City Council Infrastructure Workshop 2/7/08

Chula Vista

Missing and Non-Standard


Part II:

_Missing and Non-Standard Street


_Utility Wire Undergrounding


On Thursday February 7, 2008 the Chula Vista City Council revisited the Pavement and Drainage Infrastructure deficit previously identified by staff in April of 2007 with these goals (video):

* To present the second status report on infrastructure

management program, highlighting missing, non-

standard, and degraded street infrastructure and utility

wire undergrounding

* To obtain approval of the ADA Curb Cuts Priority List

* To elicit discussion on priorities among competing

infrastructure needs

* To elicit discussion on potential revenue sources


Assistant City Manager Scott Tulloch gave an introduction (video) where he explained that this was the second of three workshops on infrastructure. After the first the council adopted the Pavement Management Program and the prioritized drainage projects. Staff has been implementing these programs and starting on the drainage projects in the order adopted.

He explained that the purpose of the workshop was to discuss needed capital projects to install missing infrastructure and most importantly to maintain in good repair existing infrastructure. These are projects that go to low bid contracts. Public Works does maintenance things in house like pothole repair and graffiti removal (397-6000) but most maintenance projects are contracted out. If all of these projects were to be done at once the cost would be over 400 million dollars. The third workshop latter in the year will deal with ways to fund missing and deferred maintenance. He also mentioned that this was a nationwide problem. It is estimated that to fix every bit of infrastructure in the U.S.A. would cost 1.6 Trillion dollars.

Assistant Manager Tulloch reviewed the state infrastructure bonds passed by the voters and the local Transnet tax, which was recently renewed by voters. He pointed out that 73% of the voters in Chula Vista voted for it.

He also mentioned the sewer vote, which is a protest vote. 52,000 people got a notice in the mail and only 47 wrote and submitted protest letters. The sewer system in the city is the infrastructure in the best shape, because it is consistently maintained. Video cameras are used to inspect the inside of the pipes and they are regularly cleaned. This is because it is easier to get increases necessary to maintain the system.

The public hearing for this sewer increase was held on Tuesday, February 5 at 4PM. Only two retired people came to complain. Several council members expressed a great deal of concern about the increase and the discussion lasted quite a while. Click here and then on 15 to see this discussion. YOUR SEWER BILL IS BASED UPON 90% OF YOUR TWO LOWEST MONTHS' WATER USE BETWEEN SEPTEMBER AND APRIL.

The biggest issue with sewer is not the state of repair of the 13 pump stations and over 477 miles of sewer lines in Chula Vista, which are all in good shape. The issue is Metro Wastewater, which treats all our sewage and that of 14 other cities. The Point Loma Plant is now operating under a modified permit allowing it to avoid upgrading the level of treatment of the sewage it processes. The permit must be renewed every 5 years and is up for renewal this year. The City of San Diego has requested another Modified Permit. If that is denied, then the additional costs for the capital project and the additional operating costs would be necessary. It is likely such an upgrade would cost in the hundreds of millions, and we would have to pay our share.

Click here to read the article written by Tawny Maya McCray for the Star News on the sewer issue.


Jack Griffin and other staff did a PowerPoint presentation, which is summarized here.

1. The Drainage Priority List (Video). This is a status report:

_ Approval of five-tier Priority List at April 2007 Workshop

_ Emerson St. Drainage project recently completed

_ Ongoing CMP Replacement Project

_ Bonita and Long Canyon listed as Tier 1 projects in

Regional Water Management Plan

_ Telegraph Canyon Channel improvements at Third Ave.

and L Street under study

_ Second Ave. Drainage project recently completed


2. The Pavement Management Program, basically no more worst first (see Issue Three), was another point. The emphasis now is on Pavement Preservation (Video):

_ Pavement Management System endorsed at April

2007 workshop

_ Pavement Management is based on using most

cost-effective rehabilitation strategies Citywide

_ Pavement transfer of $11.5 million into Pavement

Management adopted on 5/1/07

_ $1.8 million and $3.2 million seal contracts

awarded in Aug.-Sept. 2007

_ $450,000 digout contract awarded Jan. 2008


3. Missing Infrastructure was emphasized:

_Pedestrian ramps (curb cuts)

_Curb, gutter and sidewalk on arterials

_Curb, gutter and sidewalk on other local streets

_Bicycle infrastructure

To make the situation more graphic and easier to grasp a quarter mile circle has been drawn around each elementary school with a cost estimate for providing all infrastructure (Video). This ties into grant funding available for Safe Routes to School. The city has obtained some funding and will be holding workshops at each of the elementary schools in the city where residents will do "walking audits" and provide input as to what their priorities are. Castle Park Elementary was used as an example.

Jack contrasted the difference between Castle Park Elementary, which is west of Hilltop, and Kellogg, which is east. The point being that the County had less stringent building codes so the area annexed in 1985 is lacking more infrastructure than the area that built up as part of the city, which required curbs, gutters and sidewalks as a requirement of construction.

The requirements for pedestrian ramps has changed over the years so almost everywhere these need to be put in and/or upgraded. The city does a lot of slurry seal instead of other kinds of maintenance, because other kinds of maintenance require them to put in the new ramps at the same time, and the city can't afford to do this.

These are all the currently needed improvements and cost by school:






















4. There is also a concern about non-standard and degraded Infrastructure (Video):

_Pedestrian ramps: constructed under older standards

_Sidewalks: narrow, gravel or asphalt material, cracking


_Cross-gutters (Video): condition and/ or drivability

_ Evaluated based on degree of drivability

_ 87 locations evaluated, including citizens. requests

and all facilities crossing arterials or collectors

_ Criteria include: street classification, traffic volume,

slope and presence of stop sign

_ Location near pedestrian access is also a consideration

_ Cost can vary significantly from site to site




5. These are the city's Infrastructure Planning Efforts (Video) Discussed:

_ 2005 Bicycle Master Plan

_Recommends 18 CIP projects, $4.25 M est. cost

_ Pedestrian Master Plan

_Consultant selection in process, est. award June 2008

_Kids Walk and Bike to School Program

_Community meetings and walking audits for 36 schools

_Western Chula Vista Transportation DIF


There will soon be a Western Chula Vista Transportation DIF (Development Impact Fee). The problem with this is that these fees can only pay for the increase in traffic caused by the project. The project gets credit for existing traffic. This means the fee will pay only an estimated 25% of the costs (according to Jack). The question is where will the other 75% come from? This is part of the financial problem the city now has. All the development in the east that was supposedly paid for by the development actually only was partially paid for by these fees. Things got put in the ground, but now the city must find funds for maintenance. New homes will have assessment Districts to pay for maintenance but this is a new idea. All the existing development is the city's responsibility to maintain.

6. The last item discussed was the

Status of Utility Undergrounding (Video):

_ 16 undergrounding districts completed during the past 15 years

       _Districts in process:

       _Bayfront in construction

       _Fourth Ave. from L Street to Orange Ave. in construction

         _L Street from Monserate Ave. to Nacion Ave. in design





Rudy Ramirez was the first councilman to comment. He brought up tax increment and how important it is to sell the infrastructure program to the community (Video). Councilman Rindone commented last and made it clear he would not support a bond (Video).