The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutReso 1989-15275 RESOLUTION NO. 15275 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ADOPTING A FIRE STATION MASTER PLAN The City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby resolve as follows: WHEREAS, The Fire Station Master Plan was reviewed by the Planning Commission on May 31, 1989, and WHEREAS, the Environmental Review Coordinator has conducted an Initial Study, IS-89-71, of potential environmental impact associated with the Master Plan and has concluded that there would be no significant environmental impacts, and WHEREAS, the Fire Station Master Plan details the number and location of fire stations required to meet the City' s long-term fire protection needs and was developed as part of the General Plan Update. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby adopt the Fire Station Master Plan, attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full.~ 7esented by Approved as to form by im Teh~mson, Deputy City . ity Attorney 6125a ADOPTED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ;HULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this 22 cloy of August ...... 9 89 , by the following vote, to-wit: ~YES: Councilmembers Malcolm, Moore, McCandliss, Cox ~AYES: Counci 1 members Nader ~,BSTAIN: Councilmembers None ~BSENT: Councilmembers None WTES ,~ify er ;TAi ~. OF CALIFORNIA ) ;OUNTY OF SAN DIEGO ) ss. :fly OF CHULA VISTA ) I, JENNIE M. FULASZ, CMC, CITY CLERK of the City of Chulo Visto, California, HEREBY CERTIFY thot the above end foregoing is o full, true ond correct copy of RESOLUTION N0. 15275 ,ond that the some has not been amended or repealed ATED c-sso - FIRE STATION MASTER PLAN POLICY ANALYSIS AND PROGRAM EVALUATION UNIT (February, 1939) Marty Chase, Project Manager Cherly Fruchter, Principal Management Analyst ,','~. ~ ~ TABLE OF CONTENTS i.~. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ~.,.~.~.;,~:. ~' INTRODUCTION PART I, "FIRE RESPOSE TIME STANDARDS AND PERFORMANCE C," ~e masures Used To Assess Al~rnat~ve FtPe StaUo~ ge~orks 6-7 D.~'' ~neral ~thodo~o~'~' 'T~; C~p~ter ~del 7-8 S~'-, Coverage Rates:~The' Current Ftte Stat~ Ne~ork ""' 8-32 PART II. FUTURE COVERAGE IN THE PLANNING AREA A. P~oposed Rre staUon Ne~otk: DescHpUon 13-16 B. Proposed Fire StaUon Ne~ork: ~erall Covera~ Rate 16-19 C. Proposed Fire Station Ne~ork::'*Coverage of Special "Risk: Sites 19-21 D. Sugge~d Pro~ec~ Leve~ 'Gu~ de~ ~nesL'.,/;:~ F. Costs/Benefits Of Expanding Or ~creastng The Proposed ~ork 27-31 (Fire Network RecomendaUons) 32 G.-:Financing Needed Fi~ SUtlons 33 H. Tim Table For Fire Station Construction 33-38 PART III. RELATED FIRE SERVICE ISSUES A, Fire Training Facfii ;y 39-40 j ~;/hdto Comunlcattons 40-41 ~AC~ENT A A1-A9 BREAK~WN OF FIRE STATION AND RELATED COSTS) AS"'part of the Gaih~eral~' Pla'n'.~'~'~da~,' the Hanagement Services Oepartment's .:~ Poltcy Analysts a'~d Program E~aluat~on Unit (PARE) has completed a revtew ~ ~he 'lOn~ ~em ~' co~era~e'~'~'d~;"'th~n the :' ~ ~ ""'~'~';""~"~'~"~ ~"~"'~t C~ty;s Planntng Area. The sttedy, (11ustrates that' stgnqf~an~";'ef~tc~enctes can be achieved If ~tre coverage ne~dS~'are"pl anned fop o~' ~- a~ea-w e ;~'.]~ .~ ". ? b d s{att dtn th Bon{ta Sunn s~de Ftre Prot&ctqon 1. statlon .locate . e -. ase 01striCt,' F~rst-~n:'-'auto tfc:J ~d:%~?:;~Ov~de~ to" the Plannlng A~ea from ~a statlons located t~ National Ctty and San D~ego. E Under th~ proposed networks,' new f~re startons WOuld be butlt tn the E1 Pancho d~l Rey 'development > and tn Baldw~n's '-'Salt Creek-X/Salt Creek Ranch development,"-~_~e Ctty~s current Fire Station ~4 on Otay Lakes Road would cl osed ¥~" con~Unctf~ ~ t~'~';~en~a'~ ~'~ t~' E1 ~'Ran~ho" de~ Rey and Salt Creek fire st~t%Ons,~''. Add~t~onallY;.the C~ty's cb~rent F~re Station ~3, on East ~. Onefda~'~uld be relO'catea'c~;t~'~the Sunbow"XX"~evelopment, Lastly, a f~re . '~ 7~'~.~''-' "': ' ' ~'~ '~ ~ 'f"' ~"'~ ' I ' ""-.I .~. ,.. ~IthIn'Bal~n s Otay anc proper~v, west of ~he starfort ~uld be:~oca~ed R h . 0~ Reservoir, It ts p~posed that coverage ~oP the Otay Ranch area he ... supple nt by coverage from 3 Chula VIsta based stations, As detailed the report, ttts l~kely that a second f(re station based ~n Otay Ranch ~ould be ~q~tred to adequately serve that area If ~o~nt station 1jcat~on plannqng i~"~:~'t~t~ff~ coverage d~d I~OT occur, "' buildout, tt~s' pro;J~cted that 98.8/, of the Plannlng Area's d~e111nq untts ~!~'~ld"be:'~i~.hi~.;'i'l "1'~t~:~ire station response as compared to , current 7 ':~m~nute ~0ve'rage':~;~e'~.3t'~ 77t of the area's ~elllng unlts would he ~s compared to 8 current ~ m(nute coverage rate o~ 77.~.'~:Alsop under~the~ proposed '"network.~ the ffrst ;and second-~n response ~t~, t~'29 speclal*'~;~t~'7;'~.~den~fle~ aS' havJn9 , potenthlly itfe~'~r'property loss,':~ou~d meet or exceed proposed standards, A prel~m~naW ,;,t~,'-ta5qe~'fOP'~construct~ng flew' stations and 'recomen4at~ons fop f~nanc~nq re ated facilities' ape provided '~nzthe PepoPt;.. The F(re ~h~Ui~ be Pev~e,ed 'Shouqd 's~dnfftcant changes 0ccuP ~n the C~ty's Sphere 'If :substantive change~ ~n the c~rculat~on netv/ork or p~a~ned uses ar~ contempl~ta~;::: ";' addition to looking at overall coverage Pates, the report p~oposes specific :~'~:~,d,str~al/comerchi~pro~e~tS~'du~g:theC~ty's ~nternal pro~ect revue. ~'~process. As deta~hd ~n the"reP'ort;~the Rre Departant h presently mee~n~ :~':~f~e service thresholds ~h~ch~,were adopted by Council as ~ ..'e:n. ongo~ng mechanism to ~nsuPe that threshold service levels. are 'Lastly~ several relate4 f~re hsues are covered tn the reD'..rt. These ~nclude t~e'~ed fop a ne, fire training facility and the optqmal location fop the ~The key ~eport ~ecommehdatlons are hlghltghted below, The recommendation, ~" a re: REC~NDATZON 1 Ado~ ~ principle the proposed 8 fire station networ~ (Station Network) for the Plann~n9 Area, REC~NDATZON guidelines detailed ~n Table 4 of (Pro4ect ~. :th~s report (page 231, These guidelines w~11 provide Gu~ de1 ~ ne mechan~ sm to ~ nsure that the f~ re serv~ ce ld w~11 be ma~nta~ned.- ~e reco~ndat~ons fop staff action are: R~CO~NDATION 2;"~,.~'~ta f ~6'~ ~th the '~veloper to set 'asfde a s~te (Station Network)'~,:-~'~ ~th~n the' Sunboa-It development fop the relocatton ~ .. =.:~;:~.:'.; :~...~ .~:: "','~ Lead Deparment:; Planning ~.'; ~,' '~.: .~ RECXNDATION 3, ~ ~ ~Sta:f work with the developer to set aside a site (Station Network). ;..~ ..: within, the, Salt Creek-I/Salt Creek Ranch developant . ,, ~ . .:~ ~:""~-, for a new; fire station. This · site replaces the . ~ :' ~,',..';~'.';' ;~.2':'. originally planned site in the Eastlake I development, - ,"~ ' ',~/~"-"" ' "~-"'~ ~mproving overall coverage. . ., ..~ .... Lead Departant: Planning ~REC~NOATZON 4, Staff continue to ~ork'~th the developer on"plans fop (Station NeWork} a fire station wqth~n the ,~ E1 Rancho de1 . dayelement. Lead Oepa~ent: Planning -- REC~XDATION B, Staff work wtth ~astlake to obtain appropriate c~ed~ts (Statlon Network) fop the oPtgtnaq fire starton stte tn the Eastlake-X REC~NDATION 6;: Staff a~sesl"~"~'at~ve uses fop Fire Station ~4 o~ (Star(on Ne~ork) Otay Lakes Road, which would be vacated (~ conjunction ~; ,,,,~;.~-~ ~ --, with the opening of fire startons tn E1 Rancho de1 Ray · ,: ..... and Salt Creek Hnclud~ng ~tl potential use as a paramed~c s~te by Hartsons), and fop Rre Station e3 - on East One~da~ which would be vacated ~n conjunction ~. v'~h the proposed relocat~on to the Sunbow-If ,.~,,~,;~,~. Lead Depar~nt~ Plannlng "' '.- " REC~NDATION 8. Staff continue eff~ to modify the Scenario 14 ~oa4 {Road NeWoPk)- net~rk to ~mp~ove access ~nto the Bon~ta "; Estates develop~nt~ (n order to bring the develop~nt ~nto cmpl(ance with the proposed prolect guidelines, ,~< Lead Deparmnt: Engineering (FInancing) ,,~,'.~.'~.,'j~.~ '~J cover the costs for modrfyfng tho C~ty's fire station':",,,... !i . as outltned in this report. · Department: Admln~stratlon ',~ RECO~qENDATION 10 e' [1 Ran~ho "de1' RaY '~ Sal~ Cteek ftre startons , i Salt Creek area above "Street E" which bhects the'development'm;: p . on current t~ lfnes. thls hutldout qevel h expected to occur by FY 1992-93 oP before. ;.. '- actual buildout rate ~11 depend o a varhty of external .factors. such as prevailing ~ntetest",' rates.' t~mtng of ma~or roads. and the ~ateP fomula which ts being developed. ,c...~, ~:~.,~. ' ~nsutethat 'suff~c t f~re' protection and (01~p~c Center) med~ca~ treatment capab~l~ths are developed on-s~te fop the Olympic Training Center to' m~t~gate the fop a~ ~nteP~m chan es ~n the C~ty~s current f~Po star(on net~ork~ untO? such are changes ~arranted by development tn the nearby area. Lead DepaPment~ Planning .,,,. ". (Finandng)'.., "C~P budget. to' prepare fo~,:the annual ~ncrease ~n operattn expenses , assochted - w~th a sixth fire station ?$618.000 pep year ~n 1988 dollars1. --' ,,~:, Lead Deparmnt: Administration REC~ATZON 13. :. ~e'telocat~on o~ Rre'Stat~on e3 be targeted to {Relocat~on of cotnc~de ~tth the earlhst of the follo.~ng eventst Ffre st~t~on ~3) , 'the buildout of.the Otay;P~o Bus~ness Parkl the- ~:.~:'~;'/',,~":,. '~ :' :~'ach~evement~of"a 50~ butldout hvel fop t~e ~ ~ 321 REC~ATION 14. ;'~, ConstrUction of a nw f{te training facility ($ . . the C~ty's CZP budget tn the near future. Lead Oepar)nt: Fire REC~NDATZON 15. An appropriate share of the cost for the nw ~mpact fee (DIF) to oe establlshed by R~ntstratton.. Lead Oepar~entt Admtnhtratton Facillt gned to.,patrol beats east of l-~05 and, delineate assochted space and equlpment needs, 'Lead Department: ?.~. ~:,, .. RECC:N(NDAT%ON 17| ,elopers an ~iO~r Rad(o Co -Electronics Techn$dan to determine an approprhte It~ons) locatton for a communications tower.-east of Z-R05 This- ,'.:..tscneeded "tc~tmprove, ,for both pollce..and ,ftre occurs tn the easternl:terrltortes, .,.:':.,."' Department:'Plannlng "'~ RECOW~ENDATION !(Radto the ftre developmental.,(mpact.fee.{D%F} ,~ntcatlon$' established by Administration Lead De; Admtntstratlon .~=. ~.L:,,._ : 1 assess current (Paramedlc ,nd future paramedlc servlce needs east of %-8n~,' Services) Lead Department|.~ ..:, Subsrant ~f :r~Needs' Are Planned For 0~ Aft i:,' :.: . :*~ i:. .. ' A Program Evaluation! Unit :-'corpora Eastlake Greens and Sunbo~ Area, ~as, sho~"~.~n Illustrates ~Ings can be achieved planning the location of fire stations and through the'Use of automatic aSS~s~an~e','a mope efflclent fire statlo~'n~t~ork can be achhve~' fop the '~ entlre ~lannlng Area, - . ' ~'and ~measu~es cu~en~ · ~n~ance t~ ~! fO~. the P1 ~'nn~n.~ ~ PART I. FIRE RESPONSE TIME STANDARDS AND PERFORMANCE ;,: Zn PART ~ the faCtorS affectfng the F~Pe Department's response t~me to serv(ce allS ~re rev~e.ed,.' ;.~o"~'c,t'~me ~tanda~d~~ for eva~uat~ng alternative fire ~ itat~o~ a,e 'developed; 'and t~e~ d ' epartment~s current response - perromance and ~erall coverage rates a,e assessed, .~:....~,... ~:~ esponse T~me~h Pr~ma~3y ~etemhed by the Number. an~ Location of ponse' t~me; as:used-,,~n*~,t~hJ,~;:~ .~.e~oTt.~,:represents"',.,the.,,,t~mett takes fron recefpt of a call ;~r 'SerC~ce' ~nt~l a fire company arrives on-scene. Resnonse tfme can be broken dow~nt~'~thr~'~ pr'Jndoal components: Dhpatch T~me ~" ~ tom receipt 6f a call ~n the fibpatch ,, quoted fop firefighters to don their gear, check ~:'~ ~,: ~'.~ :, ,,~ ~ route ~nfomat~on,: and depart the statfon. ,' · on-scene. , . ,: .,. ,,~,: , ,~,. . ~, .... ... ..-. ~ravel' tlme ,h the ma~or component of response t~me and the most variable. ~e n~ber and locatton of a comuntty's ftre stattons are the.-mB~o~' '~-* dete~Inants of travel t~me. ', Zt*s lmport.:~,~ to pofnt out that there are a n~oer of variables. tn addttton t~ N'~ponse. t1~. whtch cPn fnfluence the extent of l~fe or proper~ loss. ~ese {nclude such factors as the use of smoke detectors. which can reduce the '~' ~ b the start a e apsed t~ e~een actual' of fire and ~ts detectfon, or the use syst~s, whfch can retard the growth of a fire dur{ng 4 ~reltmlnary stages'..'i.'Fo~~ medlcal related calls for service, th~ extent of '- conmnunlty:~tra~n~'~n E~R"'O~'."~;~ flrst-atd techniques can s1,tlarly affect Dotenttal,'.los~LZ:~tle~uch',varlabqe~'="~an slgnlflcantly enhance perromance. ~sPon~e~tt~:r'~a~':':~crlt~c~l~'faCtoP'!nthe"overa11 "effectiveness of a ':The Ftre De ,o To 92f, of Emergency 7 ~tnutes. n~ NoVember' 1987. Counctl adopted growth management thresholds for fire serv'fces as part of the' G~'al Plan update.!' The service' thresholds were ~o 1 ect the' depar~e~ s ~."Curreht ', perromance '~ 1 eve1 s" .. Both staff and the rossroads/DevelopeP ~. o~T{Uo~ ~teco~ended ,. that the 7-m~nute ' response. threshold be set at 85~to account fop ~o factors~ ' "' ,--* '.. :': .. ~ -.-,/- :,~{~:,~:-.~,~,:.~:~,:,~? .~;, ~! , . nomal year to year_~arlat on (n perfomaHce which wobld be expected to occur without any cha~ge.'tn population or service demand, rejecting changes ~n the geographic distribution of calls, and ~poss(ble shor~:~e~ 8eEi~ne~"~ r~honse .time' p~rfomance du~inq the ~nittal_phases of development, reflecting the nomal lag time ~ntil .... increased workload warrants construction of new fire stations. ~pon adoption o~ the threshold, staff enhanced ex~sUn9 ~nrom~Uon systems ~o ~rs'scc~Pately ~asure perromance, Under the cuppent system~ all three t~ c~onel~t; (dhpatch time, tu~nou't tI~ and t~avel Ume} are sponse ' t m~su;ed;'; hsed on recent perfor,.~nce dat~ for ~n 8-month period, roughly 92t . ',: rE~P"~a$~S' ~' deveqoped to assess ,the ~mpact of altern t~ e fire station efftchncy~"effectheness~ equtty and rls~ of different fire starton networks, ~;"measuPe 'lO'oks~ it .~ ~tthln.a 5 and 7 mtnute'% attOn ne~ork was deemed ~otheP tflt rov~ded greater coverage EFFECTZVENESSt Coyera, ~" ~Thls measure lno~s at .respons areas ghest call fop servlce ~,rates. A network uas deemed more effective tf tt ..~ qutcke~response ttmes to high demand areas. RI.SK:~.: Rtsk Sltes; Thls' ~otenttally high .... . response ,ertyL~ loss ,, (e.g. ~ large' ,: tndustrfal ,, or c~rctal develop~s),~op potefittally htgh loss'~of 11re (e.g. '~ttals).~For~h~gh rtsk sttes.~ the' response" t~mes ftrst-tn and second-ln fire companies are assessed. ~etwo~ was~deemed .to have less. risk" 'tf tt J quicker responses to these speclal sltes~ - . EQUI~: ~,. ~e ~'Na~mm'R,sponse T~me, ~s ~easu~e looks at the ;~ongest response t~me to po~uqated aPeas ~n the C~ty and ;n~eP. If, f;P ,xample, ~he overall coverage Pate (Hnchnc~ ~as the cfiteHa, Stations Nould tend to be locat, d ~n apeas.having It" Is also important to.recogn12 that!'perfonqance on each of the four ~8SUTeS carl. v 'c~eat~ng a new :~. 1988-89 co~ ;'~"f~e' cmpa~Y.'-app~oxlmate $618, ~us,'/'.tn , a fift~ neasu~ relathe cost, ;'In the followlng ~'s~ctions the mthodoqogy used to masure f{r~ coverage ;'rates ~s d~scussed, min{m~":c~ver~ge oSJ~ck~ves a~e set for each ~asure and '~he deparmnt's cuPTent' pePfomnce t s ~asuPed, ~.,'.:~7;".'~.~:' .. '~ '~':A Cm uter Node1 ~as ~sed To Reasure Co erag ~ates, To~ assess fire station coverage under alte~at~ve statqon networks, c~uteHzed f~; station s~latqon model vas uttl{zed, e ~ by Pubqlc Technoqo~,,':tnco~orated {PT]I; {s presentqy used T~ station responseszones under the au~matic a~d points to ,ore aSout the model a~e: ;:: U~lng the $cenarh~4 road network dpvelo~ed 5y the Canera1 Ran "~"'~'~' · ::',::"' '~consultanth the s~mulaUon ~del vas used to pro~ect travel tt~s to , m~ than 500 zones within the Planning Area, :-, -- ~:; ~e"- travel: t~m!"' p~ct~d by* the 'model '~ are conservaUve, As such, : ~"*:;":esUmates of the Planntn~ Area's current and future coveraae rates. ,-~, ,' ~::'~, ~ay be so~what understated. "P~' "' "* ....... ~:~ *'~ '~'* ' -- To estimate totaq":~p~nse Ume,' 1.3 m~nutes was :added to travel proJecUons to account for dhpatch and turnout Ume~. This estimate was derived ~r~ recent perromance data. .~.. ~as used to assess alternaUve.ftre staUon networks. E,~; H~n~m~ Coverage Standards ~e~ Developed for Each Perro~nce Heasure. ~' :" '? """~ "~' "' ~.:: Perromance. mtn1~ standards wre Based upon current ' coverage' masures, ~ese standards are ~hcussed E~ZC~ENCY ,..: .,- t P st 95~ of the Coverage: 99.3~of ~ll~ng units a~ w~th~n a '7 m~nute response.* "- Discussions ~e m(n(~ standard (9~) h set. sl~ghtly bel~ the current coverage,rate (99%) to account for ,~,~t ~,- . , ' the lower densitiese more hill' terrainm and · zt's Important to note the difference be~een the current coverage rate (t.e. 9g.3% of ~elltng units within 7 minutes) and the current rate (I.e. 92% of emrgency calls responded to within 7 ). This difference primarily reflects ~ factorn (l) actual perromance includes ~sponseS. t~,non-resldent(al areas ~tch a~ not ~ected In the coverage rate, such as ~sponses to b~sh fires and (2) the coverage rate ts generally based upon average trayelm tubout and dispath ti~s ~tle mctual perromance includes sine calls ~e~ special factorsm' such as adverse ~ather conditions. may significantly ~nc~ase, .,' ~e ~$ponse tim to a particular call. m~nutes to the 'Planning Area's lg ca11 for. fire Station ne~rk provides fop an ?r"Covera~t: 3.2 m~nute covera9~ ~n the area~s ,?ta call by:X-5, 'C' · StreetS. Fffth Avenue' an4 Street.~:,~ the call rate,west of y: }~ta rate~ east peP;cap( ta · c de~graph~c differences helen.the pnpulat?nns. .... ~? Ve ~;: above :~ , ..... ST~DARD ~ max{mum ,~ first-(n ~es of 7 m~nutes ~'.~ mum first ~ of 4 m~nutes' and e $ecol response Coverage: ! Tabl~ Hs ;.' w~thh - ' ?current Chula Vlsta.~As sho~n In the,tabl~.,t ':: ~.. ro~}ected coverage to most sttes ~s substantial ."' m~n~ standards ~uld not 5e mt fop the ,, ~' ~ ~:., hetwo~ and maCnot be mt for the Otay Valley Road Redevelo~nt Area.: :, * ' ected at ' 8.6 'minutes. ~compared to the"' 7 |: the projected. second-~n response~ Is:~.10.4 minutes. 'compared :'to the ,10 minute?; (As previously/noted~;: the simulation-. uses*conservative travel. speed' assumptton.~ 'as 1, such. :~:l tkely::: overstates .~ some ! res bt HOwever;~: since this conservative as ' is ~i~conststent In: all., areas. the mndel provides, the most objective method for assassin re ,ge.') ,..=.-:..,:,- ;"Diego. pla s;;' :onstruct aft re :! stati on, ateastern end of Field;~:Hovever.- Dro~ected res t~from. the ,~,'Brown ~g~ Tlre:: station central po~nt'~n~the" ,,R~o B~s~ness Park around ;;8: m~nute~ mg ~ only ,marginal ~rovemnts ge 'first-in fire.response is presently provided.by ISan Dtego's Fire Station. e6. which ts located ~est of 1-805 and south of Main Street....; As shown' Table ~, 1. ·ftre coverage;;. for y t~tth~n the. 7;,.and :,10 However. San Diego plans ,to relocate this. furthers. south. (after the Rrow~ Field statton'.tl t butlt).~;,q Uhen~ this; relocatton :~occuri. :. f rst-' response'"ttmes.'to a "Central point wlthtn' the Or. Valley Road Redevelopmerit Area would co~e from Chula, Vista: based fire starton 'and .would the -'~ 7 ~. minute *. maximum ~,, (8.1 ,..- mtnutes)j'~ second-~n response. although within the ;maxlmum~ ~fould increase from 7.1 mlnutel to the report, starton fieWorks are outlined which ~ould coverage into both the Otay Rfo Busfness the Otay ¥alley Road Redevelopmerit Area. ,:, rov~de ma ' a x~mum response t~me of 10 :any dwe11~ng~nlt within the Pladnlng Area. )orlSe :iChula Vfsta, from. Bon~ta and' based :stations ~of 'would be w~thtn 10 responselfromChula~ Vtsta based statfons,.' P~RT ~'Z - FUTURE FIRE COVERAGE IN THE PLANNING AREA '.~ ~,. -' ~ "~'. ~' ~'? ~,':,.,'~ '~'.'.~ -" - ' ~ '~ '~" '~'~ C~ ~. "~'~ ,.'.t~t~ . ~' .. '. ~e Scenario ~4 Eand Usepattern'wa~ u~e~ tQ evaluate the Plannln~ Area'sflre ~:'~ A, A Plann(n9 Area etwork~O~ 8 F(re"StaUons' Can ExCeed The tUnl um Cover, n, ': Rates .And erfomance Standards~ Zf The Stations Are Properly Located. Figures 2A and tllustrate'thYPlann(n~ AP (st(ng fire staUon2B netwnrk.'.~, and a proposed ~.ffre-'station' network,:.; Zmportant 'points 'to note about t e~ ~., · Vista fire stations ~'and 1 Bon(ta-Sunnystde station... First-in automatic aid Is · ~resently provided to the Planning Area from stations located tn Ci '- attonal ty and San Diego. ,'._..~e proposed Planning'Area ne~ork (Figure 2B)'wOuld consist of "Chula Vista based staUons,:l Bonita-Sunnyside station and 1 station located within the Otay Ranch (Bal~in) property west nf ~tay Reservoir, . .'. ;, .. .. -- ... station tn the E1 Rancho del Rey development. This station shouldbe - · 'located proximate' to East "W' Street and vaseo Ranchatom providing to ~aJor street arteries run~i~g Vflta :ion develo '~ ' ' ,,,'originally proposed for the Eastlake development and would facilitate . :,' '7 fire coverage into the Bontta Meadows Estates, Rancho San Nl~uel and Bal~tn ,Salt Creek developments, The 'proposed site would also . produce marginal improvements in response times into sme areas oF ;: Bonita-Sunnystde,. under an ex anded automatic aid agreeant, A ~. possible site fo th~ Salt Cree[-Z fire station has been tentatively` identified by the Ctty's Planning Deparment,., :~;'.: .'~:;~ Under~ the proposed neWork,' the C(ty's current Fire StaUon ~4 on Lakes Road would be closed in conjunction with the opening fire stations, ;:.:". I , .. ~: :;'.'J~7~ The! p!ro~os~l netv;0~k~:l~;eC0~'~n~Sth~;~elo~/a't'i~'0f Ftre Statt0'n ~! .... 'Th~s statton Is presently located on East Oneida,. tn a resfdentfal~'~,'~ , ~ ~ neighborhood ~est of 1-805.,. It ~s proposed to relocate'the statton~ ;~.:';~:~', to a stte east of Z-805, p~ox~mate to the' Intersection o Orange ~ ~.'~?~'/Avenue and Brandywine, ~tth~n the~Sun~o~% deve~opment.~ Th~s;~ ~: ~; ',~;'~locatton would provtde' teadye' access to ma3'0~ north-south~ and ~ ~ ~ 'J~,~'east-west afterhis. The ~ relocatlon of F~re ~ Station ~3 ~oul~ ~,~ : ~' ~; .~"~ ~~~ st gnt fi cant1 y , t mprov'e~;~ ~ coverage ~ ~ tnto the ,., Otay ~r Val 1 ey Pond ~'~;~'~RedevelopmentArea and the 0ray RIo Bus~ness ark.: ~ U~rent c0 erage, ~ ~'~;~to C~ty areas ~est of Z-80S ~ou~d not be s~gntficantly trapacted.: The ~ '~?~ '~/?proposed relocatlon w0uld also ;enable the, Ctty to provtde first-~n ~ /~;;~5~coverage ~nto some residential and lndust~hl areas of Bal~tn's ~'.:.~::.~ Ranch property..~' ',~ ~' ,' ~' ~ "~. ~;:~ ~ ",' -~ ' ~' ~ .:.,: ~-:.~:~ ~;:;~.;~:~ ::?~ ;,:~¥:~n Bald~n's Otay':Ranch' property ~est of otay Reservoir.. Zt's ~ .~ ~. :?' detailed ~n a subsequent section of the ,report,~.~t ts t at ~., ~r. ':second 0ta Ranch fire starton ~ould be~re, serve ~ ,,,.~,~ this area ' ~::; ;'~:~' not occur. pro; ~:::,~:coverage ~ tnto the: Eastlake reens..an Eastlake'.:ZZ:~ T C G d ~ ~"' developrants, and the 01~p~c ra~n~ng. enter.. , ~' ".~' ~:,':;~:~';;statton was undertaken aS part of th~s study and ts discussed tn P ~T ~,,:~;'~:;~.::/' I%% of the report, ~; Under the~proposed network,. ttts recOmen ed ;~¢;~ ~?;~'that the Bonlta-Sunnyslde fire starton rematn tn fts current locat on ~ "~:~?~'. to best serve both 0t strl ct and Ctty areas .' ~ :'~:':~;~ ::::.:' .:: .; , ,,:: ~ :, Ths 'prOJected coverage'~'~a~S~:: f~'~' th~ 8' ~tt0n ne~orkTM are: follytrig Sections. Also:,~revle~d~: are ~? the potential costs and gafnS ~ a'sso~'tated wtth decreasing ore~pandtngthe proposed ne~ork. '*' '~:~ ~:'~;'of ~e Plann~n ~Ar~S Ne~ltn~ Unlts ~0uid Be ~th~n A 7 "'~"' ~; Response. : ' ~ f Under the proposeJ 8 starton network~ the 7 mlnute coverage rate ~'ianntng'Area ts oroJected ta ~ 98.~;' ThlS~e~c~ the 95~<~In'im~m coYera rate and ~s only sllghtll ~elo~ th~ 1988 rate of 99,3S, The sllght e~;~ail coverage 'pr~nclpally reflects the addttlon of areas east "t~a(;~;h~rdeP to serve because of ht11~ terratn and non-grtdst~et't Oth.*r t..mportantpolnts to note about the overall coverage rate are.' response time 1988 and buildout. Under" are )roJected to be within ,a 5 minute response,.compared toe lg88 rate~ the Planntln'g~Area ~,would de~ltne.~In 1987.6.)% of the Planning Area's dwelling unit~ ~ere covered by'first-in responses from fire ~tations located ~n San and Nattonal~;Ctty.~.Under: the'~proposed 8 ~tatton network. .n$tsttn~Of ~ Chula Vista based ~tatton$. 1 Bonlta station and 1 Otay Ranch-~tation~~ both~ the percentage and.~absolute number' ,~ g ~ units covered by ~out~ide,,~ automatic ~ aid agreement~ WOU14 decltne.:~..At bUildout.~'tt'$proJected that only~-l~4~ of the Planntn~ Area'$ ~elltn~ units.would be covered,~by.-ftrst-tn.re~ponse~ from stations tn San Diego or National Ctty.~Th(~ change would primarily result from the proposed relocatton of~ Ftre~StaUon~3an~San Otego's planned relocation of a fire station. ,", {~< ~;~:;,~./,: ~' tel dc~(On%f' Fire'~ '$taU On' m~6Ul ~ '~ nO~~ ha~ a 'm~J~r ~(~act on 7 .~covera rates tn the western section of Chula Vista. Coverage In ~ gomery ) would tmprove sl t 9htly Th Coverage ':.for; central ~: Chula , Vista ~' would; decline ' slightly. ~:. e;. proposed relocatton would stgnificantly enhance~covera~e to~the Sunbow development. the Otay Valley Road Redevelopment Area ~ ';: Otay Rio BusinessPark.'as well as to western parcels within the Ota. ,~. A more balanced workload between'fire ~stat(ons would be cre t ., '~.~L~;,~.Table'Z compares the fire station service-areas in 198' and at': ,~;~ :~; butldout.'~ In 1907~, Chula'Vista'Fire Stations ~1 and ~5 had ~E/'.';~, larest service areas.' ~ rovtdlng~.coverage, to; 14.437 . and ll.R01 .?~:~".~: '-~;~,'dweVllng units respectt~eVy.~,,This represented BO% of all ~;~Y~TL~L Area restdences.'~ Roughly 60%%f all fire cropany responses were ) )"~.' ~::~ by thesin two staUons.~ At the other extremem the Bonita Fire St ~:~?~;'~:,~:and Chula Vista Ftre~Station ~4 had the smallest ~ervtce areaS. '~:~:}~ ~vtdtng coverage to 4.447 and 4.951 ~elllng units ~ ;~,~.~. 1987., these two .tattons each responded to roughly 1-2 .ervice ' '~?~'~ cmll~ per day. Under the proposed network. the service area ) ~;.'~ Chu)~ Vista Fire StaUon ~3 would expar. J $I niHcantly. totalllnO ;:.' ~ ': 11.7~)' dwelling units at buildout. Additionally. the proposed new" stadons In E1 Rancho del Ray (CV ~6)~ Salt Creek-t (CV ~4) and Ranch and woul~ hove projected service areas of 12,387.13~751 .OB1 dwelling units ~especttvely. The prima~ service area Chula . Vista Fire Station ~2 would remain comparatively' small conststtnf of 5.933 ~elltng units. TactiCally this station serves 18 !; i'~':!a'aatt~6n to ov~an coverage"rat~:,' three. Unde~:the,~propose~ .. d~e11!ng, . pro age response to h~gh d~and areas :' 3,6 m~nutes~ as compared to the target of 4 m~nutes or qess, ~,The propond r~ioca~on of t~o Chula Vista fire startons would not impact response i~;~4;~'?~the' proJe;ted ';;Sb;'~"t'~mes: to spectai ~;i ~;S are detailed in. ~i:~::s~:~ ~;' ~n'~ """:' ' "" ~OVe~ge :~ of "a ny:'~ ;pecfal s~ tes' ~U~ d: b~ ~Planntng Area~;~ bas d 'on ~the proposed .Scenario ~4 Land: Use; These ~t ncl ude ,1 arge :' ~ ndustrt al/comerc i al. area s ::L. as t~: wel 1: a s ',, the panned 'University, site 'and Ol~plc:.Traintng" Factlfty;~)~ For testing purposesY 'tt was assmed that'all sttes would be sprink,lered.,~.~ Redeve' response ~ttes,' The" ftrst-ln covera e would be r Ftre Starton :ge ~,~Eastlake I developrants ~ould be under 4mfnutes;';~;~ ;~ .". '., ' ,;-,"~Ftrst-tn coverage to' proposed 'deVelOpme;t On thee mfd-Bayfront Would be 4.2 minutes. within the guidelines forsprtnklered sites. nortanS to note that the current mdel does not address possible'; fire coverage needs if a second Bayfront peninsularere.to be butlt. T rare detailed planntn; information ~ would ;~,be: required prior "assestint the impacts o~ a second peninsula, vt de ;. ftrst i for the Ol~pi c: Center.":i:, Projected ' response',~,tlme$ : ~ site: would meet ~;utde ne crtterta,~,; In thex:short'tem, ~ St is' tmportant~that.~n-stte fire;protection and medical :.trea~nt capabilities be d~eveloped at the Ol~plc Tratnlnp Center to ,leans interim .coverage .. from existing and.? planned Chula. Vista ~ coverage fd~:'ieV~"tndu;~rtal a'reai' w~th~n eal~n't propert~ west .: of. the ' reservo~ P "¢oul d be prov~ ded t ated Fire Station ~3;:' ~thout th~ Covera~ these ~al ~uld not receive a f~rst-tn response '~?'~'~'~/~..$tatton based In Ota~ Ranch, · F~rst-~n coverage "t6 the proposed Un~vePMt~ Mte {Ota~ Ranch .~ property} ~uld ~t under 4 minutes, -; . ;: , .' I~ E~sl:~ke VH~ege Ce i:~-'!t kenchO det key lq~toym~t Perk ~'~-~ e,S~ I~trlat Perk (~l~cet' J10) ~" ~ I~h t~trfat Perk (PareIt ' g :~ey ~h l~trlll Plrk (Pittit H~), ~C~lty Rupltlt ~ ,- :~ l~rlcl ~r ~- . ,~.~ ..~,~.,H~ ..p~t'.~ ~ '.* :"~:~.2,~,~: .,: ~ ~j~'~*- ~o ~neral:i:Cove~a~e:tar~eti~'~'iPplted to the-' Plannfng Area' as a ~ole, were staUon process an~'phnn4ng ~ata be~6~'('~0~e' d~'~a~le~ the adequacy Of f4re 1 ~ e he 4t should to ~e' reviewed a't~the~fnd4v4dual ,proJect' eve1.'~ ~ 1 t c t~'s~ol d ~v~ de'~'+a h~ ~i~'~mar~/'for' ~v~u'n~t~e ~depa~ent' S~' a~hu~ 'duHngthe plannfna ~rocess;~ As' luch','~o~e",speclftc~ gutde!fnes'are assess residential and fndustrtal/comerctal p~o3ect$~: These ~ guidelines are detatFed tn Table "4 "on the folloWIng paae.. As a ~ ilmpltftcatton, the .guidelineS' are stated' tn temsC.of::*the c~ponent H.e. 1 .a mtnutes less than the total response ttme}. 'l~Po~ta~i'potnts to note about the pro~ect 'guldellnes are~ :~? ~ ' ~e project guldeltnel are applied ~tth~n the'context of the overall: ,.,,~ ..~.., coverage ltandards, t.e. that et lellt.g$S Of the Plannlng ;,~. :, ~' d~elltng untts are ~Ithtn'a 7 ~Inute response tf~e.,:,~ ',),:. ~ ';, 'ili/: ~:. For resldenttal p~o3ectsF ~5I of the ~roposed U untts-~re' t, ';~:~(~:~f be w~th~n a 5.7 mtnute travel t~ from a current or planned .f~re, d ~el 1 ~ <~;,',,~T~',~.~tatton en~ 1oo$ wlthTn an 8.7 m~nute tr~vol time. ~..~" ', '.;¢ ~'~'~' For 'c~erclal/tnduStrlal pro3ectsclasslfte as spec~ 1 ' " Ctty's Fire Prevention Bureau, the first-in travel time ts to within ~.7 minutes ir the site ts not sprlnklered or within minutes tf the site 4s sprinklered, ' .. ,. ": '~ ~e guTdel~nes are to be lied to the averall coyera ~ ~an to rich $pectft~ Planning Area within the develo~nt, !~?.'."-::.:..tast]y,:~tt's ;.important, to note that the thresholds represent the -:.-" City s accepted fire:response standards, .:"The gutdel{nes, althouah ?~\':', not part of the.threshold {hemselves, represent a tool to help tnsure :"that the Ctty's f~re.~servtce.levels are maintained. Because the guidelines are more restrictive than the threshold standard, an exemption procedure: ~s provided, :-'It ~s important to emphasize that an exemption to the project guidelines shall NOT be granted if, qn ~.* doing so, the dt~tde threshold standard would not be %,,~,~,::~:~;:~e~,:~d: Project Guidelines FZRE COVERAGE GUZDEL~NES FOR RESZDENTIAL DEVELOP~EHTS 1 85t of h . t e ~eqllng' units' shall be within a 5;1 m~nute TRAVEL fro~ a current o~ planned fire statlon;?,,~,~v..,~,~.~,,.. ~: - · , time from-a current ov planned five stat~on.~ (Th~s correlates to, ,'~-'the "Equ~t~". objective of ,~100~ coverage ;w~thtn a 10 ~qnute response. ) ~ ,,,., %, · ,'-;; ;,y-~.~;~,: ,.,,,,..~, ~ .~ .: ': k~:.'. :r,~, .~'~?~. ~,,,.~- ,~7~,~: %: g~,,.4' :: . ~;; ,~ ,,~,,~,,,-. ,., FIRE COVERAlE GUIDELINES FOR INDUSTRIAL/COt~ERCIAL DEV[LOPHEHTS {~.<;:'For tndustr~aq ot.'comrchq(sltet' ~ch ~'re'~iasMfted as "spechl risk" Mtes by the Ctty's F~re'Preventlon Bureau: - ~1. ~e first-in travel"'t~;e";~;Om'a":~'G~'nt, or planned fire station ... shM1 not exceed 2.7 mtnutes ~f the s~te ~s NOT SPRINKLERED and the ..... seconddn travel time shall not exceed 8.7 mlnutes. ..... , , 7~. :. ,~ ,.;'...?'~.,;. , -. - .,%; '~: ~ ,~ .,J ,. :~' ~ , 2J:,: ~e ftrstdn ' travel t~me from"~a' current or 'planned fire: station .. ,shall not exceed 5.1 mtnutes tf the s~te ~s SPRINkLERED and the ~ .' ~cond-tn travel ttme shall not exceed 8.7 m~nutes. GUIDELINE EXERTIONS Exemptions to the gu~ddtnes may be granted ~y the City Coundl for specific ~Po~ect by., 3/Sth vote subsequent to the revleN. and 'rec~endat~ons of the C~ty's Rre Prevention Bureau,-. Exemptions granted. (n consideration of such factors as (1) the l~m~ted Mze ' '~:~"~ !P1 .nn~n~ "Area ': are comparedTM to '~ tt~e' proposed / ~., ~ = ~.<.~,:., ,../'.;;,' ;, ,~L,;=~ ~. ~.:~,~, ,~:~;~',,i~'~:~';~:'~~'~ ;~'~':~"~;~::~ ......... , :,.,....1 3 ., ~" Zn' reW~':the:data ~t"s'~;pottant to note that the relhbfi~tY of. coverage ,ro~c~onS;': P1 ann1 ~ fi Pe 'covePa~ -] el opment ~:~ ' '" ~OUs ~th~ ":~ ~'~' ": 5.7 H~nutes ~ i: ~.;'+: "" Eastlake Greens 92% - 100% "' ' '. Rancho San Niguel ;:~ 100~ ] ':~:~: ZmpoPtant po4nts Lo note about the covePage ra~s sho.n ~n Table Saret:', "~'BAYFRONT. 1G~ of the propo'sed ~el14ng units :f travel tt~ f~om Chula Vtsta F~Pe Station ~1,~: on a modified ,road network which the development: from the planned, Salt Creek station. ~ This access could be provided by a frontage road running Roadm~. a ;~ freeway, interchange SR 125 and Blacksmith or by reallgning the proposed interchange at SR 125 Road., This last alternative is.recommended by the Ctty,s · Department~ and is currently being pursued.i,;, Without tmorovedt: access ,.: the} 7-mt nute .: coverage: rate. could ~ drop, below the GREENS ,:; coverag, actions 'only,= refl acted 'responses coverage, rate would fall ~,from 100%: to' 92%. which is. still wt thin the proJect gut deli ne s, ;., ,%.: ,:::~ k~j~ai,~,* ,:,, >. *, ~! ."-.~ 'q :*..'. ~;,,. ..... ft,st-~n coverage f~om.the Otay Ranch based ripe staUon. Zf pPo.qecUons ~'onqy. ~eflected responses': f~om Chula- EL RAfiCHO DEL: REY. ,10% of'the ~elltng~'Un tS':wuld be within a minute travel t~ from the proposed fire station to be located within development., , .~,..l.., ~;.proposed ~elltn9 units would be wtthin a 5. minute travel time from the ~planned 'fire station tn;.the Salt Creek-I/Salt Creek .Ranch deVelopment.'~ ~t'~ :: t~ ~Jmportant :'to: note.?~ however.::~ that 1 ~,,-~V>:~Lnetwork.~? Compliance with the~gu deltnes"would~epen~ on such'factors ';"'SALT CREEK-Z.~:' 100~ o 'the'*~e111n~ units ~ou]d be ~fth~n a 5,7 ~ nute:;:.::/ travel tl.,e from the proposed fire station In the Salt Creek development. :~LT CREEK R~CH.;~;Bas~d' on the planned locat(on of a fire staUon ~n/th) Salt Creek-I/Salt Creek Ranch develo~nt.. me p~posed ~elltng units;in Salt Creek Ranch would be within. a nute travel tt~.. ~;,:;;:;}~.~: , . ' ,~.'~' t' "' I SUNBOW (Fheses ;'~i 1001 ef !~' ;lin'g % ,} ;, w~h~n ~ 5.7 mtnu~e travel Ume from F~e S~aUon '- ':' ~:~ ~ ~' ' " ' ~ ~ , ~%~,d~-~'~'~I~';.~: ,, .~ ~'~ '~ ,~ :, OTAY :' RANC~~: of 't~e" ~roposed "~el 1 t ' -~ ~,~~ , w~th~n i S.7 m~nute travel Ume from the Otay ~anch FIre Statlon o~ ~ ~ ' Chull. V~stl based, staUons'~" %f.f~rst-~n,coverage ,d~d not ~n~lude ~': ~ .Vhta base~ stations. the guideline coyera e rate,(~ell~ng units w~th~n:a :"' ~:" ~.7 m~nute t~avel ,Ume) would drop to 8~-8SI end S-71 of the'~ell~ng ~; ,; 'units would be beyond an 8.7 m~nute travel t~ (10 ~nute total response !', ~"'~ Ume)~ '+,.T~e p~oJecte~ percentage of~dwell~ng,un~ts.w~th~n e 3.7 , m~nuto ~.":,~ t~avel' U me (a S m~ nute total response) would drop from ~g-771 to ~3-~ ~Xj, '-' fl rst-~ n ,, coveraOe ~ was ~1 ~m~ ted - to ,. the '~, Otay '~ Ranch ~ staU on j~'A1 so ~a's ';~;~."prevfously,., noted.~:.:'f~s~',~'o~· se~ond~n '~Overac o ,~fro~ Chul l,~V~sta~,basec ~ndustrlal s~tes. unless, a were , Ota~ Ranch' ~evelop~ent.~ ' ,~ ' E. ant " : ~-Pro~ecUons and the P~o F~re StaUon Network ~ '~ ~ AS ~Zp~oUsly ted~"' ~ contrtbuUng to sHghtly h~gher ~esponse t~ese -'< ,':~ pert, ~s the system'of primary .rterhls the See , ~ar 0 "]" '] ne~ork. The proJec~ coverage rates End ~ network, are parttcularl~ :s --~,-'~,", ~;' ,. ~'~:z' eJ ,,.: ~t for the future freeWay. From aftre coverage stand v~ dffferent alignment fop SR 125 north of"East "H",.Street would · ~s P1 '~' , .ppreclably affect overall coverage tore the ann(ng Arei'.~:: i substantial coverage impact would possibly occur in the,Ot~ and Eastlake ~1 dr~elopments tf the entire SR 125 altgnment"we~' shifted furthe~ e~t. A more detailed assassins of these iraacts; would depend upon the specific changes ~n land uses and road network .... resulting frm a change tn alignrant. ~ ,,,:d,',, './ , .. :. Under the proposed net~orl~;~'th~'OtaY Ranch based 'fire: relocated Fire Station .e3 would be located at sites : :," :,, pro i..,e ,to.th., Or.nge ^ve.U. , e.st-west, .rt.rt.l..' To pPov~ de adequate. coverage ~ th~ n ~he Otay~" Ranch' devel op~nt under the proposed. 8 ,- starton' network ,.~ a" ma~oP,~ east-west .,~.Palmr and"north of Otay ValleysRoad 'appears to:'.be requ(~ed.~F~re' '~" coverage for the area TM should be reeValuated'tf~',current plan~ for ~. Orange Avenue are substantially modified.,~ Be Cost ~ffecttve. assess ~ropose( ~lte~aUve netw6~ks, ~nclud(ng':ne~orks" 'of 7 :and ~.duCt n~ the 8 ,tati'on' ne~'~ ';0'~l d'~';~'~: 'a'~t ~i f(~an~?"c~;~ .~dollaPs. star~:uP fire stat~'~'~7(~l~dt'ng, l,~d)':"~ S900;000 dep;kd(nO 'on ' stati6~ze)~;nndal~.~:~on~';l~:~C .~esUmated design an4 construcUo~ costs "and rel atea'equq~ent, '~whtle a 7 statqon~;ne~ork would yield substanttal.-operatlng cost Savtngs;~%f ')would not Net the overall Coverage standards o~'the"gut'~ltnes estahlhhed~'.~ Planning A~a s g an p4~Je~ted't6Fth~' 8 Station" he(~6~k);r, ~(le' l'21 be beyond a 10 mlnute response t~';~:~': HoPe~veP;' the 5m~nute c v under I 7 station network ~ou~d :'.drop S~gnff~cantly. The proposed ne)rk provides 5 minute coverage fop 17% of the area', dwlltn; cmpa"d to m lgB7 coverage rate of 77.4%. Under a I star,on ne~ork, '~he m~HUt~ cormrage rate would drop 'tO under 67% at bu(ldout. Lastly. that: the' Salt" Creek;': Sonlta .~!'Rancho.San Htguel "and/jr East3ake ZXt?~d~veloPmerits ~oul d not met the ' ~ a~.' t~" reSb~o' ~eaucuo.~'~ ~ toyeraSe ,"' decreas~ ng the ne~rk to 7 ~:~'.taPt-Up"an" on-golng Costs.~T.o poss~b~,qe. 9 ,StaUon networks are. s.~oH? :~n, ............. J ~ ~ qon CV ~71 to "': ....... ~e ~t~':'S~' ~n ~Ut~ 3~"pPo~deS a 9th fire star ( ~7~:,";~,'::' WUld' be ,relocated',to, the southern ,poPtton of e b shted .::;~ '~,,:.:.~::..~: develop~nt:/.;,~.The proposed .0SAY: Ranch,. fl,:e. S.taUon weu e, (., .,~..,.:..- primarily serve the western portion of the 0Say Ranch property and: :~: ~:.'.";~ ":. Y'. e'.,'",'" ~e?.~'~0..: ~.:~ s~".! o~ '~.~"2..~?.~-. ~e. :,'. ~j"". ":- :. ,' ;. ~ '.~ .." .:~-, ~nder' the' 9' staUon network' sho~n ~n figure' 3A (CV' ~7 located '.~,::':.?", Ranthe San Nfguel). 7 mtnute coverage ~th~n the Planning Area ~nuld ~' "' ~nc~se only margl~ally~ fPom 98.8 to 99~.. The-5 m~nute coverage'~'''', .' , rate ~ould also sho~ a modest ~ncfease. from 77 to 78.3t. The ma~oP · .. Impact of th~S station stte ~ould be to assure that any development... .' -.occufHng ~n the northern sectton of Rancho San H~euel ,c~Hance Ntth the proposed pro~ect' guidelines.--. Th~! ~Uon ~ould also produce mrgtnalcoverage Improvements tn the Bon~ta-Sunnyslde'. Station Network ,.!~{,..,;-;L.<~-LStmlia'r:'~"pe~':of"~:~werage'impactlWould',r'esult'under the " '; network sKown in Figure 38 {a second Otay Ranch site). tnde this scenario. the:Tfntnute coverage rate would remain at 98.8f.. The minute coverage rate would tnc~ase marginally,, from 77% to ,;~e. low galns',resultlng from adding a 9th. station tn thts site primarily reflects the underlying land use planned for the Most. of , the ': coverage. provided by the new. station would simply:~ ~ supplant 'already adequate coverage provtded'~under the 8 station ' network b the relocated FIre Station ~3 and the E1 Rancho de1 Under both 9 's~atto~':~r(os';~'a . .~ a~n fire 'stations with, regard to*' service areas and workload. '. A ;,,;~, ~,L station in,the Rancho San Mtguel area would have a prtma~ service,. · :' :~;7;t area of onl 2,500-3,500 ~elling"units;~;c Under this scenario,',.there"' wuld also ~e a shift,in service area and workload from the ~lanned " ..., . staff ~o the new Chula Vista based fire station tn Salt Creek; · ~ the prima~'servfce,'area of Chula-'~Vhta's Fire Station f3,t from 11,70 to 8,100 ~elltng units, Chula Vtsta's Fire Stat ~* service area woOld also-be slightly:impacted, decreasing to 5,200 dwelling units..The primary'service areas for the 2 within the Otay Ranch area would approximate 7,200-8,200/~elling'~ units each, 'less than two-thirds the size of F~re Station fS's area "~-~.(13,OOO units under this scenario) or the area to be served by ;the F! t~ "" Rancho del Ray. Star( on ( 12,400 untts Given the compa~ative gatns and costS~ ion' ot 9th~fire s ,ion doe! not appear to be warranted. - It' is, important to note.: however~: that~ develo~nt occurred in the Otay Ranch property ea~t;'of, the Otay/~eservn(~ one or more additional fi;e"~tat(ons*~0u'ld'~be .quired ' 2.",~ .... h C ~ts portion of the Otay Ranch proper~ h*not hcluded in t e (t Area as defined tn this report. j ~! Based on the foregoing analysts. the following recommendations are~mde ,., ~ 'tegardin~i (1) an optimal fire statlon~network fop the Planning ~s~abl~i'Shlng project. gutdeltnes"~o further ~mple~nt the ,:end (3} possible modfficaUons ~n the Scenario 14 Road Ne~o~k tare ft~ coverage.. - ::,,: *.~ , (F~Pe Ne~ork) ' net~rk fo~ the P~ann~ng Area, ..... ,~ REC~NDATI ON (Statqon *asqde a stte w~th~n-the Sunbow-11 developmnt for the of F~re Starton ~3.~%~,~,-,,. ,~ ' REC~ENDATZO" 3: 'g';nd 't~,* 'S~'~'~' ~ "~ ~h :'~ "d~;~ ~e, .to set' (starton Network) 8 stte wtthtn the Salt Creek-I/Salt Creek. , , ~' .. development. fop · a" n~: fire ~ starton. ~ Thts" slte :, .~. ~ ~,t e or4gtnal ·stte wtthtn ~ the Eastlake. Z ,~ i~:':~L-~ ,; , develomnt, Improving overall'coverage,: (Fire Ne~ork) -to york'with the develope~ on plans for a 'f~re starton : stte~ wtth~n? the ,, E1 Rancho '-deq'? Bey .~ develo : oroxlmate to East ~H" Street;and Paseo' :~ ',. ,.::., ,~.. :..~ C1 · Rancho ~ de1, Rey' S A. 1 ~.has, reserved ~up: "" ,' wtth~n the East ' ' tre"statlon an4 ' · "H" Street ~ :' ' ;,'./'.~.':,',:. posstble irathing faclltt '~EC~NOA~%0~' S."':{"~'=~J P1 ann~'~g~ St~'~'rk Wl'th'~the EaStle~ ( Start on Network ) ~,'~:~, ~btat n approprt ate ~,t, credtts ;~ fop .~ the ,, or~ gt hal ; ..... ,. '..'~statton'stte In t e.Eastlake-i. V111age Center ~ :, :'-' ~ .='~'.., ,,~',; wtll not be used. ,,,, .,~,. ;~ ~,;.~. ,;. ;~:~,~:;,; .... ,~ REC~NOAT~ON 6. ,;% ,~.,,J, Plannlng Staff assess alternatlv~'~'u~es fop F~Pe' ,.,.:., ,~ ~ dhO ~ ~ j(statlon Ne~ork)'~ .::7;: Station f4 on Otay Lakes Road.' ~fch ~uld be ~ ~i ,~ .., ~ ....~...;~:, .;:,7 tn conjunction w~th the opentng of ftre startons tn E1 '.,'~:: "','~/:~=~,?~:y~"':~, '? Rancho de1 Ray and Salt Creek Hncludln, Its n' ~' ~' '~ .t)"'-'~'; :.:?,.. Stathn ~3 on East ne~da'~. ~Ich would he 'RSC~HDATZON 1. ~- Counc(l"adop~ th~'pP~ec~ fU~l~l'~as"deta~hd (Pro~ect Guide- Table 4 {page 24 of thqs report).~.~ese gu~4el~nes ~l(nes} .~ ~, w~11 provide a~ on-going ~chanl~to tnsure that REC~ENOAT}ON 8.'.: E~g~;e'P~'~g ~taff continUe'effortS to ~mpPove access (Road NeWork) tnto the Bon~ta Meadows Estates develo realignment of the roposed ~nterchange at SR 125 and San M1guel and~P through >otheP ,- appropPhte md{flcatlons to the Scenarto ~ ~4. Road, NeWoPk Zmproved access may be required fo~ th~ developran r~ ,. ~et the proposed pro~ect guldel~nes. .,~,~. . . . . . . . . . . ~:' : .' G."~e~:"6;'?'l'~'~meT~'"a~"~'~i;;~'~'~"':a;i't of'Building New Fire Stations And ~elocatln9 .Existing 5tatIons., ~..:; As part"~f the ,overali'L'8?itati'o~:~work tO serve the'~Planntng Area. this stu~ recomends 'a .'6 '$tatt6n'~netwOrk within corporate Chula Vista. As detailed tn-~receding.~.;sec{ions.. the":p~osed ~hanOes tn the Ctty's fire station network are';~'~'tg~a~d;.'i~""~;oa~Ce:'i'Un~ii'~d~System ~Ich will a equate ft re' coverage~ to new y }' devel opt ng ~; areas ,, and real ntai n the ct t~( de d d1 t costs of th~ proPosed'chahg~;:~'i~cl~diHg the butl dt~g 'of' n~W' 'fire"-stations the E1 Rancho del Rey ~nd Salt' reek de elopments'and the reloeatton of f(ro C v station 13. should be financed by a developmental "tm~t'jee (DIP) asses;ed all new developm~nt';~'+hti':<'more equitable ctt)~(deT~'+a~ ~hould rec current DIF agree~nt with Eastlake-I RECOMMENDATION 9. Administration develop a developmentai impact fee (Financing) ,., . !.:'(DIF) to cover the. costs for modifying the Ctty's '.,, ',' Station network~ as outlined in this report. ' ' .:** ~,~,!?:.L.~?.'. ,~,~,,~, .L/..;j,.,,,~,.~,~t~.,,-.~-~-.,~,~.,,. %c,,, : * ,, ' m h Zt ts important to e phas(ze t at' the fire station costs to b~ financed by the clt~de DXF do NOT ~'hci~d'~ 't~os~s of building the proposed fire station the Ota~ Ranch devel~pm~nt;~:,The' 'R~h; .... the ~'~:~ generally not cost effeCtiVe' to'~o~strUct*new flrestat~on'f~CSl~thS ~t ,;,.-.: , , , . , ......, "'the " '~nset of he. development.": G~V~~: th~ substanthl Von-go{ng"e~penS~;~ associated with operating a "fire statton"'($61B.OOO);':'~t'~t~On~' ar~ opii~in~li'3~ constructed when (1) there is sufficient new workload to warrant a new or (2) the response time to new development exceeds acceptable levels. . The general Pace at which new construction proceeds IsI closely related to such as water a~atlabtl'tt3/; sewer capacity. variety of~ external, factors timing of major roads 'S'uch as $R 125 and':~'~."~e~a(l(~g :~nterest rates.' such ;"'~ forecasts of 'bU( 1 doU{ ~at~s'" need, t'6'~' ~e'~ r~g~'l a~l ~ "'dpdated ' to 'refl existing market conditions./With' thh Eav~t'~'mi~d; preliminary time tables have been developed fop the construction of the fire stations in the Sal'~~ Creek and E1 Rancho del Rey develop~nts and for the relocatlon of Chula'Vista Fire Station ~3. ::~,:. : '.? 1. The' Salt Creek and El:~'Rancho.del Rey Fire StaUons May Be Needed.~y . the ~n~tial .hases o ~n the eastern's fire coyera the ~ ected that 100% of'the dwelling units within Eastlake I and '~"~'~' of the ~elltnO units within E1 Rancho del'Rey SPA I will be wlth~n a~ ,:'~ ? minute ~sponse from the exlsttngFire' $ta~4.'~'The res onse :~ ;;' ':"' ti~ fr~ Fire Station ~4 to the plann~d"Eastlake I Em~lo~nt Park~ ' and Village Center and to the E1 Rancho del R.ey Emplo~nt Park'~ill ';' also meet proposed g,ddelines. In the short temm Station primary service are~ would increase' from 4,957 dwelling ,units to 9,305 dwelling units. The increased workload associated'with larger service area would not pose any special operational problems,. L'~' ,' ThUSm In te~s of both workload and response times. the need to.close' · .~ Fire Station e4 and open two new stations Is not directly impacted ~- ....the buildout rates for Eastlake I or E1 Rancho del Rey SPA ~. ~;~ ~.I , of Eastlake-I. will ~ecessttate the need tO open the Salt Creek fire !.~, ,i,,l' station.-.: Coverage' for the Eastl eke ,Greens, development from ~ire ~.' Station ~& would· not be adequate.~Taktng (nto account projected ?': .~'service level s. the threshold standards and overall cost-efficiency. ..~ ,':~' the fire station in Salt Creek should be targeted for operation when ~.~.-.~','/thenorthern portion of EastLake Greens is built out (i.e. build out :?. . of the area above "Street E" which bisects the development's main · .- loop road. as detailed in the EastLake Greens' SPA plan)..Based current time lines. this' butldoutlevel is expectedto,:occur ·. i'<~ .~'FY 1992-93 or beforejf.<As previously noted~ the actual buildout ra e ,. !:~;~':: will depend on. a .variety of factors such as prevailing interest i ~""lO-rates the timing of major roads and the water allocation formula. ' ~":' '~':';~':'Two I Oth'~r :'. ~eV~16~n~t~"~Boni t~ ~'~ Me'allOwablE'States: ;and ';'the-' 'O1) , :~r~Tratning Center. may precede the·develoPment of EastlakeGre~nS .'..'Z',:. fire coverage needs for these developments are discussed below. ' .'<,:Interi~ Cover~'~'B~ita "e~d~E~e~ ~l~ ,~'Provl e .: · "~. on C ~ ," the short-ten11/~ primary coverage into the Bontta Meadows Estates"~ : Meadows Estites development could occur by Calendar Year lggl-9~. ~ In ~, ~:' development would be provided by Chula Vista ~ire Station ~4. This ~'~ interim. coverage' could be/supplemented ,by expanding , existing; /~ automatic ~id agreements with the Bontta-Sunnystde Fire Protectinn :I: District. The p~sstble. terms . for~ expanding , automattc-atd,'or , .,, contractual agreements are subject to '~egottatton with the Otstrict~' ..~3!~;T'It should be noted that~ based' on ~; current l land ,use plans. ,the ~ '~.~'," projected coverage rate would fall~som~what below the guideline level i ,:~v,,~,-: during this interim period. ,, LongSterm coverage'··for the development · :~ ~:. would be provided by the Salt Creek fire' statton..~ As~ previously t~"'discussed. coverage from the Salt Creek station would meet project guidelines if access into the development improved. Fire' Lion and medical ~'t IUp~ iterlm coverage pro The Training Center is currently targeted to.commence constructton~tn , . ra C~ ~ndar Year lggl. As previously noted.v the ,long-term cove needs for this site could be prov~Jed by the proposed Otay Ranch fire station. Short-run cnverage for the site would be provided by the Salt Cfcek sLatton. ~htch is targeted to come on-line in conJ with planned residential development in Eastlake Greens. In the interim. it is important that fire protection and medical treatment abilities be developed on-site for the Olympic Training Center the need for any changes in the City's current ~ire . until such changes are warranted by development in,' the Eastlake Greens area. It ts important to note that response times to the site from current or planned Chula Vista based , . ~.~, ·, require an interim exemption from the proposed pro3ect guidelines. Such an exemption ,: may be,! Justifiable. based, on, the: e t f sprinklering ~,' and ',the ~' facillty's , on-site. capaci y or treatment and fire protection. .,.~' ,, ' ',~I~ ,.,~. ~ ,.,, ~ .!.:!, ,.!~ Based upon the~ ~g~ ~UtidoU{ pro3e~tt'6n~'.'~t t~"~eco~nded thatt, REC)ENDATION lo.i'?,~T~-~,~e E1 Rancho 'del Re,'and Salt Creek 'fire station) .:~:j~ (Operation of';:~..j~;:~"~;~'be targeted for operation when the northern portion Of stations) ,~ ~": '~.::/~,~ main .1 oop ,. r~ad. as ~jdetat led tn- the EastLake' Greens '~' '-,7 ,~,.' ",:':'~;*SPA lan).;~.Based on current time ltnes~, this butldou' · L":~ ,':.//?.: leveV ts expected to occur by FY 1992-93 or before Based upon curren~~ bOildour proJecttons;;~ additional. si~th,,'fire. station within t~e next re sul t q n an annual operattng cost tncrease such. the City should take action n~ to P) REC)ENDATION ll .' ?:' Staff ~ ~-,, .fire protection and medical treatment capabilities ape '.., ~ , .~',~,,//' developed on-site for,the Ol~pic Training'.C ~':~ ':'.,"~"?~, ,' ~"miti~ate :the. need~;fo~.~any~ (nter(m changes ' '. ~ .' ' ~; City~s ~ current , fire ~'~tation ,- network., -? changes are,,warranted by development · '~ - Eastlake Greens area. RECXNOATION 12.";." ~ ~ plan. (Ftna-cin9) a multi-year ,~' CIP,~, budget., . - significant increase, In annual .. operating .'.expenses associated with a sixth fire station. 2. Relocatt~ of Fire S~at(on ~3 May Be fi;~ded By ~Y 1992-93. l ~ dependent mort several '~;' ~:'~ ,, ','A ~rOet date for relocating Fire Station ~3 ~',".'-;..~'hct s, tnclud4ng (1')'the 'bulldou~'sched~i'e f~ the 36 ;- Park, (21 the timtrig of ~he:relocatton of San Dtego's Fire Station which current1 ~ v de, Redevel opmont Are~ and, (3~'~'~ '~Utldod~"'~;t~'f;~ the' SUnSoW'develOPment, P~,ase 1 of .the Otay R~o BuSiness Pa~';~rOugh19 30% of projected to be completed by Calendar Year 1990. (A target date leO% buildout :is difficult to pro~ect at'th~s ~ttme gtven c u nce r tat nt~ e s regardtng road improvements · } ;"' F~ rst-t n coverage ~siness Park:would be:Prov~ded under 'automatqc a~d~ by the City San Diego'S F~re Station ~6,:~: ~efirst-~n t~me;to:a central within the park ~s pro~ected ?at .8.6 m~nutes,. cmpared.to a ~tar, response of ~thtn .7. mtnutes~th~; second;'~n ~response.'~'tqme .~; pro.~ ec ted at ~i 0.4 mtnutes, compared to 'are~ponse. of ~ th~ ~ 10 The C~t of San Dh arts tS;relocate~ts Fh new new s ~; howeyet, San Dlego's c~urrent pro~ect~schedule~:~s=~unn~ng~ behind, When F~re Station ~6 ts relocated, ftrst-tn response.:.~t~ to the Otay Valley Road Redevelop~nt Area would (ncrease.f~ m~n~tes to 8.1 m~nutes, compared to atarget.response of W~th~n .~s proposed under the 8 Station net~ork,"the:~elOca't'~'~f' Ftr~ Station would prov(de adequate first-in coverage for both the Otay~:ValleY Redeve~opment.: Area and 'the Otay ,R~o 8us~ness Park ~'. ' The ' pro~ected first-in response t~me from the relocated'-'statqon to'these. develo would be 4.8 and 6.9 minutes respectively, ~: ~' '.:~..; ~t ts ected Sunb~""( prox~mate'~.~ Brandthe and Orange~.Avenues~~ Sunbw'Buslness Park anticipated until after CY t:ased On the ~u~go~ng pro&ect~ons, ~t ~s recO~n, thatt'~.., : ;~COmENDATIOM 13. "' ~e revocation of F~e'~t~t~;~o~ e~ 5';' targeted .'r. elocatton of coqnc~de ~t~th the earliest of the following ~re s~atton ~3) (al the buildout. of the Otay R~o Business Park; the~ relocatqon of San Dqego's F~re Station. ~SL achhvement of a ~0% buildout level fop the development. While the exact t~m~ng of , ,,,,, ,, Ind~vldual events ts presently difficult to current Po4ect~ons are that one oP mope ~(11 occur ~ 'lO 3 Wa '., " ~a s"F{re= Star n t · {67.1958-59'~nd v{h{le no ma3or ufid{ng problems foreseen the prel{m{nary relocat{on g repair be requ{red -, .~ 2~,-~ VICE IS ',','~'PART III/~;:i:':'ffRELATED FIRE SER SUE:~.~!;,~'.* :': ':A:':~>.~, ~,d for"~:'new fire train,ng facility: :' :: .".'..'~ B/~?'The need tO~mproVe radio tomunicatlons tn the easternte o P a n rrit ties C; '.': ~bulance/paramedic/ervlceS within the 1 nn~ g StatiOn ~2 on East "J" ' j ':$ ,',. ,tructure, has'-~' -.- , , ,,.,,:,:~.";, Over the fire st&~on b6 fl t on ~s been used for Joint io., s.. mutual ald network. deta( ' E1 Rancho del Rey SPA I sets aside 3 acres tn the :"H""Street ~;'~'~"';"'~'!~'%i'0~': a'~' tr~inlng faclltV. A site-within ':~..~ R~ncko d~l "~j '~ve~i~'~fil' P~ovtde~i central tralnln9 location as 14. lh the restricted access to the Current -. . , . training twer. const~ctton of a new fire training factltty, should be given strong consideration* for~','~ inclusion , in*;. the.' City's :' CIP budget tn the design for the facHtty that will meet general ascetic '-" as well a$ operational considerations. ...... Co~s foratraintng tower an , , ' ., g"faciltty will the Planning 'new development Should p~y'a proport ost. .~Lc~,~'~'~',L~,- ,An,~app p the new ft~ 15, F ro Training ~,~--~' training facility be included in':the~developmental;'~ :y):-~;~ ' :~ ~act fee (DIF) to be established bye Administration. p6sSible' that the lassroom func g '~ g~area /fire usage, ~:'~ , ::~ :' :, to add may ~ecessary to'expa ~ ~ECXNDATXON 16..~ Staff ~ ts desirable to ::ave a briefing facility at this ' '~ Rad~"o c.~ti'~s'Nee~ To Be~ UeVele~arO~'~6' Eastern equipped ~ 'contain c~Uons Ia :. ,; -:' ,., pment continues ;ectlon · ,~ .,,,~., ~ l'~:~:comunicatfons problems will likel~ ~ncrease due to signal "shadowing" frm :%"""' "":' 'hills. ~,s, p;o~e~'w,ll affect ,,d,O-,ad,o cmn,caUon, for n~rcedt ng , . ~..=.; pol ~ ce 1 q g", problem m .,,-~,..- -,, 40 CO~sl'stent ,~ith the noal goal t s to: ons,as '"'sites must take into Bay region.'. As in this report. }wever, will be a need for P ~f the Plan~ing Area. As Road and Crest'is RECOffi(ENDATI( with )~artson to assess The 9onlta Both'~the~,Ci Aid Agreements with one a~oth~r. st f';re slat( resoonds to calls for , o~ . without re~ wtthou{ charge, Additionally, the presently covers other City areas under a contractual a~reenent. ~Wi'th the District to phase-out this areas are sho~ tn Figure 'ict~ fire static s curten Banira Road, Just east of .... , ........ ,...~, ,, ,, , are housed ~n a part of the overall on master r ;tall evaluated alternaUve .~, ~ coverage for both Use and Roa~ Ne't~ork.currentq ig f~nd~n~s are made ~he or ~e' Pro~ected 7 H~nute CoVerage Re Dhtr~ct ~ouqd Heet Proposed ~e".Dtstrict's 'coverage foP: OS ,was compared to the standards used',to evaluate-the: proposed,.8,.ttatton network. Fo~ 1987. ,- 94;7%:0f the Distrtct'S.;dwe~lin~ unlts,:were' estimated to be within a.7 minute' ;~ re sponse .~ as~, compared k: to ~ the ~ 95% ~ standard; establ i shed for ~e ~ :overall' Planning Area:~,~ By 20S~,the Distrtct's 7 minute coverage rate is .~;~.".~'~,:,C';~, ~.expected to reach 95.8t. ~' (The proJected.:coveraOe,~rate"is based on the .County's preliminary growth esttmate'for~,the~area~lexcludinO the Bonita:~7...~ Meadows E~tates and Rancho San Miguel-deVelop ents;<;, Additional increases'jC; tn ',coverage, mjy also; result ,from !mprovements:Jn" the District's road,', .-, tentatively planned by ~the~.County.);~All of the District's, ~elltng units are within a lO minute response ti~. There were no high ~ call demand zones or special risk sites identified within the District. Would Be Provided ~e' Salt Creek Fire proposed 8 staUon 'ne~ork;~th4 Salt C~k~ f~re staUon ~rov~de pP(mary f(Pst-(n coverage fop the Bon~ta Nead~s [states~ gancho and. the $al t. Creek: developments. Based upon tts current : Dtst ~rovide coverage for the Bontta:MeadowS Estate~ opment. and a portion of.~ proposed Rancho. San pment,~ The' ~!and; gure~: !these sites provtded broad ! geogra~ ot the: DI strt ct. 'was considered :to~be~'an;~acce ';:~lf. tt covera~le equal to or 9Pea areas. ;Based on the analysis. an o ~be proximate to Bontta; Road,;~between :Central, and Otay. Lakes- Th s area tncluded f~ve:of theeten te~t~T'sttes the county and sharedwt' ROad Maintenance'Station; L~;!! '.!: '~: Restauranti --~!~ a prt Vatel y urrent site a't Ront ta ::~i' and Acacia|' ~' · ;:', ......: --.! a C~ty;Owned acros g .s~te, ' at , Road and Central; and )~ese five sites are hl. s(ze~of thil ....... , approximatel~2.25 <~e: p~rcel ~ ts y zoned rural'r~Sldentlal;~ and ~z~ Maintenance Statton.,/Z'~Based on a ~recent consul rant. study. . the Count · t c=, c.rrently. revi ewi ng ~, the ~; possi bl e ;~,c~nsol t daU on o f :. Its ' matn~nanc~ operations.. ~tch j..(UndeP one.scenartoi, the,:road :maintenance operations atLthe :'~.. current Ront ta s¢te ~u1 d be transferred to another si te. ) Lakes'ROad i ~onlta Road Stte (CV Golf. Course}.~,Thts curPen y c~rcla1-vtstto~.~ThL'tlze of,thtsC¢ty-o~ed ~arcel. ts 3 acres,~,, A 1984 8ppralselT~places the p~ape~ty value~a' ,050.000. ,:Thts slte may pose egress'problems (headtrig east) duP~ffi trafftc perlods.'~/~ Zt may also..restrlct the use of~the remainder pafcel. ,, A"I '-?:~'