~ iii" :";ai - *~9r ~4"t, a; t~ ~/ ter ~ , ~R=r ern=I ~_ ,ica~ $0.00 ~ ?~ 0~ ~ $0 JO ~ Ut ~ r'ha ~ 1 c~7.G0 i,6 7 GO 1 637 r I i~ o,Y +on & Di~pc ~~ ~ ;,a.- ~_°0.00 ~ 280.C0 ~ ~.G6~ ' ~ PJ ~,. 2 ,82.001 ~, 1:,.00 33io1f0 r - lu P'. 6ntain -rJCf_.r~S, r, hlnCis] ~ i JGl).i)G ~ ~ `iUG.GO ~ 1 9G J ~G ~I z ~ ~/,ees ~ 13 3^G.JO'p 1_,0,7.00 2~ 3.,.00 ~ , ~ ~- o~/ ces 4' J20.~~0 i cv ,9,.,_4.00 ~ °" a G 00 v c ~ SupDlrses ~ ' 800.00 i 00 ~ 3 687 2JO.C0 ~ 3 68 ' 00 2 G~ 0 JO n 3 87 00 +_ ,~ ~c m~~ main ~ ructures, Sr_ n~ ~ ~ . , . . ,u . I - ~,v;, ~, wl ati~~n C.00 0.00 ! 0.00 . ,~ ~ for ~' ;ices 20,000.00 2,000.00: SOG.00 ~ '~ t, r 0.00 1,360.00 2L'1.OU ~~r Commodiiies ~ 0.00 0.00 0.00 ~~;^ dv:ris~.ing OAO 0.00 0.00 r ra~s?er: GorNc~rate Yard Debt Seraices 0,00 0,00 i,13's.00 -_~:;;:ialized Ser/ices 1,500.00 0.00 0.00 13i•_rm iJiaintenance 0 ~0 0.00 0.00 ~-;ecial Maintenance Fund 0.00 0.00 Q00 ~O;-crating Reserve Collection 0.00 0.00 165.39'1.41 ~~'~°~r~ate¢iCc?aintea~aneeCost I~~e $i17,84vA0 $8;1,596.00 $28u,619.41 serve Requirement (1) $58,923.00 $56,937.40 $0.00 Reserve Percent 50% 65% 0.0% Special Reserve 0.00 20,000.00 0.00 Fund Balance (2) 94.908.80 86.134.65 69.864.17 ~fVetAssessmecrt(3) $81,860.20 $78,398.75 $216,755.24 Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDU's) (4) 8,429.98 8,429.98 8,429.98 Otay Lakes Rd Collectible /EDU $2.50 $2.50 $2.50 Collectible/EDU $12.21 $11.80 $28.21 Percent change from prior year 3% -SS% 130% Misc. Adjustment $0.00 (0.05) ($19.59) GOL~E~~S~Ba„tE"``~„elkerY~$,4a~otin. , ~~ `~~.°~"~'FO(~ ... _~ z~ ~ ~5'~2OE~a ` ,''' ~~2'4 Revenue from even dollar payment 109,589.78 $101,159.74 $107,378.36 kSSEeSSMEA~E ' _, ~ _. !. ~ ' tam: '~~~~,$t113%S~ ~ ,~ .- ~5Y;3: "` _ `, ssessmentwlt $13.11 $13.03 Bttd ~ ~;r :k ,,: 5` 9 ,~4 .., - ~ . ~l ~"~ ~~~;„ ~~=98k ~'~2~6~ ° 6; :.- ,., Pement change from prior year 11 % -65°/, 131 Delrrtgit?~riejrt~at(~~~s'~'.' .::. i`~~ ~k ~ ~:..~ ~~~~ ..~''~ ` ~ ~,'a~CS~ B~°+`a .._ ~ ~ 3"~ (7) Reserve Requirement =-Estimated Maintenance Cost x Reserve Percent (2) The estimated June 30, 2009 fund balance was projected on May 19, 2009. (3) Net Assessment =Estimated Maintenance Cost + Reserve Requirement + Special Reserve • Fund Balance (4) EDU's have been projected based upon Fiscal Year 2008/09 information (5) CPI Change for Fiscal Year 2009/2010 = 0.62% (6) Delinquency Rate is as of 5/15/2009 14-62 CITY OF CHllLA VISTA OSD Eastlake Maintenance District #1 (Zone B) 2009/10 Fiscal Year District Cost Summary • ' Personnel Services $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Utility Charges 1,228.00 1,228.00 1,228.00 Trash Collection & Disposal Fees 0.00 0.00 0.00 Water Charges 15,708.00 13,088.00 14,802.00 Services to maintain structures, grounds 800.00 800.00 800.00 City Staff Services 16,296.00 8,524.00 8,394.00 Contractual Services 17,000.00 16,190.00 15,420.00 Landscape Supplies 240.00 240.00 240.00 Materials to maintain structures, grounds 4,070.00 4,070.00 4,070.00 Backflow Certification 0.00 0.00 0.00 Professional Services 50,000.00 4,000.00 1,000.00 Supplementals 0.00 700.00 891.00 Other Commodities 0.00 0.00 0.00 Advertising 0.00 0.00 0.00 Transfer: Corporate Yard Debt Services 0.00 0.00 405.00 Specialized Services 1,400.00 0.00 0.00 Storm Maintenance 0.00 0.00 0.00 Special Maintenance Fund 0.00 0.00 0.00 Estimated Maintenance Cost 5106,742.00 $48,840.00 $47,250.00 Reserve Requirement (1) $55,505.84 $48,840.00 $47,250.00 Reserve Percent 52% 100% 100% Special Reserve 0.00 35,000.00 0.00 Fund Balance (2) 103.717.88 87.759.83 55.138.83 Net Assessment (3) $58,529.96 $44,920.17 $39,361.17 Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDU's) (4) 3,376.38 3,376.38 3,376.38 Otay Lakes Rd Collectible /EDU $2.50 $2.50 $2.50 Collectible/EDU $19.84 $15.80 $14.16 Percent change from prior year 26% 12% 30% Misc. Adjustments $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Revenue from even dollar payment $67,527.60 $54,022.08 $50,645.70 ..~.: - ~ 2t}r ssessment wl $21.42 $21.30 ~~'~ . 6i ~ Percent change from prior year 89% 3% 2% m ... ~~1.._ _ ~: ~ .. ~ Q ~ ~ (1) Reserve Requirement =Estimated Maintenance Cost x Reserve Percent (2) The estimated June 30; 2009 fiund balance was projected on May 19, 2009. (3) Net Assessment =Estimated Maintenance Cost+ Reserve Requirement t Special Reserve -Fund Balance (4) EDU's have been projected based upon Fiscal Year 2008!09 information (5) CPI Change for Fiscal Year 2009/2010 = 0.62% (6) Delinquency Rate is as of 5/15/2009 14-63 CITY OF CHULA VISTA OSD Eastlake Maintenance District #1 (Zone C) 2009/10 Fiscal Year District Cost Summary ~: ~ tt• t ~ tt: t• ~ ti l: Personnel Services $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Utility Charges 0.00 0.00 136.00 Trash Collection & Disposal Fees 0.00 0.00 0.00 Water Charges 0.00 0.00 979.00 Services to maintain structures, grounds 0.00 0.00 40.00 City Staff Services 0.00 100.00 274.00 Contractual Services 0.00 0.00 0.00 Landscape Supplies 0.00 0.00 50.00 Materials to maintain structures, grounds 1,030.00 0.00 100.00 Backtlow Certification 0.00 0.00 0.00 Professional Services 0.00 0.00 0.00 Supplementals 0.00 20.00 134.00 Other Commodities 0.00 0.00 0.00 Advertising 0.00 0.00 0.00 Transfer: Corporate Yard Debt Services 0.00 0.00 13.00 Specialized Services 100.00 0.00 0.00 Storm Maintenance 0.00 0.00 0.00 Special Maintenance Fund 0.00 0.00 0.00 Estimated Maintenance Cost $1,130.00 $120.00 $1,726.00 Reserve Requirement (1) $1,130.00 $120.00 $1,726.00 Reserve Percent 100% 100% 100% Special Reserve 0.00 9,500.00 0.00 Fund Balance (2) 1.130.00 8.151.09 3 285.60 Net Assessment (3) $1,130.00 $1,588.91 $168.40 Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDU's) (4) 500 500 500 Otay Lakes Rd Collectible /EDU $2.50 $2.50 $2.50 Collectible/EDU $4.76 $5.68 $2.83 Percent change from prior year -16% 100% -74% Misc. Adjustments $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 C,Q,~;CEG ppF:, e~err~$~amotnt~, ~ra~' ... ~)!'w.. .. .. ~ . Wit; ~~,S~;Q~ m. 3,33v~~~; ~>> .: fr;~1„ id a ~ bR '',~r:.°, '.'~~$~9 Revenue from even dollar payment $2,500.00 $3,000.00 $1,500.00 ASSESSME "~~' ._ $' ~ `:~ r~ ~ ~-I`. ~.:'.'r'; C~4 ° r" €2"~6' ssessmentwit $177.50 $176.41 Percent change from prior year -10% -56°/, 5% Del~que~cju`~Pater(6, . ~u'~~~u~~;` Sys ~ s~~` ,~~•L h,, ~ ~~ ,.,~,~~~0;00~ ; ").,:'" .E:40c°.$ (1) Reserve Requirement =Estimated Maintenance Cost x Reserve Percent (2) The estimated June 30, 2009-fund balance was projected on May t9, 2009. (3) Net Assessment =Estimated Maintenance Cast + Reserve Requirement + Special Reserve • Fund Balance (4) EDU's have keen projected based upon Fiscal Year 2008109 information (5) CPI Change for Fiscal Year 2009/2010 = 0.62 (6) Delinquency Rate is as of 5/15/2009 14-64 CITY OF CHULA VISTA OSD Eastlake Maintenance District #1 (Zone D) 2009110 Fiscal Year District Cost Summary ~- rr• r rr:r• ' rt t: • Personnel Services $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Utility Charges 1,228.00 1,228.00 1,228.00 Trash Collection 8 Disposal Fees 280.00 280.00 280.00 Water Charges 34,358.00 30,298.00 35,198.00 Services to maintain structures, grounds 1,570.00 1,570.00 1,570.00 City Staff Services 21,806.00 15,466.00 19,864.00 Contractual Services 30,815.00 26,490.00 28,500.00 Landscape Supplies 0.00 0.00 0.00 Materials to maintain structures, grounds 14,540.00 8,540.00 8,540.00 Backflow Certification 0.00 0.00 0.00 Professional Services 32,500.00 2,500.00 2,500.00 Supplementals 0.00 1,250.00 1,885.00 Other Commodities 0.00 0.00 0.00 Advertising 0.00 0.00 0.00 Transfer: Corporate Yard Debt Services 0.00 0.00 948.00 Specialized Services 1,700.00 0.00 0.00 Storm Maintenance 0.00 0.00 0.00 Special Maintenance Fund 0.00 0.00 0.00 Other 0.00 0.00 27.777.20 Estimated Maintenance Cost $138,797.00 $87,622.00 $128,290.20 Reserve Requirement (1) $72,174.44 $87,622.00 $49,071.00 Reserve Percent 52% 100% 38.3% Special Reserve 0.00 35,000.00 0.00 Fund Balance (2) 138.797.00 140.357.49 81.291.31 Net Assessment (3) 572,174.44 $69,886.51 $96,069.89 Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDU's) (4) 423.40 423.40 423.40 OtayLakesRdCollectible/EDU $2.50 $2.50 $2.50 Collectible/EDU $172.96 $167.56 $229.40 Percent change from prior year 3% -27% 3% Misc. Adjustments $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Go~~~.-BiL .'tk~t~tttra@rl... 7~9. .a . 6~t~ _ $23;U:~t Revenue from even dollar payment 73,248.20 $71,131.20 $97,382.00 .~~ ~ ~. .~.. _ Ste„ ~ ssessment wi $236.74 $235.28 d ~d ~ 32 $ , •,. Percent change from prior year 57% -31 % 30% 'tT~ ." ~~ •, . , . ~~ y~Fi~e (1) Reserve Requirement =Estimated Maintenance Cost x Reserve Percent (2) The estimated June 30, 2009 fund balance was projected on May 19, 2009. (3) Net Assessment = Estimatetl Maintenance Cost+ Reserve Requirement+ Special Reserve -Fund Balance (4) EDU's have been projected based upon Fiscal Year 2008/09 information (5) CPI Change far Fiscal Year 2009/2010 = 0.62% (6) Delinquency Rate is as of 5/15/2009 14-65 CITY OF CHULA VISTA OSD Eastlake Maintenance District #1(Zone E) 2009/10 Fiscal Year District Cost Summary 9- /1' 1 11: 1' 11 1: ' Personnel Services $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Utility Charges 0.00 0.00 0.00 Trash Collection & Disposal Fees 0.00 0.00 0.00 Water Charges 0.00 0.00 0.00 Services to maintain structures, grounds 0.00 0.00 0.00 City Staff Services 2,215.00 1,163.00 1,309.00 Contract Services 0.00 0.00 6,080.00 Landscape Supplies 0.00 0.00 0.00 Materials to maintain structures, grounds 0.00 0.00 0.00 Backflow Certification 0.00 0.00 0.00 Professional Services 0.00 0.00 0.00 Supplementals 0.00 150.00 242.00 Other Commodities 0.00 0.00 0.00 Advertising 0.00 0.00 0.00 Transfer: Corporate Yard Debt Services 0.00 0.00 69.00 Specialized Services 150.00 0.00 0.00 Storm Water Maintenance 6,080.00 6,080.00 0.00 Special Maintenance Fund 0.00 0.00 0.00 Estimated Maintenance Cost 58,445.00 57,393.00 ;7,700.00 Reserve Requirement (1) $3,166.88 $7,393.00 $7,700.00 Reserve Percent 38% 100% 100% Special Reserve 0.00 30,000.00 45,028.00 Fund Balance (2) 8.445.00 35.370.65 48.410.00 Net Assessment (3) 53,166.88 59,415.35 512,018.00 Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDU's) (4) 366.3709 366.3709 366.37 Collectible/EDU $8.64 $25.70 $32.80 Percent change from prior year -66% -22% 28% Misc. Adjustment $0.00 ($0.38) ($5.52) ~V CQLLEG ~E&~`-~i~("d~4~4 k :arc A 5 ~;_ ' SP" : ~~'t ~8t '`t~~ „ . . ... .. . . „ , . , Revenue from even dollar payment $3,169.11 $9,525.26 $12,011.42 ssessmen wl $33.75 $33.55 Percent change from prior year -90% -4% -6% Delet44rfe~~7~'~ateG~lt~kru;"~`~~,r~, ;~! .~~ ~*.: . ~~?I~Cr _ d~=3'k ;., „>R.~~` $°_ (1) Reserve Requirement =Estimated Maintenance Cost x Reserve Percent (2) The estimated June 30, 2009 fund balance was projected on May 19, 2009. (3) Net Assessment =Estimated Maintenance Cost + Reserve Requirement + Special Reserve • Fund Balance (4) EDU's have been projected based upon Fiscal Year 2008/09 information (5) CPI Change for Fiscal Year 2009/2010 = 0.62°h (6) Delinquency Rate is as of 5/15/2009 14-66 CITY OF CHULA VISTA OSD Bay Boulevard 2009110 Fiscal Year District Cost Summary s• tt•' t • tt: t~ tt t: • Personnel Services $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Utility Charges 1,092.00 1,092.00 1,092.00 Trash Collection & Disposal Fees 475.00 475.00 475.00 Water Charges 5,400.00 5,400.00 5,400.00 Services to maintain structures, grounds 600.00 600.00 600.00 City Staff Services 5,846.00 6,280.00 6,098.00 Contractual Services 0.00 0.00 0.00 Landscape Supplies 850.00 850.00 850.00 Materials to maintain structures, grounds 230.00 230.00 230.00 Backflow Certification 0.00 0.00 0.00 Professional Services 0.00 0.00 0.00 Supplementals 0.00 270.00 236.00 Other Commodities 0.00 0.00 0.00 Advertising 0.00 180.00 180.00 Transfer: Corporate Yard Debt Services 0.00 0.00 111.00 Specialized Services 200.00 0.00 0.00 Storm Water Maintenance 180.00 0.00 0.00 Special Maintenance Fund 0.00 0.00 0.00 Estimated Maintenance Cost $14,873.00 $15,377.00 $15,272.00 Reserve Requirement (1) $11,638.12 $15,377.00 $15,272.00 Reserve Percent 78.25% 100% 100% Special Reserve 0.00 15,000.00 0.00 Fund Balance (2) 14.873.00 30.867.09 11.347.00 Net Assessment (3) $11,638.12 $14,888.91 $19,197.00 Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDU's) (4) 6.39 6.39 6.39 Collectible/EDU $1,821.30 $2,329.72 $3,004.23 Percent change from prior year -22% -22% -2% Misc. Adjustments $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Revenue from even dollar payment 11,642.58 14,888.70 19,195.56 ssessmen cal 3,278.58 .. 3,258.38 ... d. ~8 „ Percent change from pnoryear -3% 1 % 12% ~e~~?s~~~€S`~?a6~ : ka u (i) Reserve Requirement = Estimatetl Maintenance Cost x Reserve Percent (2) The esOmated June 30, 2009 fund balance was projected on May'19, 2009. (3) Net Assessment =Estimated Maintenance Cost + Reserve Requirement + Special Reserve -Fund Balance (4) Equivalent Dwelling Units for the Bay Boulevartl District are calculated at t EDU per acre and have been projected based upon Fiscal Year 2008/09 informa8on. (5) CPI Change for FY 2009/2010 = 0.62%, (6) Delinquency Rate is as of 5/15/2009 14-67 RESOLUTION NO. 2009 - RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA LEVYING THE ASSESSMENTS AND COLLECTIBLES FOR CITY OPEN SPACE DISTRICTS 2 THROUGH 11, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20, 23, 24, 26, 31 AND 33, EASTLAKE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT N0. 1 (ELMD #1), AND BAY BOULEVARD MAINTENANCE DISTRICT WHEREAS, prior to the adoption of this Resolution, the City Council caused the formation of various districts under and pursuant to state law; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Article 4, Chapter 1, part 2 of Division 15 of the California Streets and Highways Code, also known as "Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972" and Chula Vista Municipal Code Chapter 17.07, NBS Government Finance Group, dba NBS has prepared and filed, on behalf of and under the direction of the City Engineer, the annual Engineer's Report for all existing Open Space Maintenance Districts in the City; and WHEREAS, on June 23, 2009, Council approved this annual Report and set July 14, 2009 as the date for the public hearing; and WHEREAS, the proposed assessments for Fiscal Year 2009/2010 are as follows: ' i ~nnsses"siten.Y "er EL?tk 3~~: CalfecYf6fe~' ec Elahl, = =Assessment VS.'tCollectFble' Proposed FY Proposed FY Projected Open Space District or Zone FY 08/09 09110 FY OSI09 09110 Variance ($) Variance (%) Revenue 2 $54.52 $54.85 $54.00 $54.00 $0.00 0.00% $13,446.00 3 ~ 373.25 375.56 373.25 375.00 1.75 0.47% 47,625.00 4 394.24 396.68 388.00 391.00 3.00 0.77% 82,110.00 5 384.44 386.82 339.00 347.00 8.00 2.36% 42,334.00 fi 190.11 191.29 162.00 169.00 7.00 4.32% 27,378.00 7 132.81 133.63 132.00 133.63 1.63 1.23% 13,897.52 8 60fi.70 610.45 591.00 602.00 11.00 1.86% fi6,220.00 9 171.95 173.01 154.00 161.00 7.00 4.55°/ 61,824.00 10 116.03 116.74 115.00 116.00 1.00 0.87°/ 76,068.16 11 117.41 118.13 101.00 105.00 4.00 3.96% 138,709.20 14 377.44 379.78 373.00 378.00 5.00 1.34% 326,214.00 15' 362.12 364.36 354.00 338.00 (16.00) -4.52% 19,266.00 17 173.34 174.41 111.00 117.00 6.00 5.41% 5,382.00 18 409.62 412.16 253.00 266.00 13.00 5.14% 115,710.00 20 Zone 1 -Desilting Basin 63.31 63.699 62.00 36.00 (26.00) -41.94% 31,545.36 Zone 2 -Rice Canyon 4.80 4.827 4.80 4.82 0.02 0.42% 19,084.21 Zone 3 - H Street 6.85 6.89fi 6.00 fi.00 0.00 0.00% 36,855.02 one 4 -Business Center 53.19 53.520 53.00. 53.00 0.00 0.00% 137,931.97 Zone 5 - SPA I 384.63 387.011 347.00 365.00 18.00 5.19 % 655,175.00 Zone 6 -SPA II 295.54 297.376 206.00 216.00 10.00 4.85 % 122,733.36 Zone 7 -SPA III 182.43 183.563 182.00 183.00 1.00 0.55 % 215,352.39 Zone 8 - N Desilting Basin 42.06 42.322 40.00 40.00 0.00 0.00% 4,752.80 Zone 9 - Tel C n Channel 33.39 33.594 33.39 33.59 0.20 0.60 % 1,762.17 14-68 pen Space District or Zone hid .C Ni '>:u.U ~ .~i~1~3'se Runt ..~° Proposed FY FY 08/09 09110 '~~' e5_fn :~ .FR GtF n.. .,. .. .. 'u~o~ee,~i~rfe; eFF.DU: f'•. Proposed FY FY 08/09 09/70 ar+4~ "~°LVi §5 , Y°* ~: 3 .A~ss~s~rren~tvs~='.~OII',~"~t~I~f Variance $) Variance %) i ~^.~,';~, :,J~,+:.p Projected Revenue 23' $564.46 $567.96 $564.46 $472.00 ($92.46) -16.38% $42,508.32 24 701.78 706.13 49fi.00 523.00 27.00 5.44% 20,920.00 26 550.78 554.20 480.00 506.00 26.00 5.42% 9,614.00 31 568.96 572.48 269.00 281.00 12.00 4.46% 96,383.00 33111 1,406.12 1,414.84 1,438.31 1,414.84 (23.47) N/A (5) 0.00 ELMD No. i Otay Lakes Rd (2) N/A N/A 2.50 2.50 0.00 0.00 31,716.75 one A - Eastlake I 13.03 13.11 12.00 13.00 1.00 8.33% 109,589.78 Zone B -Eastlake Greens 21.30 21.42 16.00 20.00 4.00 25.00% 67,527.60 Zone C - Oly Training Ctr 176.41 177.50 6.00 5.00 (1.00) -16.67% 2,500.00 Zone D -Salt Creek I 235.28 236.74 168.00 173.00 5.00 2.98 % 73,248.20 Zone E -Tel Cyn ChnI1a1 33.55 33.75 26.00 8.65 (17.35) -66.73% 3,169.11 _ Bay Boulevard l4) 3,258.38 3,278.58 2,330.00 1,822.00 508.00 -21.80% 11,642.58 (1) OSD 33 was formed several years ago in anticipation of development. The project has not progressed and consequently there is no maintenance required. Should the project develop in the future, staff would recommend collecting money for maintenance. (2) Zones A - D share in the cost of Otay Lakes Road medians and off-site parkways. Colledihle and projected revenue for Otay Lakes Road are reflected in collectible and projected revenue for Zones A - D. A budget for Otay Lakes Road is currently pending. (3) Portions of Eastlake I and Eastlake Greens are in this benefit area. (4) Bay Boulevard rates are teased on acres. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista, as to all Open Space and Maintenance Districts referenced in this Resolution, as follows: 1. That it finds that written protests against the proposed assessment have not been made by owners representing more than one-half of the azea of land to be assessed. 2. That it confirms the diagram and assessment contained in the Engineer's Report. 3. That it orders that the open space and maintenance facilities be maintained. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista that the adoption of this Resolution constitutes the levy of assessments and collectibles as proposed in the Engineer's Report for the 2009/2010 fiscal year for Open Space Districts 2 through 11, 14, 15, 17, 18, Z0, 23, 24, 26, 31 and 33, Eastlake Maintenance District No. 1 (ELMD #1), and Bay Boulevard Maintenance District. Presented by Richazd A. Hopkins Director of Public Works 14-69 RESOLUTION N0.2009 - RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA LEVYING THE ASSESSMENTS AND COLLECTIBLES FOR CITY OPEN SPACE DISTRICT 1 WHEREAS, prior to the adoption of this Resolution, the City Council caused the formation of various districts under and pursuant to state law; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Article 4, Chapter 1, part 2 of Division 15 of the California Streets and Highways Code, also known as "Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972" and Chula Vista Municipal Code Chapter 17.07, NBS Government Finance Group dba NBS has prepared and filed, on behalf of and under the direction of the City Engineer, the annual Engineer's Report for City Open Space District 1; and WHEREAS, on June 23, 2009, Council approved this annual Report and set July 14, 2009 as the date for the public hearing; and WHEREAS, the proposed assessment for Fiscal Year 2009/2010 is as follows: "''` ~ ~ ~,`~Assessmerif° er ~DtJ, . ~E'oU ctitile ei'EDfY _°; /455essttiegCVS. Collestibte!: ., . Open Space District or Zone Proposed FY FY 08/09 09/10 Proposed FY FY 08109 09/10 Variance ($) Variance (% ~ Projected Revenue 1 $117.54 $118.26 $110.00 $112.00 $2.00 1.82°/ $73,656.80 Total Projected Revenue $73,656.60 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista, as to City Open Space District 1, as follows: 1. That it finds that written protests against the proposed assessment have not been made by owners representing more than one-half of the area of land to be assessed. 2. That it confirms the diagram and assessment contained in the Engineer's Report. 3. That it orders that the open space and maintenance facilities be maintained. 14-70 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista that the adoption of this Resolution constitutes the levy of assessments and collectibles as proposed in the Engineer's Report for the 2009/2010 fiscal yeaz for City Open Space District 1. Presented by Richazd A. Hopkins Director of Public Works Approved as to form by -~ ! ~~ ~ 1 art ~f. Mies e t~ ~~ty Attorney 14-71 RESOLUTION NO. 2009 - RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA LEVYING THE ASSESSMENTS AND COLLECTIBLES FOR THE TOWN CENTRE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT WHEREAS, prior to the adoption of this Resolution, the City Council caused the formation of vazious districts under and pursuant to state law; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Article 4, Chapter 1, part 2 of Division 15 of the California Streets and Highways Code, also known as "Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972" and Chula Vista Municipal Code Chapter 17.07, NBS Government Finance Group dba NBS has prepared and filed, on behalf of and under the direction of the City Engineer, the annual Engineer's Report for the Town Centre Maintenance District; and WHEREAS, on June 23, 2009, Council approved this annual Report and set July 14, 2009 as the date for the public heazing; and WHEREAS, the proposed assessment for Fiscal Year 2009/2010 is as follows: Proposed FY Proposed FY Projected r Open Space District or Zone FY 08!09 09/10 FY 08!09 091'10 Variance ($) Variance (%) Revenue I Tawn C~~ 0.12 0.121 0.00 - ____ 0.00 Total Projected Revenue! SO.c (1) Town Centre rates have been based on parcel square footage since FY 2001102. However, a Downtown PBID replaced this District in 2001, but the City determined that there was some potential long-term exposure for the City based on the remote potential that the current PBID might not receive sufficient support for re-approval in the future. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista, as to the Town Centre Maintenance District, as follows: 1. That it finds that written protests against the proposed assessment have not been made by owners representing more than one-half of the area of land to be assessed. 2. That it confirms the diagram and assessment contained in the Engineer's Report. 3. That it orders that the open space and maintenance facilities be maintained. 14-72 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista that the adoption of this Resolution constitutes the levy of assessments and collectibles as proposed in the Engineer's Report for the 2009/2010 fiscal year for the Town Centre Maintenance District. Presented by Richazd Hopkins Director of Public Works Approved as to form by ~~ ~, ~ Bart . Mies~ld j ~(,~ity Attorney 14-73 ~=~ Kimley-Hom and Associates, Inc, July 14, 2009 Mr. Jeff Steichen City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth A venue Chula Vista, CA 9]910 Re: Briggs Law Corporation letter dated July 13'10, 2009 from Mekacla M, Gladden Dear Jeff: We received from you via email today the attached letter from Briggs Law Corporation, We feel that our project and the associated Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) adequately address the concerns discussed in this letter. Please find below our responses to Attachment I of the above referenced letter: I. Air Quality A. Toxic Air Contaminants I, 11 should be noted that the Project involves a redevelopment of an existing Target retail store, as opposed to construction of a new Target store, Based on guidance from the South Coast Air Quality Management District, which is used as a guide for many lead agencies including the City of Chula Vista, health risk assessments to address diesel particulate matter are typically required for those projects that generate substantial truck traffic; specifically, for warehouse distribution centers and truck stops. The Project would involve neither activity. While the Project is not a warehouse distribution center or truck stop, a health risk assessment could be recommended if truck traffic were to increase substantially over existing levels, however this will not be the case, Operations at the existing Target store involve vehicle travel. both from retail customers and delivery vehicles. The overall increase in ADT is 600, Based on the URBEMIS Model runs, light-heavy diesel, medium-duty diesel. and heavy-duty diesel tfuck trips would only comprise 2 percent of the total net A DT for the project, or 12 trips per day. This amount of trips is not a substantial increase over existing levels. However~ the Target store projects that it wquld only receive one heavy-duty truck delivery per day because Target receives its deliveries from one location only rather than from multiple locations, That would not be different frolll the existing Target retail store deliveries. Thus. Dll TEL 619 234 9411 FN: 619 234 9433 ill 401 B Street Suite 600 San Diego, California 92101 ~1liIII" ~_r-.:'i Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Mr. JeffSlcichen, July 14.2009. Pg.:2 there would be no net increase in diesel particulate emissions associated with the Project and no health risk assessment is warranted. 2. The location of the schools is noted; however, there is no specific requirement under CEQA that schools within a specific distance of the project be identified in an air quality report. 3. In the calculation of net emission increases associated with the Project above the existing Target retail store, the URBEMIS Model estimated a net increase of 4.98 Ibs/day of particulate maner from all traffic associated with the project. Of that increase, the majority is attributable to road dust from vehicles traveling on the road during operations, not to diesel particulate emissions. Based on the additional truck trips estimated using the URBEMIS Model (12 trips as described above), the amount of PM I 0 attributable to diesel particulate emissions from truck traffic would be 0.07 Ibs/day (per the attached URBEMIS Model runs). which would not be a substantial increase in diesel particulate emissions. As discussed in the response to comment A.I., however. there would be no increase in truck deliveries anticipated over the existing Target retail store~ and no increase in diesel particulate emissions would therefore result. B. Ambient Air Quality I. The Air Quality Technical Report does acknowledge that the region is a nonattainment area for the NAAQS for ozone, and a nonattainment area for the CAAQS for ozone, PM2.5, and PM I O. The comment fails to recognize that an EIR is not required for every project that is proposed in a nonattainment area. A Mitigated Negative Declaration is appropriate if the Project's impacts are less than significant. It should again be noted that the Project involves redevelopment of an existing Target retail store, not construction of an entirely new Target retail store. According]y~ the air quality assessment appropriately evaluates the net emissions increases associated with the redevelopment of the Target retail store. The air quality assessment indicates that the ProjecC s emissions are less than the City of Chula Vista's significance thresholds, and concludes that the Project would have a less than significant impact on the ambient air quality. 2. The existing emissions from the existing facility are already part of the background ambient air quality in the Chula Vista region. The Project is the redevelopment of the existing Target retail storc~ not [:J=~ Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Mr. JcffStcichen, July ]4.2009, Pg. 3 construction of an entirely new facility on an undeveloped site. As stated above, tbe net emission increases associated with the project would be less than the City'S significance thresholds. The expansion would not result in a significant increase in emissions. C. Global Climate Change ]. It should be noted on Page 30 of Air Qua/ity Assessmenf pir the Clw/a Vista Target Cenfer Project prepared by SRA dated March 6, 2009 that the 900 metric ton emission level is proposed by CAPCOA as a level below which a projcct would not be required to implemcnt GHG emission reduction measures~ and is not a regulatory significance threshold that has been adopted by the City of Chula Vista. Typical evaluations are adopting a threshold of consistency with the goals of AB 32. The ARB has suggcsted a level of 7,000 metric tons of C02e, and the SCAQMD has suggested a level of 10,000 metric tons of C02e as levels at which significance for certain projects could be evaluated. The calculation of emissions presented in the GHG analysis that indicates that emissions would be 10.337 metric tons/year of C02e are based on "business as usual" conditions for the Project not accounting for reductions in GHG from the existing Target retail store~ nor accounting for any measures that would reduce GHG emissions from the Project's operations. Operational emissions were calculated for the increased facility's operations, and were estimated to be 2,057 metric tons/year of C02e under "business as usual" conditions. This level would be well below both the ARB and SCAQMD suggested thresholds. However, these draft numeric thresholds are presented merely for purposes of quantitative comparison. As discussed below. the MND utilizes AB 32's GHG emissions reduction requirement as the perfonnance-based threshold against which to evaluate the significance of the project's GHG emissions. 2. The project will implement GHG emission reduction measures in its building design, some of which are listed in Table II in the Air Quality Technical Report. These measures include thc following, and help the project to meet AB 32's GHG emission reduction goal: . Target has reduced the light fixtures in stores from four lamps to three lamps and is currently piloting an updated program to convert three lamp fluorescent light fixtures to two lamps without compromising light levels in the store. All light fixtures use high efficient T8 lamps with electronic ballasts and low mercury bulbs. The sum of these upgrades has resulted in a reduction in energy consumption for lighting in the sales and P"""IIIE ,~ ~ 1BIIl__-.'j Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Mr, JdTStcichcn, July 14, 2U09, Pg. 4 office areas of 50% below what energy use would be without these upgrades. . Target has also replaced neon lights with light-emitting diodes (LEDs) for all exterior signage which reduces exterior signage encrgy usage by 80% below what it would be without these replacements. . Target has implemented motion-sensor lighting in stockrooms, offices, and team break rooms which has resulted in energy reduction of 60% below what it would otherwise be to light these areas. . Lighting. refrigeration equipment, heating and cooling equipment, and exhaust fans account for over 800/0 of the energy consumption in each of Target's stores. To reduce stores' energy demands, Target uses an integrated energy management system ( EMS). The system is centralized and controlled at Target Headquarters. allowing for implementation of company-wide energy policies and to trouble-shoot existing systems. The EMS is monitored on a full-time, 24-hour basis to verifY that all systems confonn to specified parameters. This integrated system has reduced total energy consumption nationwide by more than 8% of what it would be without the system. Not all of the measures proposed are currently quantifiable; however, energy use. and therefore emissions, would be reduced to a level that is consistent with the goals of AS 32. Target is also continuing to develop its sustainability practices, and will implement these practices in development of the new Target retail store. It is important to note that this project is a redevelopment of an existing Target retail store, which was c.onstructed in accordance with older building practices. The new Target retail store will be constructed to meet new energy efficiency standards as discussed above, and would be consistent with AB 32. Thus, the project design features and emission reduction measures reduce greenhouse gas emisslons to a level that is less than significant. 3. Under CEQA, it is appropriate to evaluate significance of a project based on its consistency with the goals of AB 32. The comment indicates that emission reductions from vehicles would not be realized until 2020; however. it should be noted that the emission reduction goals within AB 32 are based on a target date of 2020. It is therefore appropriate to evaluate emission reduction measures that would be realized by that date to evaluate the project's consistency with AB 32. The SDCGHGI report does indicate in Table 2 that the combination of the 2005 CAFE standard (15%). low-carbon fuel standard (11%), and Pavley standard (6%) would contribute an J1l!P1... ~ 'i'1"11 llt:.J I!!ilil1l U Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Mr. JcffSteichcn, July 14,2009, Pg. 5 overall reduction of 32% to the required reduction in GHG emissions from vehicles of 46% to achieve the AS 32 targets by 2020. Therefore, the analysis does not overestimate the level of mitigation and uses an appropriate means of evaluating the Project's consistency with AS 32. 4. The Project is a redevelopment of an eXlstmg Target retail store which is an existing source of GHG emissions and, if not redeveloped, would continue to emit GHGs. Therefore, it is appropriate to evaluate the signiticance of the Project's impacts on the emissions of GI-IGs relative to the existing Target retail store. As discussed in the GHG evaluation. GHG emissions would be reduced to less than emissions from the existing Target retail store due 10 the implementation of energy efficiency measures in the building design as well as reductions that would be realized through state and federal vehicle emission reduction programs. Because the main source of GHG emissions for any retail development is attributable to vehicles, it is appropriate to include reductions projected due to the implementation of vehicle reduction programs. As discussed above, the 900 metric 10n threshold is not being used in this analysis as a significance threshold. 5. There is no eSlablished means of evaluating specific GHG emissions from solid waste generated by a project and to evaluate GHG emissions from this source would be speculative. However. the Project is not anticipated to generate additional solid waste over lhe existing Target retail store. The Project will maintain the existing dumpster for waste disposal, and the dumpster will be emptied wilh the same frequency as for the existing Target retail store. Thus there is no projected increase in GHG emissions associated with the Project due to solid waste generation. As discussed above, the analysis that was conducted concluded that the project will be consistent with the goals of AB 32 and will not result in a significant impact. II. Water Supply A. The project will not have a significant impact on water supply. In fact. the proposed rebuild will substantially reduce current water usage. As noted in the Final SanitalT Sewer A1emorandllm dated Febrllarv 12, l009 - 40 N 4" Avenue Targel - C/1Ula Visla. Cal!fiJ/'nia 9191iJ, the proposed Average Daily Water usage is projected to be approximately 2.490 gal/day. The Existing Average Daily Use for the existing store. based on records from the Sweetwater Authority. is approximately 4,947 gal/day. The proposed Target building will include many advanced and P""] 61'~ ~Bl_~ Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Mr Jeff Steichen, July 14,2009, Pg. 6 efficient water saving features and processes that contribute to almost 50 percent reduction in water usage. Details of these features and calculations can be found in the above referenced Sewer Memorandum. Accordingly, project impacts upon water supply or State Water Project reductions are not potentially significant impacts. B. The project will not have a significant impact on water supply. and as discussed above. the proposed rebuild will substantially reduce currcnt water usage. As noted in the Final Sanitarv Sewer /l1emorandul11 da/ed Februaty'-12, 2009 - 40 N 4th Avenue Target Chula Vis/a, Ca/{(onzia 919lO. the proposed Avcrage Daily Water usage is projected to be approximately 2.490 gal/day. The Existing A verage Daily Use for the existing store based on records from the Swcet\vater Authority is approximately 4,947 gal/day. The proposed Target building will include many advanced and efficient water saving features and processes that contribute to almost 50 percent reduction in water usage. Details of these features and calculations can be found in the above referenced Sewer Memorandum. Accordingly, project impacts upon \vater supply or upon a potential drought situation are not potentially significant impacts. C. The project will not use !!:roundwater. and. therefore. project impacts upon groundwater do not need to be analyzed in the environmental document. III. Public Participation A. The reports are part of the project MND file, and they were made available at the City for public review. B. The reports are thoroughly summarized in the MND and were made available at the City for public and City officials to review. This is typical City protocol for all MND documents. IV. Hazards and Hazardous Materials A. Because of the Corrective Action Plan, MTBE on the projcct site does not constitute a potentially significant impact upon the project, and the project does not constitute a potentially significant impact with respect to this hazardous material. MTBE is in the process of being remediated through a Corrective Action Plan by the responsible party through the State Department of Toxic and Substance Control. In addition, the City has added a condition to this project that states the following: "Prior to issuance of building permits. comply with all required mitigation measures outlined in the Corrective Action Plan entitled Site Conceplual Model and Corrective Action Plan, 12 North 4'" Avenue, Chuta Vista P"1 !IEU'" Ilb.J IilIi1l U Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Mr. JetTSlcichen, July 14,2009, Pg. 7 California, File #H20016, dated December 21,2008 or protect in place the existing monitoring wells during all construction aclivi1ies.~~ B. In order to avoid any potentially significant impacts, the MND requires that all required remediation measures will be complete prior to the issuance of building permits. The worst case scenario was examined and resulted in the following condition that was required by the City: "Prior to issuance of building permits, comply with all required mitigation measures outlined in the Corrective Action Plan entitled Site Concep/Ual Mode! and Corrective Action Plan, 12 North 4,h Avenue, Chula Vista California, File #H20016, dated December 21, 2008 or protect in place the existing monitoring wells during all construction activities." V. Hydrology and Water Quality A. The proposed rebuild project will not result in the discharge of any new pollutants of concern than those that already exist on the developed site today. In fact, the proposed rebuild project will improve storm water management and quality, as there are currently no permanent BMPs in effect to mitigate the existing storm water discharge from the site. The proposed project, however, will include pernlanent storm water treatment that will conform to the provisions of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Municipal Permit No. R9-2007-001, and the City of Chula Vista Development Storm Water Manual, 2008 (See Hydrology and Water Quality Conditions # 6 and #8 as noted in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program). A large natural bio-swale is included as part of the permanent storm water treatment, In addition, the proposed project actually decreases the amount of impervious area on site~ and provides more landscaping and greens pace than currently exists. Again, the proposed project actually improves the conditions related to hydrology and water quality. VI. Need for EIR After considering the individual circumstances of the proposed project, including the demolition of three existing buildings and replacement with one building, the City, as lead agency, did not believe that an ElR was warranted. Other "big-box projects" have their own set of circumstances that dictate the type of environmental document that must be prepared including the size and extent of the proposed project, the environmental setting, and the mitigation and design feotures proposed. For example, the cited Foothill Ranch Wal-Mort Expansion project involved a much larger addition of building square footage than the 11,000 s.f. addition proposed by this project (less than a 10% increase). Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15070: l::U:~~ Kimley-Hom and Associates, Inc. Mr. JeffStcichcn, July 14, 20U9, Pg. oS A puhlic agency shall prepare or have prepared a negative declarathm or mitigated negalive declaration/or a project su~iCCl (0 CEQA when: oj The initial study shows Ihal there is no subs/anlfal evidence. in lighl (~f the vvhole record hefure the ageJ7c.~v, fhal the projecl may have a substantial effect on the environment, or h) The initial study identified po/emially significant effects. hut: I. Revisions il1 the project plans or proposals made by or agreed to hy the applicant hefore a proposed mitigated negalive declaration and ;'111;0/ slud.y are released for public review would avoid the effec's or mitigate the effects /0 a point 'where c1ear(v 170 sign((icanl cffee!s would occur, and 2 There is no subs/anlfal evidence. in light of the whole record before [he agency. [hat the project as revised may have a siKnificant effect on the environment. Substantial evidence has been included and relied upon in the initial study that demonstrates that the project, as mitigated, will not have a substantial impact upon the environment. Technical studies have been prepared by qualilled experts that show all impacts associated with the project for such issue areas as air quality, drainage, water quality, and tramc are mitigated to a level of less than signillcant. No substantial evidence of a potentially signillcant environmental impact associated with the project has been submitted. Therefore, in accordance with state law, a mitigated negative declaration has been prepared. Attachments: Briggs Law Corporation Letter URBEMIS Model Run Target Sustainability Memo BRIGGS LAW CORPORATION San Diego Office: 5663 Balboa Avenue. No. 3i6 San Diego, CA 92111-2705 Inlalld Empire Office: 99 East "C" Street, Suite] 1] Upland, CA 91786 Telephone: 858-495-9082 Faesimile: 858-495-9138 Telephone: 909-949-7115 Faesimile: 909-949-7121 Please re.\f}(}nd 10: Inland Empire Office BLC Filel,I): 1366,99 13 July 2009 City Council c/o Donna Norris, City Clerk 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 Rc: ProDoscd Mitigated Nc!!ative Declaration for Tar!.!cl Pronoscd to be Located at 40 North Fourth Avenue fAPN # 562-323-13.38.39) on Citv Council's Aeenda for Julv 14.2009 (Item 16) Dear Chula Vista City Council: On behalf of Citizens for Responsible Equitable Environmental Dcvelopment, I am writing to urge you to deny thc project that is the subject of the above-refcreneed matter. In gcneral, approval of the project would violate thc California Environmental Quality Act, the Planning and Zoning Law, and othcr laws. The spccific reasons for dcnying thc project arc sct forth on Attachment I to this lettcr and supported by evidence in thc administrative record for the project and by other evidence provided on thc accompanying CD/DVD. If you do not make a decision on the tonight, please provide me with written notice of the next public hearing or other meeting at which you will consider this project. Additionally, please provide me with written notice ofv..'hatcvcr action you do take tonight. Thank you for your attcntion to this matter. Sincerely, BRIGGS LAW CORPORATION Mckaela M. G laddcn Attachment & DVD 0e goo.! to [fie P.a.rtlz: If?sauce, rJ?suse, rJ\fcyde ~ Attachment 1: Reasons for Denyin~ Target Project Briggs Law Corporation-July 13,2009 Page 2 01'4 I. Air Quality A. Toxic Air Contaminants 1. The Project's diesel exhaust emissions may have a significant environmental impact. Califomia identified diesel exhaust partieu late matter (PM) as a toxic air contaminant based on its potential to cause cancer, prema ture death, a nd other health problems. Ex. I a. 2. The air quality assessment on page IS acknowledges that the nearest residence is within 500 feet. In addition, there arc at least four schools and pre-schools within a mile of the project site-Tender Loving Care Preschool, Pilgrim Lutheran School, Cottontail Preschool, and the Christian Academy. See Exs. I b- I e. The air quality assessment docs not even acknowledge these schools. 3. An environmental impact repon ("EIR") is needed toanalyze the potential health and environmental impacts of the Projeet'sdiesel exhaust emissions, particularly with so many sensitive receptors nearby. Other projects have done diesel-truck health risk assessments. See Exs. 11'-1 h. B. Ambient Air-Oualitv I. If the project will increase the amount ofa pollutant for which the region has not achieved attainment with a federal or state standard, then the project may have a significant impact on air quality. The air quality assessment indicates on page three that the region is in non-attainment of federal standards for 8-hour ozone and in non-attainment of state standards for ozone and particulate matter (both PM2.5 and PM I 0). The air quality assessment also shows that the Project will emit ozone, PM 2.5, and PM 10. Therefore, because the project will increase the amount of pollutants for which the region has not achieved attainment for, the project may ha ve a significant impact on air quality 2. While the existing facility exceeds the thresholds for NOx, ROGs, and CO, the larger facility exacerbates the problem. For example, on page 13 of the air quality assessment the summer emissions of NOx from the existing facility exceeds the threshold by approximately 7% and the summer emissions of NO x from the proposed facility exceeds the threshold by approximately 15%. Even though the difference in air emissions docs not alone exceed the threshold -the standard that the air quality assessment appears to use, the Project exceeds the threshold and the contribution ofair pollutants over the baseline is substantial. Therefore, the project may have a significant impact on air quality. C. Global Climate Change 1. The project's greenhouse gas emissions may havc a cumulatively significant impact on global climate change. Itsays on page 30 of the air quality assessment that the level of emissions during construction is below the threshold of 900 metric tons suggested in thc CAPCOA White Paper to evaluate \'.;hether a project qJe qooa Lo the iEallfi: rJ\!aucc, rJ(ruse, CJ?scydc Jj.~_ '6~ Attachment 1: Rl'asons for Dcnyin~ Target Project Briggs Law Corporation-July 13, 2009 Page 3 of 4 would have emissions that would be considered significant. See Ex. I i. The operational emissions greatly exceed the 900 metric ton threshold at an estimated C02 equivalent of 10.337 metric tons/year. 2. The mitigation measures proposed do not reduce the greenhouse gas emissions and global climate change emissions to a levcl of insignificance. 3. The assumption that the project will emit approximately 32% less greenhouse gases from motor vehicles is nawed. On the one hand, as noted on page 34 or the air quality analysis, the reductions from motor vehicle emissions due to the implementation of the CAFE, LCFS, and Pavley initiatives would not be realized unti12020. Given the estimated construction start date of October 2009 with one year of construction, that leaves approximately nine years of emissions at the higher rate even if that 32% reduction figure \\'as accurate On the other hand, nothing in the San Diego County Greenhouse Gas Inventory report referenced in the air quality assessment slates that the reduction from the three initiatives would result in a 32% reduction. See ex. Ij. Therefore, the analysis overestimates the level of mitigation and ignores the gap in time before the reductions would be realized. 4. Even if the reductions realized from the mitigation measures and the initiatives were an accurate reflection, thc project's greenhouse gas emissions are still not mitigated to a level of insignificance. Under the air quality assessment's estimates, the project would emit 7,381 metric tons orC02 equivalent emissions per year, well in excess of the 900 metric ton threshold identified by CAPCOA and used by the air quality assessment for analyzing the construction emissions. 5. The project has the potential to impact the environment due to greenhouse gas emissions that result from the solid waste generated by the project. See Exs. I k- 11. 6. Additional evidence supporting the conclusion that the project may have a significant environmental impact due to greenhouse gas emissions can be found in the G H G folder. II. Water Supply A. The Project may have a significant impact on water supply. The Governor has issued an executive order as a result of the "serious drought conditions" facing California. See EX.2a. Indeed, the Los Angeles Times recently reported that the drought is the "worst in decades." See Ex. 2b. Water supply from the State Water Project has been reduced. See Exs. 2c 2e Global warming also contributes 10 the water supply problems facing the region. See Ex. 2f. me good" I.(l tne 'Eartfi: f/?jcfuce. ~usc. fJ(sc}dc ,~ Attachment 1: Reasons for Denying Target Project Briggs Law Corporation-.July 13,2009 Page 4 af 4 B. The Sweetwater Autharity has also. issued statements abaut the impacts afthe drought ot?- the current water supply situation. See Exs 2j-2i. This is further evidencc that the prajeet may have a significant impact an water supply. C. The project may have significant enviranmental impacts due to. the supply afwater that need to be analyzed in an EIR. Far instance, the project will use groundwater and there shauld be an analysis af whether using the graundwater will cause physical ar water quality impacts. III. Public Participatiun A. The MND relics an a number afreparts prepared an enviranmental issues such as the Air Quality Assessmet far the Chula Vista Target Center Project datd March 6,2009, the Updated Parking Assessment revised January 22, 2009, the Drainage Study Target dated January 2009, the Site Access Study for Target Stare dated January 2 I , 2009, and the Final Sanitary Sewer Memarandum dated February 12,2009. While the MND may rely on outside documents, those documents must either be attached or inearporatd by reference. When incorparatian is used, the MND must state where the incorporated documents arc available for inspection and the information must be summarized in the MND. Here, the MN 0 daes nat state that the abave-refereneed documents arc incorporated by reference, where the documents arc available for inspection, or summarize the information incorporated. B. The reparts relied an in the MND are nat included in the agenda packet for review by the public ar the deeisian-maker. IV. Hazards and Hazardous Materials A. MTBE remains an the site. An E1R is needed to. allaw far a thoraugh analysis afthe prajeet's impact with respect to this hazardaus material. B. Furthermore, since it is not known if all remediation measures will be complete at the time of grading, the worst-case scenario needs to be examined. V. Hydrology and Water Quality A. The project will discharge several pollutants of concern including sediments, nu trients, oxygen demanding substances, organic compounds, pesticides and bacteria and viruses. An EIR is needed to. allaw the public to. provide input an whether the BMPs will in fact mitigate this harmful discharge. VI. Need for EIR Other similar big-box projects have done EIRs, including other expansion projects such as the Faathill Ranch Wal-Mart Expansian. See Other EIRs falder an DVD. (Be good" to tfie Pnrtfi: rj(eaurc, rJ?suse, CJ?prycfc ~ l6" Page: 1 7/14/2009 2:00:39 PM Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4 Combined Summer Emissions Reports (PoundslDay) File Name: C.IUrbemislUrbemis 9.2.2IProjectsICV Target Operations Trucks.urb924 Project Name: Chula Vista Target Diesel PM calculations Project Location: California State-wide On-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version . Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Off-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 Summary Report: OPERATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES BQQ tlili 179 c.Q SQZ. 0.00 J:M1Q TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated) 0.10 0.55 007 SUM OF AREA SOURCE AND OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES TOTALS (Ibs/day, unmitigated) ROG 0.10 PM10 007 NOx 1.79 kQ 0.55 S02 0.00 PM2.5 0.06 PM2.5 0.06 C02 300.92 C02 300.92 Page: 2 7/14/20092:00:39 PM Operational Unmitigated Detail Report: OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES Summer Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated Source ROG NOX Free-standing discount store 0.10 1 79 TOTALS (Ibs/day, unmitigated) 0.10 179 CO 0.55 0.55 802 0.00 0.00 PM10 0.07 0.07 PM25 0.06 0.06 C02 300.92 300.92 Operational Settings: Does not inctude correction for passby trrps Does not include double counting adjustment for internal trips Analysis Year: 2010 Temperature (F): 85 Season: Summer Emfac' Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 NOli 1 2006 land Use Type Free-standing discount store SummarY of Land tJ~es Acreage Trip Rate Unit Type No. Units Total Trips Total VMT 0.09 1000 sq ft 136.50 12.29 90.82 12.29 90.82 Vehicle Fleet Mix Percent Type Non-Catalyst Catalyst Diesel 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 00 15.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 Veh'c1e Type Light Auto Light Truck < 3750 Ibs Light Truck 3751-5750 Ibs Med Truck 5751-8500 Ibs Lite-Heavy Truck 8501-10,000 Ibs Lite-Heavy Truck 10,001-14.000 Ibs Page: 3 7/14/20092:00:39 PM Vehicle Type Med-Heavy Truck 14,001-33,000 fbs Heavy-Heavy Truck 33,001-60,000 Ibs Other Bus Urban Bus Motorcycle School Bus Motor Home Urban Trip Length (miles) Rural Trip Length (miles) Trip speeds (mph) % of Trips - Residential % of Trips - Commercial (by land use) Free-standing discount store Home-Work Vehicle Fleet Mix Percent Type 40.0 45.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Travel Conditions Residential 10.8 168 35.0 32.9 Home-Shop 7.3 71 35.0 18.0 Non-Catalyst 0.0 0.0 00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Home-Other 7.5 7.9 35.0 49.1 Commute 9.5 14.7 35.0 Catalyst 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 00 0.0 Commercial Non-Work 7.4 6.6 35.0 2.0 1.0 Diesel 100.0 1000 0.0 0.0 00 0.0 0.0 Customer 7.4 66 35.0 97.0 Page: 1 7/14/20092:01 :18 PM Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4 Combined Winter Emissions Reports (PoundslDay) File Name: C.IUrbemislUrbemis 9.2.2IProjectsICV Target Operations Trucks.urb924 Project Name: Chula Vista Target Diesel PM calculations Project Location: California State-wide On-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version . Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Off-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 Summary Report: OPERATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES TOTALS (Ibs/day, unmitigated) ROO 0.10 PM10 0.07 NOx 2.16 QQ 0.55 SQZ 0.00 SUM OF AREA SOURCE AND OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG 0.10 NOx 2.16 QQ 0.55 SQZ 0.00 PM10 0.07 TOTALS (Ibs/day, unmitigated) EML> 0.06 PM2.5 0.06 em 300.92 C02 300.92 Page: 2 7/14/20092:01:19 PM Operational Unmitigated Delail Report OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES Winter Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated Sou~e ROG NOX Free-standing discount store 0,10 2.16 TOTALS (lbs/day, unmitigated) 0.10 2.16 CO 0.55 0.55 802 0.00 0.00 PM10 0.07 0.07 PM25 0.06 0.06 C02 300.92 300.92 Operational Settings: Does not include correction for passby trips Does not include double counting adjustment for internal trips Analysis Year" 2010 Temperature {F}: 40 Season: Winter Emfac: Version . Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 land Use Type Free-standing discount store SummarY of land Uses Acreage Trip Rate Unit Type No. Units Total Trips Total VMT 0.09 1000 sq ft 136.50 12.29 90.82 12.29 90.82 Vehicle Fleet Mix Percent Type Non-Catalyst Catalyst Diesel 0.0 0.0 0.0 00 0.0 0.0 0.0 00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 150 0.0 0.0 100.0 Vehicle Type Light Auto Light Truck < 3750 Ibs Light Truck 3751-5750 Ibs Med Truck 5751-8500 Ibs Ute-Heavy Truck 8501-10,000 bs Lite-Heavy Truck 10,001~ 14,000 Ibs Page: 3 7/14/20092:01:19 PM Vehicle Type Med-Heavy Truck 14,001-33,000 Ibs Heavy-Heavy Truck 33,001-60,000 Ibs Other Bus Urban Bus Motorcycle School Bus Motor Home Urban Trip Length (miles) Rural Trip Length (miles) Trip speeds (mph) % of Trips - Residential % of Trfps - Commercial (by land use) Free-standing discount slore Home-Work Vehicle Fleet Mix Percent Type Non-Catalyst 40.0 0.0 45.0 00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Travel Conditions Residential 10.8 16.8 35.0 329 Home-Shop 7.3 71 35.0 180 Home-Other 7.5 7.9 35.0 49.1 Commute Catalyst 0.0 00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.5 14.7 35.0 Commercial Non-Work 74 6.6 35.0 2.0 1.0 Diesel 100.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Customer 74 6.6 35.0 97.0 Target and Sustainability What is Target doing about sustainability? Target Corporation has been relatively quiet about our sustainability practices. Howevcr, Target is continuing to pursue profitable and sustainable growth, consistent with our long-standing dedication to the social, environmental and economic well-bcing of the global community in which we do business. Progress in sustainable design will take time and require solid partnerships with communi tics, vendors and our guests. Public and stakeholdcr requests for Corporate Responsibility Reports, outlining a company's environmental activities and policies, has increased the past few years. The Corporate Responsibility Report has been posted on our external Wcb site for at least four years running. It can be found at http://sites.targetcom. 2009 PROTOTYPE CHARACTERISTICS The following sustainable features are includcd in the construction and operation of Target projects: Site and Water . Soil erosion from construction activity is managed by use of silt fence and other erosion control measures. . Heat island effcct is minimized by use of highly reflective white roof mcmbranes to reduce cooling load. . High efficiency plumbing fixtures are used in restrooms to cut municipal water use by at least 30 percent Energy Efficiency . High encrgy efficiency rooftop heating and air conditioning equipment are used. . Verification of electrical systems is utilizcd, and measurcmcnt and operating practices put in place to insure ongoing efficiencies and accountability of energy management over tilne. Materials and Resources . Construction waste is managed in order to recycle and divert from the waste stream at least 75% of all construction refuse where local markets allow. . Construction materials contain a minimum of 10% recycled content for the ovcrall project as the local market allows, potentially consisting of the following: 50% minimum recycled content in all structural steel framing, 20% in joists andjoist girders; fly ash in concrete if locally available, and crushed concretc sub-base in parking lot and recyclcd bituminous paving for drive surfaccs if the project allows. . Regional matcrials are utilized to the extent possible with locally manufactured products made from locally extracted raw (or re-cyc led) materials. . Wood from Forest Stewardship Council certified sources is used for all blocking. framing and sheathing. Page 1 of2 Target and Sustainability What is Target doing about sustainability? Indoor Air Quality o The store building is a tobacco-free environment. o During construction an Indoor Air Quality (lAQ) management plan is utilized to protect the workers. o Volatile Organic Compounds are minimized within the finished space by the use oflow- VOC materials for all carpets, flooring, adhesives, sealants, paints and coatings, ceilings and wall systems. Additional Sustainable Measures o T-8 light fixtures with low mercury bulbs will be used throughout the store. o Site lighting fixtures are "dark sky" compliant with full "cut-off' features to prevent light spill to adjoining property. o All Target stores participatc in an extensive program to recycle solid waste. On average each store recycles per year: o 12,000 pounds of cardboard. in addition to shrink wrap and food waste o 268,000 garment hangers o 322,000 pounds of paper materials o Ceiling tiles, carpet. and roofing materials are recycled when replaced. WHAT IS LEEO'! o LEED, or Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design is promulgated by the US Green Building Council. The USGBC is a not-for-profit organization, and has established voluntary certification guidelines. o The LEED certification process awards points within six categories (sustainable sites, water efficiency, energy and atmosphere, materials and resources, indoor environmental quality, and innovative design) for New Construction projects. A total of 71 points may be awarded under the Application Guide for Retail. Other review classifications have also been developed, including a guide for Commercial Interiors, Neighborhood Development, and Retail Applications. o Certification levels are based on the number of points awarded, and include Certification for> 26 points, Silver> 33 points. Gold >39 points and Platinum >52 points under the New Construction Retail guide. Other classification systems have differing point levels for achievement. o The breakdown of the sites certified nationally to date includes approximately 44% certified, 3% silver, 23% gold, and 3% platinum. o Target's 2009 prototype design will typically accrue approximately 25 points for the building only; points associated with the parking and storm water attributes are site dependent and will vary. Page 2 of2 ,4dd,HoY\RI ..' BRlGGS LA W CORPORATION SUII Diego Office: 5663 Balboa A ~'eJlue, No.3 76 Sail Diego, CA 92111-2705 I ",fDrrnaH an / te-rn 1 b 7/I'I/iFI Ill/and Empire Office: 99 East "e" Street, Suite 111 UplOlld, CA 91786 ~ O~\G\\\~t Telepholle: 909-949-7115 Fucsimile: 909-949-7121 Telepholle: 858-495-9082 Facsimile: 858-495-9138 Please re....'Polld to: III/and Empire Office 13 July 2009 City Council c/o Donna N orris, City Clerk 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 919]0 BLC File(s): 1366.99 Re: Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration tor Target Proposed to be Located at 40 North Fourth Avenuc (APN 11562-323-]3.38.39) on Citv Council's Agenda for Julv 14.2009 (Item 16) Dear Chula Vista City Council: On behalf of Citizens for Responsible Equitable Environmental Development, I am writing to urge you to deny the project that is the subject of the above-referenced matter. In general, approval of the project would violate the Califomia Environmental Quality Act, the Planning and Zoning Law, and other laws. The specitie reasons for denying the project are set forth on Attachment 1 to this letter and supported by evidence in the administrative record for the project and by other evidence provided on the accompanying CD/DVD. If you do not make a decision on the tonight, please providc mc with written notice of the next public heari ng or other meeting at which you will consicl0r this project. Additionally, please provide me with written notice of what ever action you do take tonight. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, ~~"ON Mekaela M. Gladden I , I do =4~ -c-C p~ rnn XI:J:: ;OSc <.nr- 0> -,,<: -n- _<.n n~ m:r:~' Attachment & DVD (Be qooa to tlie {Earth: 'i\r:dilce, 1{~IISC, rR.~cycre t~ ~ f= ::u m (j m < m o - ~ ~ \0 W ~ , '. Attachment I: Reasons for Denying Target Project Briggs Law Corporation-July 13,2009 Page 2 of4 I. Air Quality A. Toxic Air Contaminants 1. The Project's diesel exhaust emissions may have a significant environmental impact. California identified diesel exhaust particulate matter (PM) as a toxic air contaminant based on its potential to cause cancer, premature death, and other health problems. Ex. la. 2. The air quality assessment on page 15 acknowledges that the nearest residence is within 500 feet. In addition, there are at least four schoo Is and pre-schools within a mik of the project site-Tender Loving Care Preschool, Pilgrim Lutheran School, Cottontail Preschool, and the Christian Academy. See Exs. Ib- 1 e. The air quality assessment docs not even acknowledge these schools. 3. An environmental impact report (" Ell{") is needed to analyze thepotential health and environmental impacts of the Project's diesel exha ust emissions, particularly with so many sensitive receptors nearby. Other projects have done diesel-truck health risk assessments. See Exs. 1 f-l h. B. Ambient Air-Oualitv 1. Ifthe project will increase the amount ofa pollutant for which the region has not,~/ ~. achieved attainment with a federal or state standard, then the project may have ." a significant impact on air quality. The air quality assessment indicates on page three that the region is in non-attainment of federal standards for 8-hour ozone and in non-attainment of state standards for ozone and particulate matter (both PM 2.5 and PM 1 0). The air quality assessment also shows that the Project will emit ozone, PM 2.5, and I'M 10. Therefore, because the project will increase the amount of pollutants for which the region has not achieved attainment for, the project may have a significant impact on air quality 2. While the existing facility exceeds the thresholds for NOx, ROGs, and CO, the larger facility exacerbates the problem. ror example, on page 13 of the air quality assessment the summer emissions of NOx from the existing facility exceeds the threshold by approximately 7% and the summer emissions of NO x li'om the proposed facility exceeds the threshold by approximately 15'Yo. Even though the difference in air omissions does not alone exceed the threshold -the standard that the air quality assessment appears to use, the Project exceeds the threshold and the contribution of air pollutants over the baseline is substantial. Therefore, the project may have a significant impact on air quality. C. Global Climate Chan!!e 1. The project's greenhouse gas emissions may have a eumu latively significant impact on global climate change. It says on page 30 of the air quality assessment that the level of emissions during construction is below the threshold of 900 metric tons suggested in the CAPCOA White {'aperto evaluate whether a project me (;'aoa to die (Eartfi: rJ\i!auce, ~llse, 1?scycfe "'~ ~.dD~ .." Attachmcnt 1: Rcasons fur Denying Target Project Briggs Law CO'llUration-July 13,2009 Pa gc 3 of 4 would have emissions that would be considered significant. See Ex. I i. The operational emissions greatly exceed the 900 metric ton thresholdat an estimated C02 equivalent of 10,337 metric tons/year. 2. The mitigation measures proposed do not reduce the greenhouse gas emissions and global climate change emissions to a level of insignificance. 3. The assumption that the project will emit approximately 32% less greenhouse gases from motor vehicles is flawed. On the one hand, as noted on page 34 or the air qua lity analysis, the reductions from motor vehicle emissions due to the implementationofthe CAFE, LCFS, and Pavley initiatives would not be realized until 2020. Given the estimated construction start date of October 2009 with one year of construction, that leaves approximately nine years of emissions at the higher rate even if that 32% reduction figure was accurate. On the other hand, nothing in the San Diego County Greenhouse Gas Inventory report referenced in the air quality assessment states that the reduction from the three initiatives would result in a 32 oj" reduction. See ex. Ij. Therefore, the analysis overestimates the level of mitigation and ignores the gap in time belore the reductions would be realized. 4. Even if the reductions realized from the mitigation measures and the initiatives were an accurate reflection, the project's greenhouse gas emissions arc still not mitigated to a level of insignificance. Under the air quality assessment's estimates, the project would emit 7,38 J metric tons of C02 equivalent emissions per year, well in excess of the 900 metric ton threshold identilied by CAPCOA and used by the air quality assessment for analyzing the construction emissions. 5. The project has the potential to impact the environment due to greenhouse gas emissions that result from the solid waste generated by the project. See Exs. lk- 11. 6. Additional evidence supporting the conclusion that the project may have a signilieant environmental impact due to greenhouse gas emissions can be lound in the GHG folder. II. Water Supply A. The Project may have a significant impact on watcr supply. The Governor has issued an executive order as a result of the "serious drought conditions" facing Califurnia. See EX.2a. Indeed, the Los Angeles Times recently reported that the drought is the "worst in decades." See Ex. 2b. Water supply from the Statc Water Project has been reduced. See Exs. 2c-2c Global warming also contributes to the water supply problcms facing the region. See Ex. 21'. ". , '. (He C;;ooa to the ~artfi: CRsJuce, (J?s.use, rRfcyde ~ - ...., q . Attachment 1: Reasons fur llcnying Target Project Briggs Law Corporation-July 13,2009 Pa ge 4 of 4 B. The Sweetwater Authority has also issued statements about the impacts of the drought on the current water supply situation. See Exs 2j-2i. This is further evidence that the project may have a siguificant impact on water supply. C. The project may have significant environmental impacts due to the supply of water that need to be analyzed in an ElR. For instance, the project will use groundwater and there should be an analysis of whether using the groundwater will cause physical or water quality impacts. III. Public Participation A. The MN D relies on a number of reports prepared on environmental issues such as the Air Quality Assessmct for the Chu la Vista Target Center Project datd March 6, 200Y, the Updated Parking Assessment revised January 22, 2009, the Drainage Study Target dated January 2009, the Site Access Study for Target Store dated January 21, 2009, and the Final Sanitary Sewer Memorandum dated February 12, 2009. While the MND may rely on outside documents, those documents must either be attached or incorporatd by reference. When incorporation is used, the MN D must state where the incorporated documents are available for inspection and the information must be summarized in the MND. Herc, the MND does 110t statc that thc above-referenced documents arc incorporated by reference, where the documents are available for inspection, or summarize the information incorporated. B. The rcports relied on in the MND are not included in the agenda packet for review by the public or the decision-maker. IV. Hazards and Hazardous Materials A. MTBE remains on the site. An EIR is needed to allow for a thorough analysis of the project's impact with respcct to this hazardous material. B. Furthermore, since it is not known if all remediation measures will be complete at the time of grading, the worst-case scenario needs to be examined. V. Hydrology and Water Quality A. The projeetwill discharge several pollutants of concern including sediments, nutrients, oxygen demanding substances, organic compounds, pesticides and bacteria and vim,es. An ElR is needed to allow the public to providc input on whether the I3MPs will in fact mitigate this harmful discharge. VI. Need for EIR Other similar big-box projects have done E1Rs, including other expansion projects such as the Foothill Ranch Wal-Mart Expansion. See Other EIRs folder on DVD. We gooa to tlie rfartlL' (Rfaure, W,fllSC, CJ?jc}de ~!lJ:;I< -'lb.:;:'