HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-03-10 Board Packet (Part 1)OTAYWATER DISTRICT
BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING
and
OTAYWATER DISTRICT FINANCING AUTHORITY
(Organizational Meeting AND Regular Meeting)
DISTRICT BOARDROOM
2554 SWEETWATER SPRINGS BOULEVARD
SPRING VALLEY,CALIFORNIA
WEDNESDAY
March 3,2010
3:30 P.M.
AGENDA
1.ROLL CALL
2.PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
3.APPROVAL OF AGENDA
4.APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF AUGUST 24,
2009 AND REGULAR MEETING OF NOVEMBER 4,2009
5.PUBLIC PARTICIPATION -OPPORTUNITY FOR MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC TO
SPEAK TO THE BOARD ON ANY SUBJECT MATTER WITHIN THE BOARD'S
JURISDICTION BUT NOT AN ITEM ON TODAY'S AGENDA
CONSENT CALENDAR
6.ITEMS TO BE ACTED UPON WITHOUT DISCUSSION,UNLESS A REQUEST IS
MADE BY A MEMBER OF THE BOARD OR THE PUBLIC TO DISCUSS A PAR-
TICULAR ITEM:
a)REPORT ON DIRECTOR'S EXPENSES FOR THE 2ND QUARTER OF FIS-
CAL YEAR 2010
b)APPROVE THE ADJUSTMENT OF THE WHEELING RATE FOR THE DE-
LIVERY OF TREATY WATER TO THE CITY OF TIJUANA,AND THE RE-
FUNDING OF ACCUMULATED OVERPAYMENTS FOR PAST WATER DE-
LIVERIES TO RETURN THE DISTRICT TO A COST-NEUTRAL POSITION
WITH RESPECT TO THE WATER TRANSFER AGREEMENT WITH MEX-
ICO
c)APPROVE THE APOINTMENT OF DIEHL,EVANS &COMPANY,LLP,TO
PROVIDE AUDIT SERVICES TO THE DISTRICT FOR THE FISCAL YEAR
ENDING JUNE 30,2010
1
d)REJECT TRANSPAC CLAIM
e)APPROVE THE ADOPTION OF THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARA-
TION FOR THE RANCHO DEL REY GROUNDWATER WELL PROJECT
f)APPROVE A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT FOR CONSTRUC-
TION MANAGEMENT SERVICES TO RBF FOR THE OTAY MESA RECY-
CLED WATER SUPPLY LINK PROJECT IN AN AMOUNT NOT-TO-
EXCEED $708,560
ACTION ITEMS
7.FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION
a)REVIEW OF DETAILS RELATED TO THE PROPOSED DEBT ISSUANCE
TO FINANCE THE DISTRICT'S CAPITAL INFRASTRUCTURE (BEACHEM)
b)ADOPT RESOLUTION NO.4154 APPROVING THE JOINT EXERCISE OF
POWER AGREEMENT WITH THE CALIFORNIA MUNICIPAL FINANCE
AUTHORITY TO ESTABLISH THE OTAY WATER DISTRICT FINANCING
AUTHORITY;ADOPT RESOLUTION 4155 AUTHORIZING THE EXECU-
TION AND DELIVERY OF AN INSTALLMENT PURCHASE AGREEMENT,A
BOND PURCHASE AGREEMENT,A CONTINUING DISCLOSURE
AGREEMENT AND AN OFFICIAL STATEMENT AND APPROVING A
TRUST AGREEMENT AND THE DISTRIBUTION OF A PRELIMINARY OF-
FICIAL STATEMENT IN CONNECTION WITH WATER REVENUE BONDS
AND APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING CERTAIN OTHER ACTIONS IN
CONNECTION THEREWITH;AND APPROVE THE SELECTION OF AN
UNDERWRITER FOR THE BONDS (BEACHEM)
8.RECESS OTAY WATER DISTRICT BOARD MEETING
9.CONVENE OTAY WATER DISTRICT FINANCING AUTHORITY GOVERNING
BOARD MEETING
a)ROLL CALL
b)PUBLIC PARTICIPATION -OPPORTUNITY FOR MEMBERS OF THE
PUBLIC TO SPEAK TO THE AUTHORITY COMMISSION ON ANY SUB-
JECT MATTER WITHIN IT'S JURISDICTION BUT NOT AN ITEM ON TO-
DAY'S AGENDA
c)ORGANIZATIONAL ITEM
i.RESOLUTION NO.2010-01 ADOPTING THE BYLAWS OF THE AU-
THORITY,WHICH PROVIDE,AMONG OTHER THINGS,THAT THE
MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE OTAY WATER
DISTRICT WILL SERVE AS THE AUTHORITY COMMISSION IN THE
2
SAME CAPACITY AS SUCH DIRECTOR SERVES IN THE BOARD OF
THE DISTRICT AND THAT THE STAFF OF THE DISTRICT WILL BE
THE STAFF OF THE AUTHORITY (BEACHEM)
d)REGULAR BUSINESS
i.RESOLUTION NO.2010-02 AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF
REVENUE BONDS IN A PRINCIPAL AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED
$52,000,000 TO FINANCE THE ACQUISITION,CONSTRUCTION,IM-
PROVEMENT,RENOVATION AND EQUIPPING OF FACILITIES OF
THE OTAY WATER DISTRICT AND OTHER MATTERS RELATING
THERETO (BEACHEM)
10.ADJOURN OTAY WATER DISTRICT FINANCING AUTHORITY BOARD MEETING
11.RECONVENE OTAYWATER DISTRICT BOARD MEETING
ACTION ITEMS
12.ENGINEERING AND WATER OPERATIONS
a)AWARD A PROFESSIONAL AS-NEEDED CONSTRUCTION MANAGE-
MENT AND INSPECTION SERVICES CONTRACT TO VALLEY CON-
STRUCTION MANAGEMENT FOR AN AMOUNT NOT-TO-EXCEED
$175,000 [KAY]
13.BOARD
a)DISCUSSION OF 2010 BOARD MEETING CALENDAR
INFORMATIONAL ITEMS
14.THIS ITEM IS PROVIDED TO THE BOARD FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES
ONLY.NO ACTION IS REQUIRED ON THE FOLLOWING AGENDA ITEMS:
a)CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM UPDATE REPORT FOR THE SEC-
OND QUARTER OF FISCAL YEAR 2010 [RIPPERGER]
REPORTS
15.GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT
a)SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY UPDATE
16.DIRECTORS'REPORTS/REQUESTS
17.PRESIDENTS REPORT
3
RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION
18.CLOSED SESSION
a)CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL -PENDING LITIGATION [GOV-
ERNMENT CODE §54956.9(a)]
(i)MULTIPLE CASES RELATED TO THE FENTON BUSINESS CEN-
TER AND FILED WITH THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE COUNTY
OF SAN DIEGO CONSOLIDATED UNDER CASE NO.37-2007-
00077024-CU-BC-SC
b)CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS [GOVERNMENT
CODE §54956.8]
PROPERTY:INTENT TO PURCHASE WATER FROM A NEW SOURCE
AGENCY NEGOTIATORS:MARK WATTON,YURI CALDERON &BONI-
FACIO GARCIA
NEGOTIATING PARTIES:GOUGH THOMPSON,NS AGUA,AND OTHER
POTENTIAL SOURCES OF POTABLE WATER AND/OR THEIR DESIG-
NATED REPRESENTATIVES,SUCCESSORS OR OTHER AUTHORIZED
ENTITIES
UNDER NEGOTIATION:PRICE AND TERMS OF ACQUISITION,INCLUD-
ING BUT NOT LIMITED TO TIMING AND AMOUNT OF ACQUISITION
RETURN TO OPEN SESSION
19.REPORT ON ANY ACTIONS TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION.THE BOARD MAY
ALSO TAKE ACTION ON ANY ITEMS POSTED IN CLOSED SESSION
20.ADJOURNMENT
4
:1l
All items appearing on this agenda,whether or not expressly listed for action,may be de-
liberated and may be subject to action by the Board or the Authority Commission,as appli-
cable.
If you have any disability which would require accommodation in order to enable you to
participate in this meeting, please call the District/Authority Secretary at 670-2280 at least
24 hours prior to the meeting.
Certification of Posting
I certify that on February 26,2010,I posted a copy of the foregoing agenda near the
regular meeting place of the Board of Directors of Otay Water District and the Authority
Commission of the Otay Water District Financing Authority,said time being at least 72
hours in advance of the regular meeting of the Board of Directors (Government Code Sec-
tion §54954.2)and the Organizational and Regular Meeting of the Authority Commission
(Government Code Section §54954.2).
Executed at Spring Valley,California on February 26,2010.
5
AGENDA ITEM 4
MINUTES OF THE
SPECIAL BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING OF THE
OTAYWATER DISTRICT
August 24,2009
1.The meeting was called to order by Vice President Lopez at 3:04 p.m.
2.PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
3.ROLL CALL
Directors Present:Bonilla,Breitfelder,Croucher,Lopez and Robak
Directors Absent:Croucher (out of town on business)
Staff Present:General Manager Mark Watton,Ass!.GM Administration
and Finance German Alvarez,Asst.GM Engineering and
Water Operations Manny Magana,General Counsel Yuri
Calderon,Chief Financial Officer Joe Beachem,Chief of
Engineering Rod Posada,Accounting Manager Rita Bell,
Engineering Manager Jim Peasley,Engineering Manager
Ron Ripperger and District Secretary Susan Cruz and
others per attached list.
4.APPROVAL OF AGENDA
A motion was made by Director Breitfelder,seconded by Director Robak and
carried with the following vote:
Ayes:
Noes:
Abstain:
Absent:
Directors Bonilla,Breitfelder,Lopez and Robak
None
None
Director Croucher
to approve the agenda.
5.PUBLIC PARTICIPATION -OPPORTUNITY FOR MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC
TO SPEAK TO THE BOARD ON ANY SUBJECT MATTER WITHIN THE
BOARD'S JURISDICTION BUT NOT AN ITEM ON TODAY'S AGENDA
Ms.Bonnie Stanley of Rancho San Diego stated that she opposed the District
holding a Public Hearing at 3:30 p.m.She also indicated that many who live
within the District's service area live in apartments,condominiums and
townhouses and are billed for their water services through a sub-metering
company.She stated because of this,such residents do not receive information
from the District and are unaware of the water issues and what they should be
doing.She stated if the District had been more aggressive in getting the
drought/conservation message out,customers could have been conserving more
1
water and would not be looking at a rate increase.She stated that she felt the
District did not do its job.
6.PUBLIC HEARING ON RATE INCREASES
THE BOARD WILL BE HOLDING A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE
PROPOSED RATE INCREASES TO BE IMPLEMENTED IN THE FISCAL YEAR
2009-2010 OPERATING AND CAPITAL BUDGET.THE BOARD INVITES THE
PUBLIC TO PROVIDE COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED INCREASES
Vice President Lopez indicated that this is the location and time set for the
District's public hearing on whether to implement proposed changes to rates and
charges and to adopt a five-year schedule of fees and charges and authorize the
District to pass-thru increases implemented by public entities who supply
wholesale water to the District.He stated that this hearing is to comply with the
requirements set forth in the provisions of article 13d of the California
Constitution (generally referred to as Proposition 218).Vice President Lopez
opened the public hearing at 3:40 p.m.
General Manager Watton indicated that staff has a short presentation reviewing
the bUdget issues and providing additional information on the rates that will be
considered today.He indicated that the District is faced with a rate increase and
is also faced with a State-wide water issue.He indicated that this type of hearing
is not unique to Otay Water District and is being replicated across the entire
southland due to the wholesale increases that all water district's are
experiencing.The State has enjoyed the State Water Project for many years and
has not really done much to improve the State Water Project since former
Governor Pat Brown's administration.There has been a lot of debate regarding
the Bay Delta and its environmental situation,and the neglect of it over the years.
He indicated that by neglect,he means that the State has not directed its
attention to the Bay Delta either technically or politically for many years and,
thus,we are where we are today;environmental restrictions which are
constraining the State's ability to move water from the northern part of the State
to the southern portion.He indicated that the Bay Delta provides approximately
30%of the water supply to Southern California and the other 30%to 40%comes
from the Colorado River which is currently in a drought situation.He stated that
the County Water Authority (CWA)has been able to acquire agreements for
transfers that have mitigated some of the shortage,but the transfers have cost
quite a bit more then what traditional supplies have cost.Thus,we have
unprecedented issues that have increased the cost of water.He noted on the
local level,CWA has raised the San Vicente Reservoir to increase its storage
capacity at a cost of about $600 million.This will make the water supply more
reliable,particularly,during an emergency situation,such as an earthquake,
which causes an outage (damage to aqueducts that supplies water from the
north).Other projects includes new infrastructure to move local supply around
the county,which we have not been able to do before.The cost of these
projects,together with the project to raise the dam,is in the billions of dollars.
These costs translate into increased rates from our wholesale water providers.
2
The District supports these projects to assure reliable water supplies,
unfortunately,they are very expensive.
a)APPROVE THE IMPLEMENTATION OF RATE CHANGES AS
PROPOSED FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2009-2010 OPERATING AND
CAPITAL BUDGET;AND ADOPT ORDINANCE NO.520 AMENDING
SECTION 25,RATES AND CONDITIONS FOR WATER SERVICE;
SECTION 28,CONNECTION FEES AND CHARGES FOR POTABLE OR
RECLAIMED WATER SERVICE;SECTION 34,ISSUANCE AND
PAYMENT OF WATER BILLS;AND SECTION 53,FEES,RATES,
CHARGES AND CONDITIONS FOR SEWER SERVICE OF THE
DISTRICTS CODE OF ORDINANCES
Chief Financial Officer Beachem reviewed the Proposition 218 process which
requires that the District send notices to its customers 45 days prior to a public
hearing to take action on rates.The District is then required to hold that hearing,
which it will do today,and only when the hearing is complete,may the board take
action on rates.
He noted that the Board had approved the Fiscal Year 2010 budget on May 21,
2009 and notices were forwarded to customers and property owners within the
District's seNice area (apprOXimately 64,000 notices)to make them aware of
today's Public Hearing on rates.
He indicated that staff is proposing not only a rate increase,but a 5-year pass-
thru of water wholesaler costs and a 5-year,with a maximum increase of 10%,of
Otay controlled costs,though the District does not anticipate it will be as high as
10%.He indicated that the rate increase supports the District's strategic plan
initiatives and its financial strength.He stated that there are unprecedented
water cost increases and,as General Manager Watton mentioned earlier,the
increases are motivated by the water shortage and the cost to develop
infrastructure that can address the water shortage.Additionally,water sales are
lower than anticipated,thus,fixed costs are being spread over a smaller base of
customers which is causing a compounding effect on rates.He stated that the
District's wholesale water providers have increased their rates (MWD increased
its rate 21.1 %and CWA increased its rates 18.1 %)which has a significant
impact to the District's budget as water purchases represent approximately 49%
of the District's bUdget.
He stated that 61 %of the increased revenues over the next two years are
directly related to cost increases from MWD and CWA,19%will be utilized to
maintain the District's reseNes at their minimum levels,13%will be used to
strengthen the debt coverage ratio and 7%will be utilized for new debt issuances
(approximately $68 million over the next two years).
He indicated that rates fund operations and debt payments.He stated that the
District has been fortunate and has been able to demonstrate to the rating
agencies its fiscal soundness which has resulted in a rating upgrade from both
Fitch Ratings and Standard &Poors.He stated to maintain its ratings the District
3
must maintain its reserves at proper levels and that its revenues must exceed
expenses by a certain percentage.The District's credit rating has saved the
District $1.5 million in interest in a previous debt issuance.In this pending debt
issuance,it will save the District $5.4 million over the life of the debt.
He stated that the proposed 19.9%rate increase for potable and recycled would
support:
•$41 million of debt issuance to finance the CIP
•$10.4 million of transfers to maintain reserves and finance the CIP
•Strengthen the Debt Coverage Ratio to 140%
•Incorporate greater levels of conservation
•Pay the higher cost of CWA and MWD water
•Maintain the District's relative position with other water providers
Director Breitfelder inquired what the consequences are for not doing the above.
Chief Financial Officer Beachem indicated that MWD and CWA increases
represent approximately $4 million over one year of the District's bUdget.He
stated that the rating agencies wish to see that the District has a plan for its
reserves (a Reserve Policy that identifies a minimum,maximum and target level
for reserves)as it is important that the District is able to withstand some
economic difficulties.He indicated about $2 million will be utilized to build the
District's reserve levels up.He noted that the general fund reserve is equal to
three months of the District's operating expenses.As operating expenses from
our wholesale supplier go up,the District must build up its reserves to meet its
target level.The District also should have approximately six months of CIP
funding on hand at the end of the year to assure that the District has enough time
to go through the process to issue debt so it does not run out of funds.He stated
the replacement reserve represents 4%of the District's fixed asset value which is
industry standard.He stated that this is a focus to assure that reserves are set at
levels which would be positive to the District.
Director Breitfelder additionally inquired what the consequences would be if the
District kept its water expenses the same and just bought fewer gallons.Chief
Financial Officer Beachem indicated that if the District limited what it will bUy for
water supplies due to an increase in rates,then customers may need to be
rationed wherein allocations would be set for each customer.Additionally,if the
District did not meet its debt coverage ratio,it would be very difficult to issue
debt.He stated that the markets will note that the District is not meeting the
targets that they had promised to meet and thus,can we trust the District to pay
back debt.This will mean that the District's betterment and replacement projects
cannot be built which is not an option.
Director Breilfelder inquired how much the District is saving in interest due to its
good credit rating.Chief Financial Officer Beachem indicated that in the recent
two debt issuances,it equates to approximately $5 million.Ratepayers would
then need to come up with the $5 milliion which would have been saved through
its good credit rating.
4
Director Breitfelder further inquired if the District under funded its reserves for
infrastructure what would occur.Chief Financial Officer Beachem indicated that
if the District could not increase its rates,then it would need to review the
District's various reserves to determine from which it could pay its bills.This will
work over time,however,it would not be long before the reserves are at levels
where the District could not issue debt.The District's would be unable to build
new infrastructure and maintenance of facilities would be impacted.It was also
noted that of the District's $75 million in reserve funds,a good portion is
restricted as they are developer funds which are to be utilized for the construction
of infrastructure for growth areas (growth paying for growth:facilities).
Chief Financial Officer Beachem continued his presentation and indicated that
with the new proposed increase the District would be the 10th lowest cost
provider among the local water agencies for those customers utilizing 15 units of
water (average customer)per month.For those conserving customers,utilizing
10 units per month,the District would be the 4th lowest cost water provider
among the local water agencies and for those customers utilizing 5 units per
month,the District would be average in cost among the local agencies.
With regard to sewer,staff is proposing a 7.2%increase over a six year period.
He indicated that the increase is to cover statewide general waste discharge
requirements and the sewer system management plan.These are new
programs the District must comply with.He stated that the District will utilize
some Reserves from sewer to support the General Fund in the short term as the
reserve is over target (exceeding the maximum level as defined in the District's
Reserve Policy).He noted that the utilization of the reserves was also approved
during the budget process by the board.He indicated that with the rate increase,
the District would still be the i h lowest cost (lower 1/3)sewer service provider
with in the county..
Finance Manager Rita Bell reviewed the budget expenditures in detail.She
noted that the Otay "controlled costs"(labor and benefits,administrative
expenses,materials and maintenance)have decreased $793,100 for the
upcoming fiscal year.She stated that CIP cost funding has increased
$5,585,700 mainly due to the funding of the District's reserves.The reserves are
funded through user rates,restricted revenues (such as capacity fees,etc.),and
by issuing debt.She indicated that MWD/CWA cost increases for fiscal year
2010 will total $3,861,200.She stated that the District's cost per AF of potable
water was $766 in 2009 and will increase to $905 per AF in 2010 which is an
18%increase.It is estimated that in 2011 it will further increase to$1 ,063 per AF
which is another 17.5%increase.
She stated that CWA bills the District a variable price (cost per AF)and a fixed
price (cost per AF regardless of how much water the District purchases)for its
water purchases.This is similar to how the District's customer bills are
structured.Customers pay a system fee and then for the water they use.She
indicated that the District's variable rate increase per AF from CWA on January
1,2009 was 13.2%(from $614/AF to $695/AF)on September 1,2009 the
variable cost was increased again by 17.1 %($695/AF to $814AF).The
5
combined or weighted price increase for the variable portion of CWA's bill is
16.3%per AF.She also noted that the District sold 5.8%less water than
budgeted in 2009 and the District budgeted this year to sell another 4.8%less
than the volume sold in 2009.The District is selling less water,however,its
costs are going up which will impact rates.
Director Breitfelder inquired why it is not a viable option to stop encouraging
customers to conserve though conservation is causing the price of water to
increase.Chief Financial Officer Beachem indicated that in the short term,yes,
the impact is increased costs.However,in the long term,without conservation
the cost of water will increase much more as the agencies must build
infrastructure to meet the growing water demand in Southern California.It was
also indicated that MWD and CWA have punitive pricing in effect based on
allocations.If the District goes over its allocation (at the moment the District is
comfortably below its allocation),the penalty is two to four times the current AF
rate.The penalty pricing would cause an additional rate impact.Thus,it is good
that customers are conserving and the District is not facing penalties because it
is below its allocation.
Finance Manager Rita Bell indicated that the other portion of the District's cost
from MWD and CWA is fixed costs.She stated that the fixed costs are.
increasing 22%or $1,189,900 and represent fees paid to MWD and CWA for
Emergency Storage,Infrastructure Access,etc.
As was noted earlier,the District's sewer costs are increasing $411,300 due to
the need to comply with Statewide General Waste Discharge Requirements and
the District's Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP).
She stated that the District has had a long term plan to gain efficiencies.The
District has implemented an Automated Meter Reading Program,invested in
information systems,etc.and has been able to decrease staffing.The District
has gone for 173 employees to 169 in fiscal year 2009 and in fiscal year 2010 the
District will drop to 166 employees.The District is just beginning to see the
investments in efficiency payoff for Otay.She additionally shared that this can
also be demonstrated by how many customer accounts there are per employee.
In fiscal year 2000,there were 249 customer accounts per employee and in fiscal
year 2010 there will be 316 customer accounts per employee.She stated that
the decrease in employee headcount was accomplished through attrition.As
staff retire or leave district employment,staff reviews the vacancy and,because
of efficiencies,have been able to shift duties and/or reassign staff.
She noted that this is also evidenced in the District's Labor and Benefits budget.
Despite cost of liVing and benefit costs increasing,the District's salary and
benefits budget has only increased $27,000 through the reduction of headcount
and reassignment of staff.
Director Breitfelder noted that many of the protest letters concerning the
proposed increases inquire why the District does not avoid the proposed
increases by lowering its employee costs.He inquired if the District were to try to
6
avoid the rate increase by laying employees off,what percentage of the
workforce would need to be laid off to achieve this.Finance Manager Bell
indicated that the District's total salary and benefits cost in the operating budget
is $17 million.The cost increases for water and reserves is approximately $8.6
million which equates to approximately half of the salary and benefits budget.
The District would need to be eliminated approximately half the salary and
benefits budget to avoid the rate increase and balance the budget.Chief
Financial Officer Beachem added that the rate increase proposed by MWD and
CWA next fiscal year would then require that the remaining budget for salary and
benefits be eliminated.He shared that half the District's budget is for the
purchase of water and approximately 25%of the bUdget is slated for salary and
benefits.He stated to try to absorb the cost increases through eliminating an
expense which is only 25%of the District's budget is not feasible,especially
when considering the size of the increases from MWD and CWA proposed each
year.He indicated the District is looking at all opportunities to find efficiencies,
however,the whole of the answer to mitigating rate increases could not be
solved through eliminating payroll.
General Manager Watton indicated that in future bUdget cycles,the District will
continue to challenge the budget numbers and increase efficiencies to reduce
costs as much as possible.
Finance Manager Bell indicated that Administrative Expenses decreased by
$605,900.She stated that much of these savings (approximately $600,000)
were attributed to projects moving from the Operating to the CIP budget.She
indicated that the reason for shifting the cost for these particular projects is that
they are projects for the benefit of future customers.By shifting their costs to the
CIP budget,future customers would pay for these projects through capacity fees
and current water customers wouldn't pay for the future projects.There were
also some cost increases in this area,such as,paving required at various
facilities and increases in the District's bad debt expense (write-off of customer
delinquent accounts)due to the economy.
She indicated with regard to Material and Maintenance Expenses the District had
an overall decrease of $71 ,200.The expense reduction was mainly due to fuel
prices dropping which provided a savings of $137,600.The District's Metro O&M
costs also decreased $60,900 (cost to the City of San Diego for sewer services).
These savings were off-set by the funding the District's Emergency Operations
Center,an item in the District's Strategic Plan,at a cost of $124,000.
She indicated in summary:
•The District faces unprecedented water cost increases from its wholesale
water suppliers;MWD rate increase of 21.1 %and CWA rate increase of
18.1%.
•Water sales volumes have decreased due to water conservation and the
economy.
•Neighboring water agencies are facing the same increases in costs and
similar rate increases
7
•The District must maintain its debt coverage ratio to lower borrowing
costs,and ensure compliance with bond covenant.
•The District must maintain its reserve levels in compliance with its
Reserve Policy.
•District controlled costs have been reduced by increasing efficiencies to
try and minimize rate increases.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Ms.Phyllis Comer of Chula Vista stated that she received the District's notice
regarding the proposed rate increase of 19.9%.She indicated in these trying
economic times,the proposed 19.9%rate increase was too high and requested
that the District re-review and propose a lower rate or a better solution.She
indicated that retired people,such as herself,only receive 2%salary increases
each year and while she can handle the proposed increase this year,if the
current recession continues,she may not be able to handle such an increase in
2014.
Ms.Connie Crusha of EI Cajon indicated that she reviewed the proposed rate
increases and stated that her water bill would double.She stated that she has
an acre of property and the proposed rate structures are punitive to those with
large properties.She indicated that she is asking that the District re-review the
proposed increases and not institute the tiered rate structures.She has reduced
her water consumption by 40%and cannot conserve further.She stated that she
understands that the District needs to raise rates by 20%,but feels that all users
should share in the increase equally and that all customers should receive a flat
rate increase of 20%.
Mr.David Shaw of EI Cajon indicated that he would like to address the portion of
the proposed rate increases which is not related to water cost.He stated that the
Notice ofPublic Hearing forwarded by the District proposes rate increases to
cover non-water related cost increases,such as power,labor,benefits,materials,
etc.,at a maximum of 10%per year for five years.He indicated that the
proposed bUdget presented today showed significant cost reductions in these
areas and felt that increases should not be higher than general inflation rates and
suggested that the Board adopt a resolution giving the management team cost
control targets and challenges that are oriented around beating the general cost
of living.He stated that he opposes the current proposal and urges the board to
reject the proposal until these suggested adjustments are made.
Mr.Tom Gregory of Chula Vista indicated that the question is what we can do to
prevent someone else dictating what we pay for water.He suggested that the
State build desalination plants along the coast of California so that the State is
not reliant on anyone for water.He stated that if we continue to do what we are
doing,prices will continue to go up.He asked that the District consider building a
desalination plant in Chula Vista.
Mr.David Nichols of Spring Valley indicated that he is on a fixed income and is
not able to pay the proposed increases.He stated that he felt that higher rates
8
would not result in more conservation and that it was detrimental as it would
perpetuate our current economic situation.He asked the District to find another
way and indicated that desalination was a great idea and should be studied
further.
Mr.Michael Casinelli of Jamul indicated that he acknowledges that there is a
water shortage and there is a need to conserve,however,he is opposed to the
rate increase as it is currently proposed.He objected that the notice did not
inform the ratepayers that they do have a voice in the proposed increases and
that the hearing was during the day of a work day.He indicated that he also
opposed the District setting one hearing for increases proposed for the next five-
years.He stated that the rate increase does not take into consideration the size
of the household or property,and felt that they should be taken into
consideration.He urged the board to reconsider the implementation of the rate
increase until it was better thought out and proposed.
Mr.Dan Mathiasen of La Mesa indicated that he understood the need to pass
through the cost of water to ratepayers,but opposed the five year increases
without holding hearings.He stated that he felt it did not make sense to increase
rates 10%when the cost of living has only been increasing about half that
amount.
Ms.Karen Hirr of EI Cajon asked how water conservation and the District having
a good credit rating benefits customers.She stated that she also opposed the
hearing being held during the day on a work day.She asked the District how it
can be more creative to save more money as every company -SDG&E,banks,
gas companies,etc.-are all asking consumers to dig deeper into their pockets
and at some point there will be no more to dig.She asked that the board think
about the proposed increases before agreeing to the increases.
Vice President Lopez inquired how many letters the District has received
regarding the rate increase.District Secretary Cruz indicated that the District has
received 35 written protests.General Counsel Calderon indicated that the
written protests should be made part of the public record (included as part of the
minutes of the meeting).District Secretary Cruz indicated that she would assure
that the written protests were included with the meeting minutes.
Vice President Lopez inquired if there were other individuals from the public who
wished to address the board on the rate matter.No one wished to be heard.
Vice President Lopez asked if staff would like to respond to any comments from
the public.General Manager Watton indicated that there are some small
adjustments to the tiers,but the rate increase is 19.9%across all customers.He
indicated with regard to future increases,the public would be provided notice and
a hearing.He noted the comment concerning local control of water resources
and shared that if he had heard a couple years ago that alternative water supply
resources,such as desalination,were within the cost of the wholesale rate,he
would not have believed it.Today,the wholesale rate is increasing,and
alternative water supplies are now within striking distance of this cost.He
9
indicated that staff has included in the District's Capital Improvement Plan
budget,plans to look at alternative water supplies and the District is currently
seeking possible alternative supplies.
He also indicated that the District will continue to look at ways to reduce costs
and to economize.The District has laid the groundwork for information
technology and is now reaping the benefits of the efficiency of having an
integrated system.He stated that the District also builds its budget from the
ground up every year -"0"based budgeting -and every line item is reviewed
each year.He stated while the notice indicates a maximum 10%increase,the
District will not necessarily increase rates 10%each year.He noted that the
District is not certain today what that number will be for next year,but the District
will be very careful in determining that increase.
Chief Financial Officer Beachem clarified that the proposed increases discussed
today would go into effect on September 1,2010 to coincide with CWA's
increase which is scheduled to go into effect on the same day.Following this
increase,CWA does not expect to raise their rates until January 2011.General
Manager Watton added that the increase in expenses discussed at today's
meeting,for example the 22%increase in fixed costs,must be matched up from
a revenue and cash flow standpoint.If the District waits to increase its rates,the
difference begins to compound and it gets very difficult to catch up.This is the
reason that the District is proposing to match the timing of the increases with its
wholesalers.
General Manager Watton stated that the desalination plant planned in Carlsbad
has been in the works for many years now.The project does have some permits
and is getting some success,but they still have some hurdles to jump.CWA is
also looking at proposed desalination projects at Camp Pendleton and the South
Bay region.These sites will be faced with the same challenges as the Carlsbad
project,but we just need to face each challenge and keep moving the project
forward.It will not be easy,but desalination plants are in the works.
President Lopez closed the public hearing at 5:10 p.m.
General Counsel Calderon indicated that the board has not received protests
from a majority of the ratepayers,so it may consider whether or not to adopt the
rates and charges proposed by staff.
Director Robak thanked the customers for attending today's hearing.He noted
that we live in a desert region and if it weren't for imported water,the area could
not be sustained.He stated a slide in staff's presentation noted the increase in
water cost.If the projection holds true,in six years we would see an increase of
88%.This is unprecedented in the water industry.Past years the cost increase
was around the cost of living increase,give or take 3-4%.During this economic
situation,it is certainly the worst time to be faced with increased costs.However,
this is something that we have to share though we are not happy about it.The
District cannot control what happens at MWD and CWA.Their increased cost in
buying and delivering water is something we have to deal with.The District is
10
pursuing desalination and working with other districts to achieve savings and
acquire additional water supplies.The District has debated the approach it
wishes to take on its water rates and opted for a price point (customers pay
based on the amount of water they utilize).The more you utilize,the more you
will pay..Each district has decided to take slightly different approaches,however,
in some comparisons with other agencies there is not a large difference in billing.
He asked staff if they could provide him information on the billing difference
among the agencies for consumption of 30 units of water.
He indicated,to the District's credit,it has done a good job in promoting water
conservation.The District is also a partner in the Water Conservation Garden
which is located within the District's service area and is the model showcase for
water efficient landscapes and irrigation.The District has also sent out letters to
its high water use customers who have been taking advantage of the District's
program for water landscape surveys to help them more efficiently water their
landscapes.These surveys are available to all customers.He indicated that the
District does not have an allocation method and asked that staff look at ways in
the future to address the conservation aspect for those customers who have
done all they can to save water.He stated that he felt that whatever the District
could do to recognize and encourage conservation measures is paramount.
He noted that the District sewer cost is on the lower end of the graph compared
to other agencies.He stated,however,the City of EI Cajon has a sewer rate that
is 93%lower than Otay ($19.55 vs.$37.58).Director Robak asked if staff might
research to determine the reason for the cost difference between the District and
its neighboring agency.Director Breitfelder indicated that it could be attributed to
economies of scale.When you have a much larger system,you can divide your
fixed cost among a large customer base.The District's system is fairly small,
servicing approximately 1500 households which does not benefit much from
economies of scale.However,the District is doing a remarkable job in keeping is
its cost low based on the size of its system and receiving little benefit from
economies of scale.
General Counsel Calderon noted that State law does not permit the water district
to be anything other than revenue neutral.State law requires that the District
cannot pass on anything more than what its actual costs are.He stated that the
notice indicates that the District would only pass along its actual cost increases
up to a maximum of 10%.
Director Breitfelder thanked the District's customers for taking the time to attend
today's meeting and share their thoughts.He stated that it is no secret that the
State is facing economic challenges.He indicated that the tradition in
government,generally speaking,seems to be to spend in good times and
accumulate liabilities.Then whenever there is something difficult that needs to
be done for the public benefit,they try to put it off for the next incumbent.Each
incumbent does the same and before you know it the deficits are huge and
infrastructure is crumbling.He stated that it is the public who really bears the
true cost of this neglect.He indicated that the Otay Water District has a great
legacy of investing:information technology,strategic planning,new water
11
resources,recycling,improving its credit rating,etc.The District,I'm certain,
could provide the cheapest water rates in San Diego.However,to do this it
would need to neglect the maintenance of its systems and do a variety of other
things that would be invisible to the public for years to come.He stated that this
board is not of this mindset.The board would like to do what is best for the long
term public interest.He stated if the District stays on the course that it has set
with investments in information technology,etc.,water will not be cheap 10 or 20
years from now,but it would be less costly than if the District took an
irresponsible course of action.He indicated that he does not expect the
customers to like the 20%increase as he himself does not like it.However,it is
done with the best intention for the public's interest.
Director Bonilla indicated that this is a very difficult decision to make and certainly
not a very popular one.He indicated that he has served the District for almost
nine (9)year and he wished to address the comment that the board made fat
salaries.He stated that the board members are not paid,they receive stipends
for attending meetings.He indicated that he has never collected a stipend from
the District.He is serving the District because he is also a ratepayer and lives in
the Division which he represents.He ran because he felt he could make a
difference and has,during his tenure,encouraged the development of the
District's Strategic Plan,implementing automation for efficiency,etc.He stated
that he listens to customer comments and has asked General Counsel to look
into a special tier for retired I fixed income customers.However,it is not legal by
State code.
Director Bonilla indicated that he really believes that Otay is the best run District
in the County.He stated that the District has won almost every award and does
not have a wall large enough to display all the awards it has won in the last ten
(10)years.He indicated that he is very proud of this staff.
He stated that the District must provide safe and reliable water service;this is the
District's goal.He indicated that the District is committed to desalination and
finding other resources.However,the development of new water resources will
cost money.The District has budgeted this cost within its Capital Improvement
Program.He noted that the District is recognized for looking long term and that
there is nothing more expensive than not having water.He stated that the
members of the board serve because they have a commitment with the
community.He indicated that if he must do something that is not popular,he will
do it if it is for the best interest of the District and community.He indicated that
the District is not the most expensive in the County,but he can guarantee that it
is the most efficient.He stated that the District will fight for its ratepayers as
much as it can,but there is only so much that it can do.
Vice President Lopez thanked everyone attending today's meeting and their
speaking so eloquently.He stated that some members of the board must take
time off from their work to attend board meetings and he understands and
empathizes with customers.He stated that everything he wished to say has
already been commented upon by his fellow members.He indicated that the
cost of water at the wholesale level will continue to increase.The State is
12
impacted by issues in Sacramento and the Bay Delta.These issues are not in
the District's control.He indicated that unfortunately the District will need to
continue to pass along those costs as it must sustain a viable,reputable agency.
He indicated that the District is a showcase to the industry and Otay has been
visited by water officials from around the world as they wish to see how this
District operates.The technology is the best for an agency such as this and staff
is committed to maintaining the agency in a very productive and efficient manner.
A motion was made by Director Bonilla,seconded by Director Breitfelder and
carried with the following vote:
Ayes:
Noes:
Abstain:
Absent:
Directors Bonilla,Breitfelder,Lopez and Robak
None
None
Director Croucher
to approve staffs'recommendation.
Director Robak indicated that as unpleasant as rate increases are,the District is
essentially passing along costs beyond the District's control.He stated that the
District runs an efficient operation and administrative costs are something that
the board and staff are very cognizant of managing.He stated that there is
nothing wrong here,the reality is that water cost more money.He stated it is the
board's commitment to keep costs in check and whatever it can to minimize
further cost increases.
7.ADJOURNMENT
With no further business to come before the Board,Vice President Lopez
adjourned the meeting at 5:50 p.m.
President
ATTEST:
District Secretary
13
AGENDA ITEM 4
MINUTES OF THE
BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING OF THE
OTAY WATER DISTRICT
November 4,2009
1.The meeting was called to order by President Croucher at 3:32 p.m.
2.ROLL CALL
Directors Present:Croucher,Lopez and Robak
Directors Absent:Larry Breitfelder (arrived at 4:01 pm)
Jaime Bonilla (out-of-town on vacation)
Staff Present:General Manager Mark Watton,Ass!.GM Administration
and Finance German Alvarez,Ass!.GM Engineering and
Water Operations Manny Magana,General Counsel Yuri
Calderon,Chief of Information Technology Geoff Stevens,
Chief Financial Officer Joe Beachem,Chief of Engineering
Rod Posada,Chief of Operations Pedro Porras,Chief of
Administration Rom Sarno,District Secretary Susan Cruz
and others per attached lis!.
3.APPROVAL OF AGENDA
A motion was made by Director Robak,seconded by Director Lopez and carried
with the following vote:
Ayes:
Noes:
Abstain:
Absent:
Directors Croucher,Lopez and Robak
None
None
Directors Breitfelder and Bonilla
to approve the agenda.
4.PUBLIC PARTICIPATION -OPPORTUNITY FOR MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC
TO SPEAK TO THE BOARD ON ANY SUBJECT MATTER WITHIN THE
BOARD'S JURISDICTION BUT NOT AN ITEM ON TODAY'S AGENDA
No one wished to be heard.
CONSENT CALENDAR
5.ITEMS TO BE ACTED UPON WITHOUT DISCUSSION,UNLESS A REQUEST
IS MADE BY A MEMBER OF THE BOARD OR THE PUBLIC TO DISCUSS A
PARTICULAR ITEM:
Director Robak pulled item 5b,UPDATE REPORT REGARDING THE
PREPARATION OF THE DISTRICTS SUBAREA PLAN FOR THE JOINT
WATER AGENCIES NATURAL COMMUNITY CONSERVATION
1
PLAN/HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN and item 5c,ACCEPT THE
DISTRICTS AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS,INCLUDING THE
INDEPENDENT AUDITORS'UNQUALIFIED OPINION,FOR FISCAL YEAR
ENDED JUNE 30,2009,for discussion.
A motion was made by Director Robak,seconded by Director Lopez and carried
with the following vote:
Ayes:
Noes:
Abstain:
Absent:
Directors Croucher,Lopez and Robak
None
None
Directors Breitfelder and Bonilla
to approve the following consent calendar items:
a)APPROVE A PROFESSIONAL CORROSION SERVICES AGREEMENT
WITH SCHIFF ASSOCIATES FOR FISCAL YEARS 2010 AND 2011
(ENDING JUNE 30,2011)FOR THE CATHODIC PROTECTION
PROGRAM IN AN AMOUNT NOT-TO-EXCEED $250,000
d)REJECT GARY AND MARY TIMM CLAIM
e)APPROVE AN AGREEMENT WITH NEW CINGULAR WIRELESS PCS,
LLC,A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY (NEW CINGULAR)
FOR THE INSTALLATION OF A COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY AT THE
832-1&2 RESERVOIR SITE
f)APPROVE AN AGREEMENT WITH NEW CINGULAR WIRELESS PCS,
LLC,A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY FOR THE
INSTALLATION OF A COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY AT THE 1200-1
RESERVOIR SITE
President Croucher presented item 5b and 5c for discussion:
b)UPDATE REPORT REGARDING THE PREPARATION OF THE
DISTRICTS SUBAREA PLAN FOR THE JOINT WATER AGENCIES
NATURAL COMMUNITY CONSERVATION PLAN/HABITAT
CONSERVATION PLAN
Staff indicated that the District is moving forward with its Subarea Plan (SAP)
with the intention to incorporate it into the Joint Water Agencies (JWA)Natural
Communities Conservation Plan/Habitat Conservation Plan (NCCP/HCP).
Director Robak inquired if the development of the District's SAP is on track for a
timely incorporation into the JWA NCCP/HCP.Staff stated yes and indicated
that the District's final SAP is expected to be brought to the committee soon for
review.
2
Staff indicated that they have good information to analyze and study to move
forward with the other agencies and everything looks positive in the District
becoming a JWA member.
A motion was made by Director Robak,seconded by Director Lopez and carried
with the following vote:
Ayes:
Noes:
Abstain:
Absent:
Directors Croucher,Lopez and Robak
None
None
Directors Breitfelder and Bonilla
to approve staffs'recommendation.
c)ACCEPT THE DISTRICTS AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS,
INCLUDING THE INDEPENDENT AUDITORS'UNQUALIFIED OPINION,
FOR FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30,2009
Finance Manager James Cudlip indicated that the District's new auditing firm,
Diehl,Evans &Company,LLP (DEC LLP)provided an audit report that resulted
in a clean and unqualified opinion for Fiscal Year ended June 30,2009.DEC
LLP hadno findings to present in their "Management Letter."
DEC LLP provided the board a review of the District's financial statements in
detail.Director Robak inquired with regard to the District's "Cash and Cash
Equivalent"in the report,why there was a significant difference in the figures for
FY 2008 and 2009 of $23.4 million and $50.8 million respectively.Staff indicated
that the difference is that the District had invested approximately $60 million
dollars in FY 2008,but only $20 million in FY 2009.
Director Robak also inquired why the entry "Net OPEB Asset"was identified as a
restricted asset.It was indicated that the entry shows assets set aside for the
OPEB unfunded liability.
Director Robak further inquired about the difference in the accounts payable
totals for FY 2008 ($13,705.566)and 2009 ($11,565,953)listed on page 8 of the
auditor's report.Staff indicated that the timing of when things are paid is the
difference in the totals.
Director Robak asked where the cell site lease revenues are noted in the
financial statements and why they are not broken out.Staff indicated that they
are noted in miscellaneous revenues as they are not revenues from core
business functions.It was indicated that the statements could include the
information as a note if it is preferred.
President Gary Croucher commended staff for being prepared to answer
questions.
3
Finance Manager Cudlip stated that the District's first audit will take an additional
2-3 weeks to complete so that the new auditor could get to know the District
processes and procedures.
Director Robak stated that the District's former auditor of five years was Teaman
Ramirez &Smith and inquired if the new auditor used some of their samples.
DEC indicated that they first looked at policies,procedures,and performed some
walk-thru and testing to assess any risks.They indicated that the area they
looked at was cash flow and stated that they can review and test other areas as
well.They will look at different areas each year,but will not inform the District
which areas they will focus on.Staff indicated that the District could also ask that
the auditors look at a specific area to test it for risk.
Director Robak inquired if the District updates its accounting standards annually.
It was indicated that it does keep abreast of updates from the American Institute
of Certified Public Accountants Auditing Standards Board (AICPA ASB),the
Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB),etc.It was indicted that
periodically the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB)issues new
reporting requirements and have issued GASB 45 which requires governmental
entities to disclose liabilities related to retirement benefits which the District has
already implemented.
A motion was made by Director Robak,seconded by Director Lopez and carried
with the following vote:
Ayes:
Noes:
Abstain:
Absent:
Directors Croucher,Breitfelder,Lopez and Robak
None
None
Director Bonilla
to approve staffs'recommendation.
ACTION ITEMS
6.FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION
a)ADOPT RESOLUTION NO.4150 APPROVING THE FORM OF AND
AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF A PURCHASE
AND SALE AGREEMENT AND RELATED DOCUMENTS WITH
RESPECT TO THE SALE OF THE SELLER'S PROPOSITION 1A
RECEIVABLE FROM THE STATE;AND DIRECTING AND
AUTHORIZING CERTAIN OTHER ACTIONS IN CONNECTION
THEREWITH
Chief Financial Office Joe Beachem requested that the Board adopt Resolution
No.4150 to authorize the District to participate in the Proposition 1A
Securitization Program,and authorize the General Manager and Chief Financial
Officer to execute and deliver related documents and take other related actions
to complete this action.
4
Adoption of Resolution No.4150 will authorize District staff to sell its respective
Proposition 1A taxes receivable to the California Statewide Communities
Development Authority (CSCDA).It was indicated that the State is borrowing the
District's property tax revenues of $267,000 and is required to repay the District,
plus 2%interest annually,by June 30,2013.
Chief Financial Officer Beachem indicated the positive aspects of participating in
the Program.He indicated that the District would receive its cash reimbursement
immediately and that the District's participation in the program sends a message
of solidarity with other local agencies and that the monies is material to the
District.
Legal Counsel Calderon indicated that a finance company will issue debt and
that revenue sources from the state will pay the debt.The District is not
obligated to pay the debt back.The State and the California Statewide
Communities Development Authority (CSCDA)are responsible for debt.
Chief Financial Officer Beachem indicated that the annual interest of 2%that the
District would receive from the State would be comparable to earnings if the
District invested the money itself.
Director Mark Robak inquired when the District would receive the monies for
selling its State receivable.Chief Financial Officer Beachem indicated that under
the securitization program,CSCDA will simultaneously purchase the Proposition
1A receivables,issue bonds ("Prop 1A Bonds"),and provide the District with the
cash proceeds in two equal installments on January 15,2010 and May 3,2010.
However,he indicated that if the bonds cannot be sold by December 31,2009,
all approved documents placed in escrow with Transaction Counsel will be of no
force and effect and will be destroyed and the District will still have its receivables
from the State.It was noted that the State cannot go bankrupt.
A motion was made by Director Breitfelder,seconded by Director Robak and
carried with the following vote:
Ayes:
Noes:
Abstain:
Absent:
Directors Breitfelder,Croucher,Lopez and Robak
None
None
Director Bonilla
to approve staffs'recommendation.
7.BOARD
a)DISCUSSION OF 2009 BOARD MEETING CALENDAR
President Croucher indicated that the December 2,2009 Board meeting will be
cancelled and that the next scheduled Board meeting is January 6,2010.
5
INFORMATIONAL ITEMS
8.THESE ITEMS ARE PROVIDED TO THE BOARD FOR INFORMATIONAL
PURPOSES ONLY.NO ACTION IS REQUIRED ON THE FOLLOWING
AGENDA ITEMS.
a)UPDATE REPORT REGARDING THE ONGOING MONITORING OF THE
WATER RATE FORECAST
Chief Financial Officer Beachem indicated that District staff utilizes a six-year
rate model to monitor and review the District's water rates.Rates are projected
such that the District's financial strength is maintained in all six years.He
discussed the District's sales volume and stated that as of the end of August
2009,the District's water sales have decreased by approximately 13%.In
September,water sales moved above budget bringing the sales deficit down to
8%below budget.Based on an update of the rate model,staff is projecting that
the necessary rate increase for the District to maintain its financial strength is
approximately 19.9%.
Chief Financial Officer Beachem indicated that the District's water purchases
from CWA are 19.7%below the District's allocation.Staff feels that it is very
unlikely that sales volumes will change dramatically and the District is not at risk
of paying the penalty pricing from CWA (2-3 times its normal rate).
It was indicated that staff considered numerous factors for the rate model and
believes that they were fairly aggressive in projecting water sales.Staff
discussed the influence of upward and downward pressure on water rates and
indicated that customer credits were offset by legal settlements received by the
District.
Chief Financial Officer Beachem indicated that new Engineering estimates for
CIP projects planned for the next two years has reduced the required debt
issuance significantly from approximately $41 million to $25 million.This funding
also will not be required until FY 2011.Staff is reviewing the pros and cons of
deferring the debt issuance for one year.
Director Breitfelder inquired what the annual cost of recycled water will be if the
cost is increased.According to the City of San Diego's Draft Water Pricing Study
the increases will be $350 (FY 2011),$700 (FY 2012),$800 (FY 2013).The
District purchases approximately 4000 AF from the City so cost is expected to
increase approximately $1.4 million in FY 2011.
Chief Financial Officer Beachem stated that District staff is focused on the City's
proposed water rate increase issue,monitors sales daily and consider various
other factors in the rate model.Staff wished the board to know that it is actively
reviewing the budget and monitoring sales.
b)UPDATE REPORT ON CONTRACTING NON-CORE DISTRICT
SERVICES
6
Staff stated that the Board requested further information regarding the
contracting out of non-core services and what cost-savings the District has
realized.To enhance efficiency and reduce costs,staff has looked for
opportunities to out-source non-core functions.Functions that the District has
outsourced include,landscaping,meter clean-out,after-hour security,after-hour
monitoring of Information Technology Network,credit card payment processing,
printing of customer invoices,records room support,and potable/recycled water
plan checking and inspection.A list of other services that were outsourced is
provided in the staff report.Staff indicated that the District's total cost-savings for
outsourcing services is approximately $900,000.
Director Larry Breitfelder inquired if any of the listed non-core services were
capital or operating.Chief Financial Officer Beachem indicated that one or two
services may be capital,but the majority are operating expenses.
Director Mark Robak commended staff for researching various alternatives to
provide the District savings.
c)UPDATE REPORT ON FISCAL YEAR 2009 STRATEGIC PLAN AND
PERFORMANCE MEASURE REPORT AND REPORT ON AWWA SELF-
ASSESSMENT SURVEY
Staff indicated that the District completed its first year of the Strategic Plan for FY
2009-2011.The results are positive,with 97%of objectives completed or ahead
of schedule (the target was 90%).Staff also provided the Board with information
regarding performance measures which monitor day-to-day performance where
91 %of the measures are ahead of schedule (the target was 75%),the balance
scorecard,and a report on AWWA self-assessment survey.
With regard to the balance scorecard which assesses the District's focus on
customer service,financial performance,learning and growth and business
processes,there was only one area that did not meet its goal;the Records
Management project.The project is delayed as the District is changing the
direction of this project.All other areas are on or exceeding target.
Information Technology Chief Stevens indicated that the AWWA self-assessment
survey was conducted in August and included approximately 105 questions with
an alternative for employees to opt out of answering some questions.It was
indicated that 88 of 166 District employees participated in the survey.The
average score overall was 4.3 which is a high level of agreement.Compared to
ten self assessments completed by agencies previous to Otay's self assessment,
the District had the highest level of agreement from its employees.This indicates
that employees are open to adopting best management practices and it also
points to the stability of the organization.
Director Croucher indicated that he would like to see the correlation between
management and staff.Information Technology Chief Stevens indicated that he
was surprised to see a uniformity of data from all employees despite their
7
position,tenure,or department.He indicated that the District's employees have
the same level of agreement about how the District's business is performed and
the longer an employee has worked with the District the higher his/her
agreement.He indicated that staff could ask AWWA for the correlation between
management and staff of the other 10 agencies who had completed a self
assessment.
Director Mark Robak inquired if a peer review was conducted.Chief of
Information Technology Stevens stated that staff met with the management team
regarding conducting a peer review.He indicated that the cost associated with
conducting a peer review has been included in the budget,but a decision has not
yet been made to do so and is still in consideration.
General Manager Watton noted that the District's Strategic Plan is available on
the Board's extranet for viewing and is very detailed and transparent.
Director Jose Lopez indicated that the Finance,Administration and
Communications Committee appreciates staffs work on the Strategic Plan and
stated that is provides an alignment from management to line staff.
Director Gary Croucher stated that he is pleased that the Strategic Plan is an
active document with the District.
REPORTS
9.GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT
General Manager Watton announced that the District's General Counsel Caldron
was awarded an Attorney of the Year Award that recognizes him for his work in
mentoring upcoming legal stars.He congratulated General Counsel Calderon.
General Manager Watton provided the Board with an update on IEC's anti-
SLAPP motion against the District.He indicated that on October 23,2009,the
court held a hearing and ruled that IEC's anti-SLAPP motion was frivolous.The
court awarded the District attorney's fees in excess of $10,000 for having to
defend against the anti-SLAPP motion.Legal Counsel Yuri Calderon stated that
it is a very unusual victory for a private firm to have to pay a public agency.
He stated that the 36-inch pipeline project was moving along well and pipe is
currently being installed along the sensitive habitat area near Cuyamaca College.
He indicated that the Board had approved the Tobacco-Free Campus Policy and
the implementation of the policy has been delayed until January 1,2010 to
provide additional time for employees to transition to the new policy.
It was noted that customer credits has been running smoothly.Also noted was
the closing of the ID 27 Bond Refunding went smoothly without any incidents.
He indicated that the bond refunded had a favorable interest rate.
8
It was indicated that water sales are down and that staff plans to review CWA
rates to see if the lowered water sales throughout the County will impact their
rates.
General Manager Watton indicated that two position letter on bonds will be
drafted to state the District's position on bonds and to position the District for
future activity.The proposed $11 million bond will include $2.5 million for local
projects.He indicated that the proposed bond passed with 2/3 vote in the
legislator and it will still need to go to voters.It is felt that there will be active
funded opposition to the bond and it will be on the ballot in March 2010.
SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY UPDATE:
President Croucher indicated that the Bay Delta is the focus at CWA and the
board meeting meeting was pretty routine.
General Manager Watton reported that Poseidon's coastal permit was approved.
He stated that a presentation on Poseidon's progress was presented to the
Chula Vista Interagency Task Force and it was indicated that they will not have
financing for the plant until January 2010.However,they must break ground by
next month.
10.DIRECTORS'REPORTS/REQUESTS
Director Breitfelder apologized that he was late to today's board meeting as he
was attending the California Coastal Commission meeting which was discussing
the City of San Diego's treatment plant permit.He indicated that the comments
received at the meeting were focused on the economic impact of the City being
required to expend $2 million on treatment plant enhancements.The Coastal
Commission indicated that they were not concerned about economic impacts,but
did give the City a two year reprieve and requested that they commit to using
more recycled water.
Director Lopez indicated that he attended WAA's October 16,2009 meeting,and
that WAA members considered merging with the Council of Water Utilities
because it was felt that duplication of efforts were being performed by both
groups.Members also considered several options on what to do with WAA's
funds if the association was disbanded.
Director Mark Robak indicated that he spoke to Mr.Keith Lewinger who is the
ACWA representative for region 10.He indicated that he does not always agree,
but feels the region is getting its money's worth.He also indicated that Padre
Dam has implemented a program where they can notify their customers when
they are getting near their CWA allocation.He indicated that he would like to see
Otay explore doing something similar.He also shared that he has signed up to
attend ACWA's conference.
11.PRESIDENTS REPORT
9
President Croucher noted that the Districts 2009 Holiday Dinner will be held on
December 12,2009.
He also indicated that Director Robak,General Manager Watton and he attended
Ms.Nora Jaeske's Celebration of Life event.President Croucher said she was a
leader in championing water conservations and she will be missed.
RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION
12.CLOSED SESSION
The board recessed to closed session at 5:25 p.m.to discuss the following items:
a)CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL -PENDING LITIGATION
[GOVERNMENT CODE §54956.9(a)]
(I)INFRASTRUCTURE ENGINEERING CORP.v.OTAY WATER
DISTRICT,COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO,SUPERIOR COURT,CASE
NO.37-2008-00093876-CU-BC-CTL
(II)MULTIPLE CASES RELATED TO THE FENTON BUSINESS
CENTER AND FILED WITH THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO CONSOLIDATED UNDER CASE NO.
37-2007-00077024-C U-BC-SC
RETURN TO OPEN SESSION
7.REPORT ON ANY ACTIONS TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION.THE BOARD
MAY ALSO TAKE ACTION ON ANY ITEMS POSTED IN CLOSED SESSION
The board reconvened at 5:47 p.m.General Counsel Calderon indicated that the
board took no reportable actions in closed session.
13.ADJOURNMENT
With no further business to come before the Board,President Croucher
adjourned the meeting at 5:47 p.m.
President
ATTEST:
District Secretary
10
~.~•.'1-(
AGENDA ITEM 6a
STAFF REPORT
TYPE MEETING:Regular Board
SUBMITTED BY:Sean Prendergast,{
MEETING DATE:
W.O.lG.F.NO:
March 3,2010
DIV.NO.All
APPROVED BY:
(Chief)
APPROVED BY:
(Asst.GM):
SUBJECT:
Payroll/AP su~v~
Joseph R.Bea~Chief Financial Officer
German Alvarez,A~General Manager,Administration and
Finance
Director's Expenses for the 2nd Quarter of Fiscal Year 2010
GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION:
This is an informational item only.
COMMITTEE ACTION:
Please see Attachment A.
PURPOSE:
To inform the Board of the Director's expenses for the 2nd
quarter of Fiscal Year 2010.
ANALYSIS~
The Director's expense information is being presented in order
to comply with State law (See Attachment B for Summary and C-H
for Details.)
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
STRATEGIC GOAL:
Prudently manage District funds.
LEGAL IMPACT-
Compliance with State law.
Ma2J(J'6
G'eneral Manager
Attachments:
A)Committee Action Form
B)Director's Expenses and per Diems
C-H)Director's Expenses Detail
ATTACHMENT A
SUBJECTIPROJECT:Director's Expenses for the 2nd Quarter of Fiscal Year 2010
COMMITTEE ACTION:
The Finance,Administration and Communications Committee
reviewed this item in detail at a meeting scheduled on February
19,2010.In response to a question from Director Breitfelder
regarding Chamber registration fees,Director Bonilla requested
that staff review Policy 8.Following the review,Director
Bonilla directed staff to continue the District's practice to
pay for Chamber registration fees.The committee supported
presentation to the full board on the consent calendar.
Y:\Board\CurBdPkg\FINANCE\CommMtgDirExp030310.doc
I
th
ATTACHMENT B
BOARD OF DIRECTORS'
EXPENSES AND PER-DIEMS
FINANCE,ADMINISTRATION,AND
COMMUNICATIONS COMMITTEE MEETING
FEBRUARY 19,2010
Policy 8 requires that staff present the Expenses and
Per-Diems for the Board of Directors on a Quarterly
basis:
•Fiscal Year 2010,2nd Quarter.
•The expenses are shown in detail by Board
member,month and expense type.
•This presentation is in alphabetical order.
•This information was presented to the Finance,
Administration,and Communications Committee
on February 19,2010.
Board of Directors'Expenses and Per-Diems
Fiscal Year 2010 Quarter 2 (Oct 09-Dec 09)
•Director Bonilla
•Director Breitfelder
•Director Croucher
•Director Lopez
•Director Robak
•Total
$20.00
$1,632.40
$1,300.00
$687.90
$1,988.35
$5,628.65
-~---~.~_··r.~··""",;'~"~__-__'~'~""'_"~"_"'._="'_'''''''~'_
Board of Directors'Expenses and Per Diems
Fiscal Year 2010 to Date (Jul 09-Dec 09)
•Director Bonilla
•Director Breitfelder
•Director Croucher
•Director Lopez
•Director Robak
•Total
$20.00
$2,746.30
$2,100.00
$1,867.10
$2,890.90
$9,624.30
Board of Directors'Expenses and Per Diems
*Projected Fiscal Year 2010 (Jul 09-Jun 10)
•Director Bonilla
•Director Breitfelder
•Director Croucher
•Director Lopez
•Director Robak
•Total
$40.00
$5,493.00
$4,200.00
$3,734.00
$5,782.00
$19,249.00
•*Based on actual expenses through 2nd quarter
Director Bonilla
Fiscal Year 2010 Quarter 2
Oct 09 Nov 09 Dec 09
Business Meetings 0.00 20.00 0.00
Director's Fees 0.00 0.00 0.00
Mileage Business 0.00 0.00 0.00
Mileage Commuting 0.00 0.00 0.00
Seminars and Travel 0.00 0.00 0.00
Monthly Totals
Quarterly Total
Fiscal Year-to-Date 2009 (Jul 09-Dec 09)
20,00 0,00
$20.00
$20.00
Meetings Paid
Meetings Attended
Director Bonilla does not request per diem reimbursements
I
~~~----~~-----==c='~---------------------
Director Breitfelder
Fiscal Year 2010 Quarter 2
Oct 09 Nov 09 Dec 09
Business Meetings 0.00 84.00 25.00
Director's Fees 500.00 500.00 200.00
Mileage Business 90.20 112.20 46.20
Mileage Commuting 37.40 18.70 18.70
Seminars and Travel 0.00 0.00 0.00
Monthly Totals
Quarterly Total
Fiscal Year-to-Date 2009 (Jul 09-Dec 09)
627,60 714,90 289,90
$1,632.40
$2,746,30
Meetings Attended 5 5 2
Meetings Paid 5 5 2
Director Croucher
Fiscal Year 2010 Quarter 2
Oct 09 Nov 09 Dec 09
Business Meetings 0.00 0.00 0.00
Director's Fees 600.00 500.00 200.00
Mileage Business 0.00 0.00 0.00
Mileage Commuting 0.00 0.00 0.00
Seminars and Travel 0.00 0.00 0.00
Monthly Totals
Quarterly Total
Fiscal Year-to-Date 2009 (Jul 09-Dec 09)
600,00 500,00 200,00
$1,300.00
$2,100.00
Meetings Attended 6 5 2
Meetings Paid 6 5 2
Director Lopez
Fiscal Year 2010 Quarter 2
Oct 09 Nov 09 Dec 09
Business Meetings 45.00 0.00 0.00
Director's Fees 400.00 100.00 100.00
Mileage Business 20.90 0.00 0.00
Mileage Commuting 11.00 11.00 0.00
Seminars and Travel 0.00 0.00 0.00
Monthly Totals
Quarterly Total
Fiscal Year-to-Date 2009 (Jul 09-Dec 09)
476,90 111.00 100,00
$687.90
$1,867,10
Meetings Attended 4 1 1
Meetings Paid 4 1 1
Director Robak
Fiscal Year 2010 Quarter 2
Oct 09 Nov 09 Dec 09
Business Meetings 200.00 0.00 640.00
Director's Fees 200.00 200.00 500.00
Mileage Business 18.70 101.75 121.30
Mileage Commuting 4.40 2.20 0.00
Seminars and Travel 0.00 0.00 0.00
Monthly Totals
Quarterly Total
Fiscal Year-to-Date 2009 (Jul 09-Dec 09)
423,10 303,95 1,261,30
$1,988,35
$2,890,90
Meetings Attended 4 2 6
Meetings Paid 2 2 5
SECTIONC
OTAY WATER DISTRICT
ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES -BOARD
July 1,2009 -December 31,2009
Jul-09 Aug-09 Sep-09 Oct-09 Nov-09 Dec-09 Jan-IO Feb-IO Mar-IO Apr-IO May-IO Jun-IO Total
JAIME BONILLA (DETAILEDIN SECTIOND):
5214 Business meetings 20.00 20.00
5281 Director's fees
5211 Mileage -Business
5211 Mileage -Commuting
5213 Seminars and conferences
5212 Travel
Total 20.00 20.00
LARRYBREITFELDER(DETAILED IN SECTIONE):
5214 Business meetings 25.00 25.00 84.00 25.00 159.00
5281 Director'sfees 600.00 300.00 500.00 500.00 200.00 2,100.00
5211 Mileage -Business 22.00 22.00 90.20 112.20 46.20 292.60
5211 Mileage -Commuting 82.50 37.40 37.40 18.70 18.70 194.70
5213 Seminarsandconferences
5212 Travel
Total 704.50 25.00 384.40 627.60 714.90 289.90 2,746.30
GARYD.CROUCHER(DETAILEDIN SECTIONF):
5214 Businessmeetings
5281 Director's fees 500.00 300.00 600.00 500.00 200.00 2,100.00
5211 Mileage-Business
5211 Mileage-Commuting
5213 Seminars and conferences
5212 Travel
Total 500.00 300.00 600.00 500.00 200.00 2,100.00
JOSELOPEZ(DETAILED INSECTIONG):
5214 Businessmeetings 45.00 45.00
5281 Director's fees 300.00 500.00 300.00 400.00 100.00 100.00 1,700.00
5211 Mileage -Business 13.20 20.90 34.10
5211 Mileage-Commuting 22.00 33.00 11.00 11.00 11.00 88.00
5213 Seminars and conferences
5212 Travel
Total 322.00 546.20 311.00 476.90 111.00 100.00 1,867.10
MARKROBAK(DETAILEDINSECTIONH):
5214 Business meetings 20.00 20.00 20.00 200.00 640.00 900.00
5281 Director'sfees 200.00 300.00 200.00 200.00 200.00 500.00 1,600.00
5211 Mileage -Business 20.35 45.10 3.30 18.70 101.75 121.30 310.50
5211 Mileage -Commuting 2.20 4.40 2.20 4.40 2.20 15.40
5213 Seminarsand conferences 50.00 15.00 65.00
5212 Travel
Total 242.55 419.50 240.50 423.10 303.95 1,261.30 2,890.90
TOTALS:
5214 Business meetings 20.00 45.00 45.00 245.00 104.00 665.00 1,124.00
5281 Director's fees 1,600.00 800.00 1,100.00 1,700.00 1,300.00 1,000.00 7,500.00
5211 Mileage-Business 42.35 58.30 25.30 129.80 213.95 167.50 637.20
5211 Mileage-Commuting 106.70 37.40 50.60 52.80 31.90 18.70 298.10
5213 Seminars and conferences 50.00 15.00 65.00
5212 Travel
Total 1,769.05 990.70 1,235.90 $2,127.60 1,649.85 1,851.20 9,62430
OTAY WATER DISTRICT
SUMMARY -BOARD OF DIRECTORS EXPENSES
FOR THE PERIOD JULY 1,2009 THROUGH DECEMBER 31,2009
11/19/2009 MEXICAN AMERICAN PROFESSIONAL $
ASSOCIATION EVENT
DIRECTOR'S NAME:BONILLA,JAIME
Account Name
Business meetings
Dec 09A1Bonilia J
Date Descriptions
Page 2 of Pages 8
ATTACHMENT D
SECTION D
Amount
20.00
Printed Date:
2/10/20109:22 AM
OTAY WATER DISTRICT
SUMMARY -BOARD OF DIRECTORS EXPENSES
FOR THE PERIOD JULY 1,2009 THROUGH DECEMBER 31,2009
DIRECTOR'S NAME:BREITFELDER,LARRY ATTACHMENT E
12/15/2009
Business meetings Total
Director's Fee 7/1/2009
7/6/2009
7/7/2009
7/10/2009
7/20/2009
7/27/2009
9/2/2009
9/15/2009
9/28/2009
10/5/2009
10/7/2009
10/15/2009
10/20/2009
10/21/2009
11/3/2009
11/4/2009
11/9/2009
11/17/2009
11/19/2009
12/2/2009
12/15/2009
Director's Fee Total
Account Name
Business meetings
Date
8/18/2009
9/15/2009
11/17/2009
11/19/2009
Descriptions
COUNCIL OF WATER UTILITIES
COUNCIL OF WATER UTILITIES
COUNCIL OF WATER UTILITIES
CALIFORNIA SPECIAL DISTRICTS
MEXICAN AMERICAN PROFESSIONAL
ASSOCIATION EVENT
COUNCIL OF WATER UTILITIES
REGULAR BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING
CONSERVATION ACTION COMMITTEE MEETING
INTRA SITE TOUR -DISTRICT FACILITY SITE
0296-3 RESERVOIR)
AD HOC LEGAL MATTERS COMMITTEE MEETING
GM REVIEW -AGENDA BRIEFING
ENGINEERING,OPERATIONS AND WATER
RESOURCES COMMITTEE MEETING
REGULAR BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING
CONSERVATION ACTION COMMITTEE MEETING
ENGINEERING,OPERATIONS AND WATER
RESOURCES COMMITTEE MEETING
CONSERVATION ACTION COMMITTEE MEETING
REGULAR BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING
ENGINEERING,OPERATIONS AND WATER
RESOURCES COMMITTEE MEETING
COUNCIL OF WATER UTILITIES
CONSERVATION ACTION COMMITTEE MEETING
CADS BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING
REGULAR BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING
CONSERVATION ACTION COMMITTEE MEETING
COUNCIL OF WATER UTILITIES
CADS BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING
ENGINEERING,OPERATIONS AND WATER
RESOURCES COMMITTEE MEETING
COUNCIL OF WATER UTILITIES
SECTION E
Amount
$25.00
25.00
25.00
39.00
20.00
25.00
159.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
2,100.00
Dec 09A1Breitfelder L Page 3 of Pages 8
Printed Date:
2f1 Of201 09:22 AM
OTAY WATER DISTRICT
SUMMARY -BOARD OF DIRECTORS EXPENSES
FOR THE PERIOD JULY 1,2009 THROUGH DECEMBER 31,2009
DIRECTOR'S NAME:BREITFELDER,LARRY
Account Name Date
Mileage -Business 7/31/2009
9/28/2009
10/31/2009
11/30/2009
12/31/2009
Mileage -Business Total
Mileage -Commuting 7/31/2009
9/28/2009
10/31/2009
11/30/2009
12/31/2009
Mileage -Commuting Total
Grand Total
Dec 09A/Breitfelder L
Descriptions
MEETING -JULY 6,2009
MEETING -SEPT.15,2009
MEETING -OCT.5,20 &21,2009
MEETING -NOV.3,9,17&19,2009
MEETING -DEC.15, 2009
MEETING -JULY 1,7,10,20 &27,2009
MEETING -SEPT.2 &28,2009
MEETING -OCT.7 &15, 2009
MEETING -NOV.4,2009
MEETING -DEC.2,2009
Page 4 of Pages 8
ATTACHMENT E
SECTION E
Amount
22.00
22.00
90.20
112.20
46.20
292.60
82.50
37.40
37.40
18.70
18.70
194.70
2,746.30
Printed Date:
2/10/20109:22 AM
OTAY WATER DISTRICT
SUMMARY -BOARD OF DIRECTORS EXPENSES
FOR THE PERIOD JULY 1,2009 THROUGH DECEMBER 31,2009
DIRECTOR'S NAME:CROUCHER,GARY ATTACHMENT F
SECTION F
Account Name Date Descriptions Amount
Director's Fee 7/1/2009 REGULAR BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING $100.00
7/7/2009 INTRA SITE TOUR -DISTRICT FACILITY SITE (1296-3 100.00
RESERVOIR)
7/10/2009 LEGAL AD HOC COMMITIEE 100.00
7/27/2009 ENGINEERING,OPERATIONS AND WATER RESOURCES 100.00
COMMITIEE MEETING
7/30/2009 AGENDA REVIEW WITH GM AND COUNCIL 100.00
9/17/2009 GM REVIEW -AGENDA BRIEFING 100.00
9/28/2009 ENGINEERING,OPERATIONS AND WATER RESOURCES 100.00
COMMITIEE MEETING
9/30/2009 WATER RATES AD HOC COMMITIEE MEETING 100.00
10/6/2009 GM -COMMITIEE AGENDA REVIEW 100.00
10/7/2009 REGULAR BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING 100.00
10/8/2009 OWED AUDIT REVIEW 100.00
10/14/2009 WATER CONSERVATION JAPE MEETING 100.00
10/15/2009 ENGINEERING,OPERATIONS AND WATER RESOURCES 100.00
COMMITIEE MEETING
10/30/2009 COMMITIEE AGENDA BRIEFING MEETING WITH 100.00
GENERAL MANAGER
11/2/2009 MEETING WITH STAFF TO SIGN DOCUMENTS FOR 100.00
BOND REFINANCING CLOSING
11/3/2009 CADS BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING 100.00
11/4/2009 REGULAR BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING 100.00
11/19/2009 SAN DIEGO CADS QUARTERLY MEETING 100.00
11/30/2009 COMMITIEE AGENDA BRIEFING MEETING WITH 100.00
GENERAL MANAGER
12/2/2009 ENGINEERING,OPERATIONS AND WATER RESOURCES 100.00
COMMITIEE MEETING
12/30/2009 REGULAR BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING 100.00
Director's Fee Total $2,100.00
Grand Total $2,100.00
Dec 09A/Croucher G Page 5 ofPages 6
Printed Date:
2/10/20109:22 AM
OTAY WATER DISTRICT
SUMMARY -BOARD OF DIRECTORS EXPENSES
FOR THE PERIOD JULY 1,2009 THROUGH DECEMBER 31,2009
DIRECTOR'S NAME:LOPEZ,JOSE ATTACHMENT G
SECTION G
Account Name Date Descriptions Amount
Business meetings 10/8/2009 WATER AGENCIES ASSOCIATION $45.00
Business meetings Total 45.00
Director's Fee 7/1/2009 REGULAR BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING 100.00
7/8/2009 WATER CONSERVATION GARDEN COMMITIEE MEETING 100.00
7/22/2009 FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITIEE MEETING 100.00
8/5/2009 REGULAR BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING 100.00
8/10/2009 WATER CONSERVATION GARDEN COMMITIEE MEETING 100.00
8/24/2009 SPECIAL REGULAR BOARD MEETING 100.00
8/25/2009 FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITIEE MEETING 100.00
8/31/2009 GM REVIEW -AGENDA BRIEFING 100.00
9/2/2009 REGULAR BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING 100.00
9/14/2009 FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITIEE MEETING 100.00
9/28/2009 CHULA VISTA WATER TASK FORCE 100.00
10/7/2009 REGULAR BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING 100.00
10/14/2009 WATER CONSERVATION JAPE MEETING 100.00
10/15/2009 WATER AGENCY ASSOCIATION 100.00
10/19/2009 FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITIEE MEETING 100.00
11/4/2009 REGULAR BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING 100.00
12/14/2009 FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITIEE MEETING 100.00
Director's Fee Total 1,700.00
Mileaqe -Business 8/31/2009 MEETING -AUG.10,2009 13.20
10/15/2009 MEETING -OCT.15,2009 20.90
Mileage -Business Total 34.10
Mileaqe -Commutinq 7/31/2009 MEETING -JULY 1 &22,2009 22.00
8/31/2009 MEETING -AUG.5,24,&25 2009 33.00
9/30/2009 MEETING '-SEPT.2,2009 11.00
10/7/2009 MEETING -OCT.7,2009 11.00
11/4/2009 MEETING -NOV.4,2009 11.00
Mileage -Commuting Total 88.00
Grand Total $1,867.10
Dec 09A1Lopez J Page 6 of Pages 8
Printed Date:
2/10/20109:22 AM
OTAY WATER DISTRICT
SUMMARY -BOARD OF DIRECTORS EXPENSES
FOR THE PERIOD JULY 1,2009 THROUGH DECEMBER 31,2009
DIRECTOR'S NAME:ROBAK,MARK ATTACHMENT H
SECTION H
Account Name Date Descriptions Amount
Business meetings 7/10/2009 THE CHAMBER SAN DIEGO EAST COUNTY $20.00
8/7/2009 SAN DIEGO EAST COUNTY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 20.00
9/11/2009 SAN DIEGO EAST COUNTY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 20.00
10/2/2009 SAN DIEGO EAST COUNTY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 200.00
12/3/2009 SAN DIEGO EAST COUNTY CHAMBER HOLIDAY MIXER 15.00
&OPEN HOUSE
12/4/2009 REGISTRATION ASSOCIATION OF CALIFORNIA WATER 625.00
AGENCIES DEC.1-4,2009
Business meetings Total 900.00
Director's Fee 7/1/2009 REGULAR BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING 100.00
7/9/2009 SAN VICENTE DAM RAISE CEREMONY 100.00
8/5/2009 REGULAR BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING 100.00
8/19/2009 WATER REUSE SAN DIEGO CHAPTER MEETING 100.00
8/24/2009 SPECIAL REGULAR BOARD MEETING 100.00
9/2/2009 REGULAR BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING 100.00
9/3/2009 GM REVIEW -DISCUSSION OF GENERAL BUSINESS 100.00
GOALS &OBJECTIVES FOR NEW YEAR
10/7/2009 REGULAR BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING 100.00
10/29/2009 CELEBRATION OF LIFE -WATER CONSERVATION 100.00
11/4/2009 REGULAR BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING 100.00
11/6/2009 WATER REUSE WORKSHOP IRVINE RANCH WATER 100.00
DISTRICT
12/10/2009 WATER REUSE SAN DIEGO CHAPTER MEETING 100.00
12/31/2009 AQUA BI-YEARLY CONVENTION IN SAN DIEGO DEC.1-400.00
4,2009
Director's Fee Total 1,600.00
Dec 09A1Robak M Page 7 ofPages 8
Printed Date:
2110/20109:22 AM
OTAY WATER DISTRICT
SUMMARY -BOARD OF DIRECTORS EXPENSES
FOR THE PERIOD JULY 1,2009 THROUGH DECEMBER 31,2009
Account Name Date
9/25/2009
DIRECTOR'S NAME:ROBAK,MARK
Seminars and conferences Total
Grand Total
20.35
45.10
3.30
18.70
101.75
80.30
41.00
310.50
2.20
4.40
2.20
4.40
2.20
15.40
50.00
15.00
65.00
$2,890.90
ATTACHMENT H
SECTION H
Amount
MEETING -JULY 1,2009
MEETING -AUG.5 &24 2009
MEETING -SEPTEMBER 2,2009
MEETING -OCT.7 &29,2009
MEETING -NOV.4,2009
SAN DIEGO EAST COUNTY -WATER CONSERVATION
POLITICS IN PARADISE
THE RANCHO SAN DIEGO-JAMUL BREAKFAST MEETING
Descriptions
MEETING -JULY 6 &31,2009
MEETING -AUG.5,19 &242009
MEETING -SEPTEMBER 2,2009
MEETING -OCT.7,15 &262009
MEETING -NOV.4 &6,2009
MEETING -DEC.1 - 4 &10,2009
PARKING -TOWN &COUNTRY CONVENTION CENTER
DEC.1-4,2009
7/31/2009
8/31/2009
9/2/2009
10/31/2009
11/30/2009
12/31/2009
Mileage -Business
Mileaqe -Business Total
Mileaqe -Commutinq 7/31/2009
8/31/2009
9/2/2009
10/31/2009
11/30/2009
Mileaqe -Commutinq Total
Seminars and conferenc 8/21/2009
Dec 09A1Robak M Page 8 of Pages 8
Printed Date:
2/10/20109:22 AM
EXHIBITB
OTAY WATER DISTRICT
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
PER-DIEM AND MILEAGE CLAIM FORM NOV 1S2009
Pay To:Larry Breitfelder Period Covered:
Employee Number:-..:..70.:...;1-'03 _From:10/1/09 To:10/30/09
ITEM DATE MEETING PURPOSE /ISSUES MILEAGE MILEAGE
DISCUSSED HOMEloOWD OTHER
OWDloHOME LOCATIONS
10/5/09 CAC Conservation Action Committee-Ordinance Work 40
1.Group
10/7/09 OWD Board District Business 34
2.Meeting
10/15/09 OWD Engineering,Operations &Water Resources 34
3.EO&WR Committee Meeting
Comm
10/20/09 CWU Council ofWater Utilities 84
4.
10/21/09 CAC Conservation Action Committee -Ordinance 40
5.Workshop/State Presentation
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
]1.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
Total Meeting Per Diem:
($100 per meeting)
$500.00
Date:__Il_'_19_f_~_
(Director's Signature)
miles232TotalMileageClaimed:
GM R",ipt:-=_
d)~l~FOR OFFICE USE:TOTAL MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT:$
{\9iJI I,'\;j~'------
t\\1-.I.,".:,fJft
.kill Ii'M/V L
000'I 6 IOtJO r 2l 0 I r ?~o I ...-I
!""i M ootJ _£/0;·5::J-11 tJ ~
\',--"j A7?,D () ()I 6/'1~~"1 .,,,,:I;S~>'I J f./OTAY WATER DISTRICT
".-.-BOARD OF DIRECTORS
PER-DIEM AND MILEAGE CLAIM FORM
~vo-GO
/2·7D
EXHIBIT B
JAN 17 2010
Pay To:Larry Breitfelder
Employee Number:7013---------
Period Covered:
ITEM DATE MEETING PURPOSE /ISSUES MILEAGE MILEAGE
DISCUSSED HOMEloOWD OTHER
OWDtoHOME LOCATIONS
1.II '~Oq Q.9OA rotrL Mt'J C,SOft 0Qcum.~OIYloffi::s'M-tr 40
2.(1 14 oq OWb PtJrd ~oWb Bam af Pft'Cclm MV:~
Iq '-"~eAVWlYL f\M1m QimWH~3.II ()~e..AG M
4.\I rr loq COWlJt C-dVU'l til 6f t\JoA&r-ItthII heg 8~
5.II 11t1 DOl O$DA ~S 0A GAwl-GtitA M~40
l/U
6.
7.
8.
9.0"*
10.t
11.{tf/100-00x)1~7 5 e ::;;:
12.500·00*/
13.
0"*14..\1U't
15.34"x~0-55=16.18-70*/
17.
18.I
$1;;OO~.-Total Meeting Per Diem:v
($100 per meeting)
FOR OFFICE USE:TOTAL MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT:$_
l0 JAN 27 AM 8=33
Total Mileage Claimed:miles
(Director's Signature)
Date:_
~¥
111·\0
,"V
JAN 17 2010
r2./{.)0 ().1!-lo I r 7;;2//0 ~rlfIBIT B jlJ..77)
/r"":;OtAY WATER DISTRICT II
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
PER-DIEM AND MILEAGE CLAIM FORM
Pay To:Larry Breitfelder Period Covered:
Employee Number:7013----------
ITEM DATE MEETING PURPOSE /ISSUES MILEAGE MILEAGE
DISCUSSED HOMEtoOWD OTHER
OWD,oHOME LOCATIONS
l.\2/1/oq Olivl?~)'(l111l\b '"O\l\l 0 ~r\OtIYleen~~itkv 34
2.12./15/0~0O\~tt Wur\~\br WaieJrtlhll~~g~
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.~lJlltf'8.
9.~\0"*
10.lOa-X
11.2"::::
200'00'/
12.
13.tat'0-*
14.34-X
15.0·55::::
16.18'70*/
17.
18.I
Date:_
(Director's Signature)
milesTotalMileageClaimed:
Total :\Ieeting Per Diem:S 11JO.-
(S100 per meeting)
n 1joJ>C',rvVt-'7 Q.ece;)?~\.~~
9-Nl .-\-pploval:-------'j-"'~------<"',.
"..........
'-~FOR OFFICE USE;TOTAL :\IILEAGE REI;\tBURSE;\IE;'liT:$_
'1 1ll 'I"M 27 '\"1 '-',77.:'tJ JM ':HI!O"~hJ
Pay To:Gary Croucher
OTAY WATER DISTRICT
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
PER-DIEM AND MILEAGE CLAIM FORM
Period Covered:
EXHIBITB
Employee Number:7011------------From:010/01109 To:01O/3i/09
ITEM DATE MEETING PURPOSE /ISSUES MILEAGE MILEAGE
DISCUSSED HOMEIOOWD OTHER
OWD to HOME LOCATIONS
/10/06 GM Committee Agenda Review
1
/2 10/07 Board Regular Board Meeting
I 3 10/08 Audit OWD Audit review
/
'I 4 10/14 Committee Water Conservation lPA meeting
if 5 10/15 Committee Engineering and Operations Committee
j 6 10/30 GM Agenda Briefing
$600
Total Meeting Per Diem:
($100 per meeting)
Total Mileage Claimed:o miles
AtJ~/~!~
GM Ap\lrOval:~----i,Date:JI •'7''ZrP09
FOR OFFICE USE:TOTAL MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT:$,_
OTAY WATER DISTRICT
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
PER-DIEM AND MILEAGE CLAIM FORM
52JtJ·au
EXHIBIT B
Pay To:Gary Croucher Period Covered:
Employee Number:7011-----------From:11/01/09 To:11/30/09
ITEM DATE MEETING PURPOSE /ISSUES MILEAGE MILEAGE
DISCUSSED HOME to OWD OTHER
OWD (0 HOME LOCATIONS
.;11/02 OM Bond Closing -review and signatures
I
l/2 ]1/03 CSDA CSDA Board of Directors meeting
v V3 ]]/04 Board Regular Board Meeting
/
II 4 1]/19 CSDA San Diego CSDA Quarterly Meeting
VVs ]1130 Committee Committee meeting agenda review
I
~~\I 0-*
"IOO·OOx
50,:
500'00/
$500
Total Meeting Per Diem:
($100 per meeting)
(Director',s Signature)
\7 -'">a'OQ,\Date:_'_---:.._
milesoTotalMileageClaimed:
GM~11;,dliJit
+-i-'-~---------------
FOR OFFICE USE:TOTAL MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT:$_
/f7!;oo o·//.3 3DOO -'2-/0 /~~'"'.;:L3'0 /
OTAY WATER DISTRICT
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
PER-DIEM AND MILEAGE CLAIM FORM
"2-t>O ()cJ
EXHIBITB
Pay To:Gary Croucher Period Covered:
Employee Number:7011-----------From:12/01109 To:12/31/09
ITEM DATE MEETING PURPOSE /ISSUES MILEAGE MILEAGE
DISCUSSED HOMEtoOWD OTHER
/OWD,oHOME LOCATIONS
/12/02 Committee E &0 Committee Meeting~V
~V2 12/30 GM Board of Directors agenda review
.__._.
rxfl t'S~,Q,0-*
100-00x
2-=
200'00*--
Total Meeting Per Diem:
($100 per meeting)
Total Mileage Claimed:0 miles------.---,J--J J A~j II \\~_==C)IIAA],j;;(Director\~Signature)cGM~:~__;_'_@_'Zo_I_O____Date:'\'L ~O .()~
FOR OFFICE USE:TOTAL MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT:$_
OTAY WATJ~H OISTIUCT
BOARD OF IHRECTORS
])lm-J)ffiM ANn MU..EAGIL ClAIM f'ORM
EXHUUT B
Pay To:_lose I:~J.l_ez . . ._P{~rj()d CoYcred:
f;;mployec Number:7010 From:10/01/09 To:IO/3J/09
Total lVIHeage Claimed:
GI\'I Redept:-~
miles ~!Qe(rzL-
I (Director's ~ignature)
Date:/1·'/-.2()o,
f0g NOt FOR OFFICIi:USE:TOTAL MILEAGE REIl\/HHJRSEl\lENT:$_~.,)6 H'"),"1 ......,-,";..J'~.j
JAN 16 20UJ
/oo·otJ
1/00
lEXD30IJBIT J3
Pcriod Covcred:
OTAY WATER DISTRICT
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
PER-D!EM AND MI!-EAGE CLA!M FOR.l¥!
fTf;OOD·I l3¥o~D .2-/0/.!);L8/0 I
--.-,ftJr}.,()0 0 .I ~'TD 0 0 .2--1 0/.5""';;;"11 ();:l-
f.' ,,I J
I.('/
..::':'~:l~....'
Pay To:Jose Lopez
Employce Number:7010----------From:11/01/09 To:1lJ3%9
ITEM DATE MEETING PURPOSE /ISSUES MILEAGE MILEAGE
I DISCUSSED 1l0~1EIII0\\'0 OnlEll
0\\'0 10 HO~IE WCATIONS
'V 1.!1/04/09 ovro Board Meeting 20
2.
3.-_.._-_.•...~
HI_-!I=
o.
7.~tY ~~0'*
"~\io.
9.100-0ax
10.
1":::~
100'00*
11.
12.f/0-*
13.tQ;~20-X
14.0-55=,
15.
11 .00*/'
16.
I
17.
]8.
Total IVl€c:iiig rCI Di~ffi:
($100 per meeting)
,t.....
Total Mileage Claimed:20------miles
(~{cctOl"S Signature)
r·
Dll.te:I 2-D.2t:J;O
~10 JAN 21 AN ~~~OFFICE USE:TOTAL MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT:$_
rJ7j 0 0 ()./<3>¥C)0 C>•'2-10 I..5--.;2 ~1 0 /
';:--lJ~jIt;t)'-;•.
/Op-t:>0
Fay To:Jose Lopez
OTAY WATER DlSl'RICT
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
PER-DIEM AND MILEAGE CLAIM FORM
Period Covered:
EXHlffili'I JB
JAM 15 2010
Employee Number:7010----------From:12101109 To:12/31/09
ITEM DATE MEETING PURPOSE I ISSUES MILEAGE MILEAGE
DlSCIJSSED IIO~lE '"own aDlERown10!lO~IE l.OCATIONS
1.....'--.._._..
/2 k-/lc.'l rl)u..\D +-'/U .</-1-1 Dm /l~/)If ¢2.CDIII !J'II J c'L~'
I I I
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
S.
9.,,Y f~0-*10.
A.J 100·00}{
12.1 •:::
100-00*)
13.
;
14.
15.-
16.
17.
18.
Total Meeting Per Diem:
($100 per meeting)
Total Mileage Claimed:
GM Reciept:f/t;W~'"t ).2P'~()/Ovae:~:"""':=--L~:":"""_
,
1:l'!laI'd!
FOR OFFICE USE:TOTAL MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT:$,_
fi0 JAN 21 Ait::3:40
'2-10/...5';;LJ>/D !
2-1 0/?~//o;;-
fT6 000-J ~~DO
()0 0 . //?SO ()
OTAY WATER DISTRICT
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
PER-DIEM AND MILEAGE CLAIM FORM
Pay To:Mark Robak Period Covered:
Employee Number:_7.:.:0:.:1~4.=..10::.:0;,;;.9 _
3217 Fair Oaks Lane,Spring Valley,CA 91978
From:10-1-09 To:10-31-09
ITEM DATE MEETING PURPOSE /ISSUES MILEAGE MILEAGE \
DISCUSSED HOMEtoOWD OTHER
OWD'oHOME LOCATIONS
V~10-7 Monthly Otay Board Meeting General District Business 4 6
2 10-15 SDCWA -Legislation,Discussion ofbudget re-allocation to the 0 22
Conservation &Outreach Water Conservation Garden (See Exhibit
Committee Meeting A-Agenda)
~~10-26 Otay Water District Discussion ofbill credits with Otay staff 4 6
4 10-29 Celebration ofLife -Water For Nora Jaeschke -No Charge 0 0
Conservation Garden
0-*
100·00x
1~~2"::;
200·00*/i
~0-*,,
4-00+
rl'f 4-00t
0·00*
S·Oox
O·55=/
b...40*
.--
Total Meeting Per Diem:$3p6 'UJO.-8 34....~~....
(Diredor's Signature)
42TotalMileageClaimed:
($100 per meeting)
'10 JAN 25 ~M 'l.~ih ~'P\'.~;.8 '2"'10".GMApplooal:_.,.1!.Date:,"""''''=
,v'~1·\O
FOR OFFICE USE:TOTAL MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT:$______\.1-'
f77:?ODD-/Ib jD (.)D.'2-/L:>I ~..~/0 J
165000-z/o/~S,;;L1IDd--
OTAY WATER DISTRICT
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
PER-DIEM AND MILEAGE CLAIM FORM
Pay To:Mark Robak Period Covered:
Employee Number:-:..;70::.;1:...:4.;:.11:::.,:0;.;;9 _
3217 Fair Oaks Lane,Spring Valley,CA 91978
From:11-1-09
f.---+---+----------t-------.....
100·00 X
2 •=---/,200 •00*4;----+------1~,
1---1----1------------1"-
4·X
0-55=
2*20*/
Total Meeting Per Diem:_$;;.:2:.:;0-"-0 _
($100 per meeting)
~ere<pf'"11//I /i;l::;(·8·2{'JI 0
GM AllPruvat:...,}~fU~W~__--------
(Director's Signature)
1854
Date:__._-_--
189TotalMileageClaimed:
FOR OFFICE USE:TOTAL MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT:$,--.__
fT0 000·I rj 5Do 0 -'2-1 0 /'5;;2 8'/0 /
Pay To:Mark Robak
OTAYWATER DISTRICT
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
PER-DIEM AND MILEAGE CLAIM FORM
Period Covered:
Employee Number:_7..:..;0::.::1~4.::.;12~0;.:.9 _
3217 Fair Oaks Lane,Spring Valley,CA 91978
From:12-1-09
ITEM DATE MEETING PURPOSE /ISSUES MILEAGE MILEAGE
DISCUSSED HOME toOWD OTHEROWDloHOMELOCATIONS
V
if 1 12-1 ACWA Bi-Yearly Convention Issues dealing with regional and statewide 0 29
In San Diego water issues -See Exhibit A
/
\I 2 12-2 ACWA Bi-Yearly Convention Issues dealing with regional and statewide 0 29
In San Diego water issues -See Exhibit A
V
V 3 12-3 ACWA Bi-Yearly Convention Issues dealing with regional and statewide 0 29
In San Diego water issues -See Exhibit A
/
V 4 12-4 ACWA Bi-Yearly Convention Issues dealing with regional and statewide 0 29
/In San Diego water issues -See Exhibit A
rJ 5 12-10 Water ReUse San Diego Speakers and discussion on local recycled 0 30
Chapter Meeting water issues -See Exhibit B
6 12-11 Rancho San Diego Jamul Monthly business/community forum -No 0 0
Chamber ofCommerce Mixer Charge
Total Meeting Per Diem:$500 0 146
($100 per meeting)
Total Mileage Claimed:146
(Director's Signature)
Date:-__--
FOROFFICE USE:TOTAL MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT:$,_
AGENDA ITEM 6b
G~r~a~~arez,Assistant General Manager,Administration &
FJ.n~
Rate Adjustment for Mexico Agreement to Transfer Water
TYPE MEETING:
SUBMITIED BY:
APPROVED BY:
(Chief)
APPROVED BY:
(Asst.GM):
SUBJECT:
STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE:
Manager W.O./G.F.NO:
March 3,2010
DIV.NO.All
GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION:
That the Board authorize the General Manager to adjust the
wheeling rate for the delivery of Treaty Water to the City of
Tijuana,and the refunding of accumulated overpayments for past
water deliveries,to return the District to a cost-neutral
position with respect to the water transfer agreement with
Mexico.
COMMITTEE ACTION:
See Attachment A.
BACKGROUND:
On October 9,2008,the Board approved the District's portion of
Amendment No 1 to Agreement for Temporary Emergency Delivery of
a Portion of the Mexican Treaty Waters of the Colorado River to
the International Boundary in the Vicinity of Tijuana,Baja
California,Mexico,and for the Operation of Facilities in the
United States ("the Agreement"),which extended the existing
Agreement for a five-year period beyond November 9,2008.As a
part of this action,the contract price (wheeling rate)that the
District charges for water pumped through District facilities
was set at $96.48 per acre-foot for calendar year 2009.This
was a reduction from the previous rate of $118.14 per acre-foot.
Under terms and conditions of the Agreement,charges for water
delivered to Mexico will remain constant for the calendar year,
except for charges associated with the cost of energy,which may
be adjusted on a quarterly basis as appropriate.Any changes to
the Schedule of Charges to be paid by Mexico are required to be
submitted to the United States Commissioner 45 days prior to the
beginning of each quarterly period.To adjust the rate
effective July I,2010,the approved new rate is due to the
United States Commissioner no later than May 17,2009.
ANALYSIS:
Overall power costs have been coming down over the last 12-18
months,and staff has recalculated the "Unit payment due Otay
for delivery charges and other expenses ($/acre-foot)"to be
used by the San Diego County Water Authority (CWA)on their
monthly billing invoices to Mexico for water deliveries.This
analysis has taken into consideration the full allocation of
costs for Operations,Maintenance,and Energy involved in the
District's facilities responsible for pumping water between the
connections from CWA to the Mexico pipeline at the International
Border.Based on actual costs incurred for the first six months
of FY-2010 (Jul-Dec 2009),and budgeted costs for the remaining
six months (Jan-Jun 2010),staff estimates that the cost of
providing water to Mexico during CY-2010 should be approximately
$65.41 per acre-foot.This reduction in costs is an overall
reduction in price of 32.2%.This is similar to cost reductions
evidenced by Metropolitan Water District of approximately 34.9%.
In addition to quantifying current costs to be used for upcoming
water deliveries to Mexico,the analysis has brought to light
the fact that the water rates paid by Mexico over the last two
years have created a large overage compared to actual costs
incurred.During this time Mexico has taken more water than
ever before -around 5,000 acre-feet each year -so at 12/31/09
the cumulative overpayments are approximately $194,000.Based
on commitments for 2010,and the contract provisions that
specify when pricing adjustments are allowed to be implemented,
if pricing is not reduced until the beginning of July this
amount is expected to increase to over $250,000 by 06/30/10.
The contract does not clearly specify how amounts are to be
repaid,or even if they are to be repaid.However,it was the
District's expectation that this was to be a revenue neutral
agreement,so two alternatives are being presented which would
accomplish this.
Alternatives for adjusting the rate and repaying Mexico are as
follows:
1.Immediately adjust the rate Otay charges Mexico for water
delivered to the most current estimated cost of $65.41 per
acre foot.Mexico has not scheduled water deliveries for
CY-2010 to begin until April 1.According to CWA,who
2
administers the Agreement,they can coordinate for Otay to
implement this price adjustment effective April 1,and Otay
can coordinate a refund of the current amount of the
overpayment ($194,000)through CWA.This would bring
Mexico and the District back to a cost-neutral position at
03/31/10.
2.Adjust the rate Otay charges Mexico for water delivered to
the most current estimated costs,in accordance with
contract designated timelines,beginning July 1.Any water
delivered in Apr-Jun will be charged at the current rate of
$96.48 per acre-foot.The rate adjustment would then be
implemented as a 2-step process,as only energy costs can
be adjusted on a quarterly basis.This would increase the
total amount of overpayment to an estimated amount over
$250,000 We would recalculate the overpayment amount
based on actual water volumes taken during all of 2010,and
make payment through CWA after 12/31/10.This would bring
Mexico and the District back to a cost-neutral position
through 12/31/10.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the first alternative,above.This is the most
equitable solution from a business standpoint,and is the least
complicated and easiest to reconcile and maintain on an ongoing
basis.
FISCAL IMPACT:~
-?
Refund of approximately $194,000 to Mexico.This adjustment
returns the District to a cost neutral position at 03/31/2010.
STRATEGIC OUTLOOK:
The District ensures its continued financial health through
long-term financial planning,formalized financial policies,
enhanced budget controls,fair pricing,debt planning,and
improved financial reporting.
LEGAL IMPACT:
None.
3
Attachments:
A)Committee Action Form
B)Rate Caluclation Sheet
4
SUBJECT/PROJECT:
ATTACHMENT A
Rate Adjustment for Mexico Agreement to Transfer Water
COMMITTEE ACTION:
This item was presented to the Finance,Administration and
Communications Committee on February 19,2010 and the committee
supported staffs'recommendation and presentation to the full
board on the consent calendar.
Y:\Board\CurBdPkg\FINANCE\CommMtgMexicowaterRate030310.doc
ATTACHMENT B
Mexico Water Transfers -Cost vs Payment
Unit Cost (per AF)O&M Energy Subtotal MexicoO&M Fixed Chgs Total
FY 2006 $5.37 $63.79 $69.16 $1.75 $43.19 $114.10
FY 2007 10.13 57.68 67.81 1.80 43.19 $112.80
FY 2008 8.13 61.49 69.62 1.85 43.19 $114.66
FY 2009 (Jul -Dec 2008)14.62 46.99 61.61 1.90 43.19 $106.70
FY 2009 (Jan -Jnn 2009)14.62 46.99 61.61 1.90 $63.51
FY 2010 (annualized)18.17 45.34 63.51 1.90 $65.41
Current Charges to Mexico O&M Energy Fixed Chgs Total
CY 2006 $4.45 $65.89 $43.19 $113.53
CY 2007 4.45 70.50 43.19 118.14
CY 2008 4.45 70.50 43.19 118.14
CY 2009 4.65 91.83 96.48
CY 2010 (Recommended)20.07 45.34 65.41
Water Deliveries Acre-Ft Rate per Payment Difference
To Mexico Water Acre-Ft Cost Bill vs Cost Over/(Under)Cumulative
Oct-06 37.0 113.53 112.80 0.73 $27.01 27.01
Feb-08 385.1 118.14 114.66 3.48 $1,340.15 1,367.16
Mar-08 889.5 118.14 114.66 3.48 $3,095.46 4,462.62
Apr-08 652.2 118.14 114.66 3.48 $2,269.66 6,732.27
May-08 665.1 118.14 114.66 3.48 $2,314.55 9,046.82
Jun-08 636.0 118.14 114.66 3.48 $2,213.28 11,260.10
Sep-08 668.8 118.14 106.70 11.44 $7,651.07 18,911.17
Oct-08 651.5 118.14 106.70 11.44 $7,453.16 26,364.33
Dec-08 670.9 118.14 106.70 11.44 $7,675.10 34,039.43
Jan-09 450.9 96.48 63.51 32.97 $14,866.17 48,905.60
Feb-09 411.8 96.48 63.51 32.97 $13,577.05 62,482.65
Mar-09 953.9 96.48 63.51 32.97 $31,450.08 93,932.73
Apr-09 886.0 96.48 63.51 32.97 $29,211.42 123,144.15
May-09 558.3 96.48 63.51 32.97 $18,407.15 141,551.30
Jun-09 458.1 96.48 63.51 32.97 $15,103.56 156,654.86
Sep-09 540.5 96.48 65.41 31.07 $16,793.34 173,448.20
Oct-09 223.6 96.48 65.41 31.07 $6,947.25 180,395.45
Nov-09 213.4 96.48 65.41 31.07 $6,630.34 187,025.79
Dec-09 227.3 96.48 65.41 31.07 $7,062.21 194,088.00
Apr-l0 630.4 96.48 65.41 31.07 $19,586.53 213,674.52
May-l0 651.4 96.48 65.41 31.07 $20,239.00 233,913.52
Jun-lO 630.4 96.48 65.41 31.07 $19,586.53 253,500.05
12,092.1 Total:$253,500.05
AGENDA ITEM 6c
5TAFF REPORT
TYPE MEETING:
SUBMITTED BY:
APPROVED BY:
(Chief)
Regu~rd MEETING DATE:James~nance Manager W.O.lG.F.NO:JOSePh~m,Chief Financial Officer
March 3,2010
DIV.NO.All
APPROVED BY:
(Asst.GM):
SUBJECT:
German A~,Assistant General Manager,Administration and
Finance
Approve the Appointment of the Auditor for Fiscal Year Ending
June 30,2010
GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION:
That the Board approve the appointment of Diehl,Evans &
Company,LLP,to provide audit services to the District for the
Fiscal Year Ending June 30,2010
COMMITTEE ACTION:
Please see Attachment A.
PURPOSE:
To retain the services of Diehl,Evans &Company,LLP,to serve
as the District's auditors for the fiscal year ending June 30,
2010.
ANALYSIS:
The District is required to retain the services of an
independent accounting firm to perform an audit of the
District's financial records each year.At the Board meeting on
March 9,2009,the Board approved Diehl,Evans &Company as the
District's auditors for a one-year contract,with four (4)one-
year options,with each option year subject to Board review and
approval.
Staff is recommending the appointment of Diehl,Evans &Company
based on their knowledge of the District's operations and
finances,their technical qualifications,and their performance
as the District's auditors during the FY-09 audit.Also,at the
conclusion of the audit,the Diehl,Evans staff provided
significant advice and review of staff's draft Comprehensive
Annual Financial Report (CAFR),prior to submission to the
Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA)for award
consideration
The following is a tentative planning schedule for the major
activities involved in completing the FY-10 financial audit:
~Apr-10:
~Aug-10:
~Oct-10:
~Nov-10:
Pre-audit (3 - 4 days).
Year-end audit (4 - 5 days).
Board presentation of audited financials.
Completed CAFR.
The audit will consist of four major components:1)Standard
Audit Services,to provide an audit opinion on the District's
financial statements;2)Review of the District's Investment
Policy procedures;3)A State Controller's Report,required by
the State of California;and 4)Assistance in preparation of the
District's CAFR
FISCAL IMPACT:
The fee for auditing services for the fiscal year ending June
30,2010,will not exceed $33,000.This amount maintains audit
fees at the same amount as last year's fees.
STRATEGIC GOAL:
Required by law.
LEGAL IMPACT:
None.
Attachments:
A)Committee Action Form
B)Diehl,Evans &Company Audit Engagement Letter
ATTACHMENT A
Approve the Appointment of the Auditor for Fiscal Year
SUBJECT/PROJECT:Ending June 30,2010
COMMITTEE ACTION:
This item was presented to the Finance,Administration and
Communications Committee on February 19,2010 and the committee
supported staffs'recommendation and presentation to the full
board on the consent calendar.
Y:\Board\CurBdPkg\FINANCE\CommMtgAuditorSelect030310.doc
ATTACHMENT B
~DIEHL,EVANS &.COMPANY,LLP~CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS &:CONSULTANTS
I
ti
'_I,
APARTNERSIIIP INCLUDINGACCOUNTANCY CORPORATIONS
2965 ROOSEVELT STREET
CARLSBAD,CALIFORNIA 92008-2389
(760)729-2343 •FAX (760)729-2234
www.dieblevans.com
Mr.Joseph R.Beachem
ChiefFinancial Officer
Otay Water District
2554 Sweetwater Springs Blvd.
Spring Valley,CA 91978-2004
DearMr.Beachem:
February 5,2010
*PHILIPIlHOLTKAMP,CPA
*THOMAS M PERLOWSKl,CPA
*HARVEYJ.SCHROEDER,CPA
KENNETH R.AMES,CPA
WILLIAMC.PENTZ,CPA
MICHAELR.LUDIN,CPA
CRAIGW.SPRAKER,CPA
NlTINP.PATEL,CPA
ROBERTJ.CALLANAN,CPA
...APROFESSIONALCORPORATION
We are pleased to confirm our understanding ofthe services we are to provide Otay Water District (the
District)for the year ending June 30,2010.We will audit the financial statements ofthe District as of
and for the year ending June 30,2010.Accounting standards generally accepted in the United States
provide for certain required supplementary information (RSI)such as management's discussion and
analysis (MD&A),to accompany Otay Water District's basic financial statements.As part of our
engagement,we will apply certain limited procedures to Otay Water District's RSI.These limited
procedures will consist principally of inquiries ofmanagement regarding the methods ofmeasurement
and presentation,which management is responsible for affirming to us in its representation letter.
Unless we encounter problems with the presentation of the RSI or with procedures relating to it,we
will disclaim an opinion on it.The following RSI is required by generally accepted accounting
principles and will be subjected to certain limited procedures,but will not be audited:
1.Management's Discussion and Analysis
2.Schedule ofFunding Progress for PERS
3.Schedule ofFunding Progress for DPHP
The following additional information accompanying the basic financial statements will not be
subjected to the auditing procedures applied in our audit ofthe financial statements,and for which our
auditor's report will disclaim an opinion.
1.Statistical Section
OTHEROFFICES AT:613 W.VALLEY PARKWAY,SUITE330
ESCONDIDO,CAUFORNIA92025-2598
(760)741-3141 •FAX (760)741-9890
5CORPORATE PARK,SUITE 100
IRVINE,CAUFORNIA92606-4906
(949)-399-0600.FAX (949)399-0610
Mr.Joseph R.Beachem
Otay Water District
February 5,2010
Page 2
Audit Objective:
The objective of our audit is the expression ofan opinion as to whether your basic financial statements
are fairly presented,in all material respects,in conformity with U.S.generally accepted accounting
principles and to report on the fairness of the additional information referred to in the first paragraph
when considered in relation to the basic financial statements taken as a whole.Our audit will be
conducted in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America
and the standards for financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards,issued by the
Comptroller General of the United States;the Single Audit Act Amendments of 1996 and the
provisions of OMB Circular A-133,and will include tests of the accounting records of Otay Water
District,a determination of major program(s)in accordance with OMB Circular A-133,and other
procedures we consider necessary to enable us to express such an opinion.If our opinion on the
financial statements or the Single Audit compliance opinions are other than unqualified,we will fully
discuss the reasons with you in advance.If,for any reason,we are unable to complete the audit or are
unable to form or have not formed an opinion,we may decline to express an opinion or to issue a
report as a result ofthis engagement.
We will also provide a report (that does not include an opinion)on internal control related to the
financial statements and compliance with laws,regulations,and the provisions of contracts or grant
agreements,noncompliance with which could have a material effect on the financial statements as
required by Governmental Auditing Standards.The report on internal control and compliance will
include a statement that the report is intended solely for the information and use of management,the
body or individuals charged with governance,others within the entity,and specific legislative or
regulatory bodies and is not intended to be and should not be used by anyone other than these specified
parties.If during our audit we become aware that Otay Water District is subject to an audit
requirement that is not encompassed in the terms of this engagement,we will communicate to
management and those charged with governance that an audit in accordance with U.S.generally
accepted auditing standards and the standards for financial audits contained in Government Auditing
Standards may not satisfy the relevant legal,regulatory,or contractual requirements.
Management Responsibilities:
Management is responsible for the basic financial statements and all accompanying information as
well as all representations contained therein.As part of the audit,we will assist with preparation of
your financial statements and related notes.You are responsible for making all management decisions
and performing all management functions relating to the financial statements and related notes and for
accepting full responsibility for such decisions.You will be required to acknowledge in the
management representation letter our assistance with the preparation of the fmancial statements and
that you have reviewed and approved the financial statements and related notes prior to their issuance
and have·accepted responsibility for them.Further,you are required to designate an individual with
suitable skill,knowledge,or experience to oversee our assistance with the preparation ofyour financial
statements and related notes and any other nonaudit services we provide;and for evaluating the
adequacy and results ofthose services and accepting responsibility for them.
Management is responsible for establishing and maintaining effective internal controls,including
monitoring ongoing activities;to help ensure that appropriate goals and objectives are met;for the
selection and application of accounting principles;and for the fair presentation in the financial
statements ofthe District and the respective changes in financial position and cash flows,in conformity
with U.S.generally accepted accounting principles.
Mr.Joseph R.Beachem
Otay Water District
February 5,2010
Page 3
Management is also responsible for making all financial records and related information available to us
and for ensuring that management and financial information is reliable and properly recorded.Your
responsibilities include adjusting the financial statements to correct material misstatements and for
confirming to us in the representation letter that the effects of any uncorrected misstatements
aggregated by us during the current engagement and pertaining to the latest period presented are
immaterial,both individually and in the aggregate,to the financial statements taken as a whole.
You are responsible for the design and implementation ofprograms and controls to prevent and detect
fraud,and for informing us about all known or suspected fraud or illegal acts affecting the government
involving (1)management,(2)employees who have significant roles in internal control,and (3)others
where the fraud or illegal acts could have a material effect on the financial statements.Your
responsibilities include informing us of your knowledge ofany allegations offraud or suspected fraud
affecting the government received in communications from employees,former employees,grantors,
regulators,or others.In addition,you are responsible for identifying and ensuring that the District
complies with applicable laws,regulations,contracts,agreements,and grants for taking timely and
appropriate steps to remedy any fraud ,illegal acts,violations of contracts or grant agreements,or
abuse that we may report.
Management is responsible for establishing and maintaining a process for tracking the status of audit
findings and recommendations.Management is also responsible for identifying for us previous
financial audits,attestation engagements,performance audits or other studies related to the objectives
discussed in the Audit Objectives section of this letter.This responsibility includes relaying to us
corrective actions taken to address significant findings and recommendations resulting from those
audits,attestation engagements,performance audits,or other studies.You are also responsible for
providing management's views on current findings,conclusions,and recommendations,as well as
your planned corrective actions,for the report,and for the timing and format for providing that
information.
Audit Procedures -General:
An audit includes examining,on a test basis,evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the
financial statements;therefore,our audit will involve judgment about the number oftransactions to be
examined and the areas to be tested.We will plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable rather
than absolute assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement,
whether from (1)errors,(2)fraudulent financial reporting,(3)misappropriation of assets,or (4)
violations of laws or governmental regulations that are attributable to the District or to acts by
management or employees acting on behalf of the District.Because the determination of abuse is
subjective,Government Auditing Standards do not expect auditors to provide reasonable assurance of
detecting abuse.
Mr.Joseph R.Beachem
Otay Water District
February 5,2010
Page 4
Because an audit is designed to provide reasonable,but not absolute,assurance and because we will
not perform a detailed examination of all transactions,there is a risk that material misstatements may
exist and not be detected by us.In addition,an audit is not designed to detect immaterial
misstatements,or violations oflaws or governmental regulations that do not have a direct and material
effect on the financial statements.However,we will inform you of any material errors and any
fraudulent financial reporting or misappropriation of assets that come to our attention.We will also
infonn you of any violations of laws or governmental regulations that come to our attention,unless
clearly inconsequential.Our responsibility as auditors is limited to the period covered by our audit and
does not extend to later periods for which we are not engaged as auditors.
Our procedures will include tests ofdocumentary evidence supporting the transactions recorded in the
accounts,and may include tests of physical existence of inventories,and direct confirmation of
receivables and certain other assets and liabilities by correspondence with selected individuals,funding
sources,creditors,and financial institutions.We will request written representations from your
attorneys as part of the engagement,and they may bill you for responding to this inquiry.At the
conclusion of our audit,we will require certain written representations from you about the financial
statements and related matters.
Audit Procedures -Internal Control:
Our audit will include obtaining an understanding ofthe entity and its environment,including internal
control,sufficient to assess the risks ofmaterial misstatement of the financial statements and to design
the nature,timing,and extent of further audit procedures.Tests ofcontrols may be performed to test
the effectiveness of certain controls that we consider relevant to preventing and detecting errors and
fraud that are material to the financial statements and to preventing and detecting misstatements
resulting from illegal acts and other noncompliance matters that have a direct and material effect on the
financial statements.Our tests,ifperformed,will be less in scope than would be necessary to render
an opinion on internal control and,accordingly,no opinion will be expressed in our report on internal
control issued pursuant to Government Auditing Standards.
An audit is not designed to provide assurance on internal control or to identify significant deficiencies.
However during the audit, we will communicate to management and those charged with governance
internal control related matters that are required to be communicated under AICPA professional
standards and Government Auditing Standards.
Mr.Joseph R.Beachem
Otay Water District
Audit Procedures -Compliance:
February 5,2010
PageS
As part of obtaining reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free ofmaterial
misstatement,we will perform tests of the Otay Water District's compliance with the provisions of
applicable laws,regulations,contracts,agreements,and grants.However,the objective of our audit
will not be to provide an opinion on overall compliance and we will not express such an opinion in our
report on compliance issued pursuant to Government Auditing Standards.
Audit Administration,Fees and Other:
We understand that your employees will prepare all cash or other confirmations we request and will
locate any documents selected byus for testing.
We will provide copies ofour reports to the appropriate governmental agency;however management is
responsible for distribution of the reports and the financial statements.Unless restricted by law or
regulation,or containing privileged and confidential information,copies ofour reports are to be made
available for public inspection.
The audit documentation for this engagement is the property ofDiehl,Evans and Company,LLP and
constitutes confidential information.However,pursuant to authority given by law or regulation,we
may be requested to make certain audit documentation available to grantor agencies or its designee,a
federal agency providing direct or indirect funding,or the U.S.Government Accountability Office for
purposes of a quality review of the audit,to resolve audit fmdings,or to carryout oversight
responsibilities.We will notify you of any such request.If requested,access to such audit
documentation will be provided under the supervision of Diehl,Evans and Company,LLP personnel.
Furthermore,upon request,we may provide copies of selected audit documentation to the
aforementioned parties.These parties may intend,or decide,to distribute the copies or information
contained therein to others,including other governmental agencies.
The audit documentation will be retained for a minimum of five years after the report release date or
for any additional period requested by the regulator.Ifwe are aware that a federal awarding agency or
auditee is contesting an audit finding,we will contact the party(ies)contesting the audit finding for
guidance prior to destroying the audit documentation.
We expect to begin our audit on approximately April 19,2010 and to issue our reports no later than
October 15,2010.Harvey Schroeder is the engagement partner and is responsible for supervising the
engagement and signing the report or authorizing another individual to sign it.Our maximum fee for
these services for the year ending June 30,2010 will be $33,000.Our invoices for these fees will be
rendered as work progresses and are payable upon presentation.The maximum annual fee stipulated
herein contemplates anticipated cooperation from your personnel and the assumption that unexpected
circumstances will not be encountered during the audit.Ifsignificant additional time is necessary,we
will discuss it with you and arrive at a new fee estimate before we incur the additional costs.
Mr.Joseph R.Beachem
Otay Water District
February 5,2010
Page 6
Government Auditing Standards require that we provide you with a copy ofour most recent external
peer review report and any letter of comment,and any subsequent peer review reports and letters of
comment received during the period ofthe contract.Our 2009 peer review accompanies this letter.
****
We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to the Otay Water District and believe this letter
accurately summarizes the significant terms ofour engagement.Ifyou have any questions,please let
us know.If you agree with the terms of our engagement as described in this letter,please sign the
enclosed copy and return it to us.
Very truly yours,
DIEHL,EVANS &COMPANY,LLP
BYJ4;.,.~~
Harvey 1.Schroeder CPA
Engagement Partner
RESPONSE:
This letter correctly sets forth the understanding
ofthe Otay Water District.
By _
Title _
Date _
II'
tI
I
I
To the QWrier'$of
DIehl)Evatis&Company"l..:t.P
ahCl the PeerReviewCommitt'ee oHhirGASoeiet¥ctf CPAs
We:JliM~revieWed tne',system ofqualltt06nfrolfoMheaceOl1ntli1gand aUditing pfacli¢EUJfDiehl,
Evans 8LCdinpany;LLP (the firm)ihJlffeCt f6(the:yearehdedsep!embef3'OI200a<Otir~er;..
reviewWas<oohducted in accQrdance'Wilh the Stafldards'fof pe,rfoffllinQ;andReportfng6f1·peer
ReViaWa.,i!jstabllslied by-thecPe$fReview Board of the ~rtierlcahliil$lilut$,6f:Q$rtjfiedPtiblic
Accountants.Tt!e,fjtm is:tespohsible fbtde5i[ning asysterri oUjuality,tiOrilrol ahdcomplyin,gwilh
Itto'proWdethafitm-WltM tea$bhable 8ssu.rance i;)f~ifQjmti1g[ahQ repdrtirig;ih1lohfoit11ilyWilh
appli¢al)l~prOfessional;stiindlmm[n·iiIllmatenai tesp.&dtS.Our responsibility is;fu.expressal1
~~imbh-pntt\e dgslgn Of the sYstem tit,quaIity-cohtrol atlttthe:lltnl'S compliancelherEiWilhba$ed
bti out [\:ijtiew.The oa!i)j'$,.obj'ecltv£!s,sc6pe,firnl1alioh$:..qf,-anti the prCiclildur~.$'petf¢rrtiEfdiP a
systeM RENJew atedesC(:ibed iiilHe;.sililtidatdS:<ilwww:aiC.pa.oiWpr$ommary..
A$crequrted bYthEM~taridatd$.ien
4ri.Qiar'lt1'e 'GOitatbf;iietit Ai:kfJtirlg"
··ehl$'.seleCledf<li're9IeWfncluoed.erigaSem'Eii'lfS.,peifdrmelj
'$atrp aU.dll$:'bfernplqye~Qeffl;jflrplans'.
In !i,at oPfnlc\n,the S\i$tem ofqualltY,CQrit/'olfoJ t~2lC,collhtihgahPauditing;PtaCliceofOiehlawns8..Company,LLP in'effectJorthe yearendecf;Septernber30,zooa,.h'el$been sUitably?
qesigneqand cornpliedWlth to fji'oVidetha firhiWil11 r~asonableassUJ:anC'e Of petforti)intfand
repoltiflg in;ednfCii'rnilVwithpJic'ab.le;profeSSiOhiU standards jnaJlniatetlatrespects~Firm$,ooh
re:deive'.aralif@ ofp;1;'With~tf¢j@Y(ifi$)'otfaJI.Diehl,Evans':&'GQrnpahy,LLP H$;recai'led,apa1:tr'reVi\'!W mtlh$'Of:pass......
AGENDA ITEM 6d
TYPE Regular Board
MEETING:
SUBMITTED BY:Mark Watton,
General Manager
5TAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE:
W,O.lG.F.NO:
March 3,2010
DIV.NO.
All
APPROVED BY:
(Chief)
APPROVED BY:
(Asst.GM):
SUBJECT:REJECTION OF TRANS PaC SOLUTIONS CLAIM
GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION:
That the Board reject the claim submitted February 10,2010,by
TransPaC Solutions,a subrogation and/or reimbursement agent on
behalf of Century National Insurance Company,for $43,802.05.Century
National Insurance Company,paid the claim related to damages to a
residence owned by Steven R.and Margo M.Bule,which they claim was
caused by the District when the water was turned on at the Bule
residence on October 8,2009.
COMMITTEE ACTION:
Please see Attachment "A".
PURPOSE:
To recommend to the Board to reject a claim by TransPaC Solutions on
behalf of Century National Insurance Company.
ANALYSIS:
The claim by TransPaC Solutions is based on a claim paid by Century
National Insurance Company for damages to a residence owned by
Steven R.and Margo M.Bule,at 1345 Hidden Springs Place,Chula
Vista,CA 91915.
The meter at the residence was locked due to non-payment by the
tenants on September 16,2009.On October 5,2009,Mr.Bule,the
owner,called to let the District know the tenants had left and asked
that the District change the account into his name and turn the water
on:The District received documents confirming Mr.Bule was the owner
on October 8,2009,and a service order to have the meter unlocked
was completed.
District records indicate tenants may still have been in the
residence as of September 24,2009,when Ms.Bule called Customer
Service and stated she had talked to the tenants and also stated she
will pay today.
The Field Representative followed standard District practice when she
went out to unlock the meter.The Field Representative gradually
opened the valve at the meter box to make sure the water filled
toilets,water heater and other applicances,and to make sure there
were not any open faucets running in the house.While the Field
Representative continued to open the valve,she noticed water coming
from the second floor of the home.The water was shut off
immediately.The water was coming from the second floor where the
wall meets the roof above the garage.The water was running no more
than five (5)minutes from the point the Field Representative began
to open the valve to the point she turned it off when she saw the
water coming from the second floor.District records indicate the
Field Representative was at this residence to handle the service
order to unlock the meter for approximately 24 minutes.We are not
aware how the damages could have been caused by the water that might
have leaked during the time the Field Representative was turning on
the water.
A neighbor witnessed the incident and gave our Field Representative
an updated phone number for the owner.A Customer Service
Representative called the owner the same day and left a message about
the leak and that the water was turned off at the valve in the meter
in front of the house.
A door hanger was also left at the door for the homeowner indicating:
"Water was turned on,however,water was running in the house,so our
field representative shut off the valve at...Front of house",and that
the customer should "turn the handle slowly to restore the water."A
copy of the door hanger left by the District's Field Representative
was submitted with the claim documents received by the District.
The District turned on the water at the residence at the request of
the owner and is not responsible for water left on in the residence
by the owner or tenants.The District,at the time a service order
is made,advises the owner of a timeframe of when the water will be
turned on and advises to make sure faucets and other appliances
supplied with water are closed.Moreover,the District's Field
Representative took reasonable steps to turn off the water and notify
the owner upon noticing the water leak.
Based on the above,Karen Lafferty,Senior Claims Examiner for the
Special District Risk Management Authority,the District's insurance
carrier,has recommended the Board reject the claim by TransPaC
Solutions on behalf of Century National Insurance Company.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None at this time.
STRATEGIC GOAL:
This item supports the District's strategy of:
"Ensure Full Cost Recovery."
LEGAL IMPACT
None.
Attachments:Attachment "A"-Committee Action Report
Attachment "B"-Claim Against Otay Water District
ATTACHMENT A
SUBJECT/PROJECT:REJECTION OF TRANSPaC SOLUTIONS CLAIM
COMMITTEE ACTION:
This item was presented to the Finance,Administration and
Communications Committee on February 19,2010 and the committee
supported staffs'recommendation and presentation to the full
board on the consent calendar.
FEB/l0/2010/WED 10:04 AM
February 10,2010
~Trans PaC Solutions
""--/
P.O.Box 36220
Louisvltle,KY 40233-6220
FAX:(BOO)723-4869
FAX COVER SHEET
P,001/031
ATTACHMENT B
FROM:Wanda Dalhart
TO:SUSAN CRUISE
COMPANY:OTAYWATER DISTRICT
FAX:619-660-7260
PHONE:(800)613-5064
TPCS FAX:(800)723-4869
YOUR CLAIM #:GC4047
INSURED:STEVEN R &MARGO M BULE:'
EVENT NUMBER:TPCS 935141-1394649
INSURANCE CO:CENTURY NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY
DATE SENT:February 10,2010
TOTAL NUMBER OF PAGES:
COMMENTS:We have mailed this information regular mail along with the color
photos in reference to the above captioned claim as well.
NOTICE OF CONFIDENTlALI7Y
'l7lis commll7ticat/on /s di,'Beted solely to tile Addres.sell.and m~conlain crmjide:ntialor legally prlvllegIJdPersonalHealtll I/'Ifol'matioll protectedbyfederal and :rIa/II.law.
Ifyou arB nottheAddressee indicated above:
1.DONOTread tllejollllWiltgpp.ges.
2.JJO NOTretain,copy,distribute:,ordissemulille thejol/()wlllgpages.
3.Callthe SenderIMMEDIATELf(collectij'uf!.cf!3sary)and I"eturn the original alld allcopIes to the above Sender at 1'ramiPaC Solutiolls,9390 Bltnsen Parkwl1,
LOl./isville,KY 40220.The:Se.nderwill rBimbltfSe allpostflgepald to return tllIl/.docl./ments.
NEITHER 'UIIUlJ,d~Ml.~(ON OF TffE AndCRE!)PAGES,NOR.4NY eRROR TN rBdWMTSSTONOR MIS1>ftIVBRYSHALL CONSTITUTEA WAn'ER
OF ANYdepaCAlILELEGAL PRIVILEGE.
935141-1394649fFAXCOV
FEB/l0/2010/WED 10:04 AM
Trans P;c Solutions
""'---'"P.O.Box 36220 .
LouIsville,KY 40233·6220
FAX:(800)723-4869
February 5,2010
DISTRICT SECRETARY
OTAY WATER DISTRICT
2554 SWEE1WATER SPRINGS BLVD
SPRING VALLEY CA 91977-7299
RE:Your Insured:
Your File Number:
OUf I"nsured:STEVEN R &MARGO M BULE
Insurance Company;CENTURY NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY
Date of Incident:1018/2009
Event Number.TPCS -935141 -1394649
Amount Paid:$43802.05
p,002/031
i
I.~.
j"[j:
~;:
fi
t'~.
II
Dear DiSTRICT SECRETARY,
TransF'aC Solutions is the recovery agent for CENTURY NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY.Enclosed is
supporting documentation for their insured's claim.The amount paid includes the insured's deductible of $400.00.
Please forward your chack payable to TransPaC Solutions to the address at the top of this letter.Be sure to
include the TransPaC Solution's event number and the insured's name on your check.
Please contact me ifyou have any questions:or need further information to evaluate thj~Glaim,
Sincerely,
Wanda Dalhart
(800)613--5064
935141 -1~JiI4649fT3PINS1
FEB/I0/2010/WED 10:05 AM P.003/031
From;
TransPaC Solutions
~.O.Box 36220
Louisville,Kentucky 4Q233-6220
TaxpayerID :61·1141758
Contact Information:
Examine":Wanda Dalhart
Phone:(800)613·5064
Fax:(800)723-4869
Email;WandaDalhart@transpacsolutions.com
.tilly File # ;TPC5-935141·1394649
REQUEST FOR PAYMENT
CASE STATEMENT FOR DWE:LLlNG
Date of Loss:1018/2009
Statementsent to:DISTRICT SECRETARY
OTAY WATER DISTRICT
Your Claim # :H0771913-H077191301·03WA Instructions:
Insured :STEVEN R &MARGO M BULE ..PleasG include TPCS·935141~1394649on all
Policy #;HC12233141 payments and cQrrespondence to expedite
Claimant :STEVEN R &MARGO M BULE processing.
ATIENTION:
AMOUNT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE,PLEASE CONTAct TRANSPAC SOLUTIONS PRIOR TO SETrLEMENT.
Payment SelVlce Dates ICheck NumberDateStart:Date I End Date Payee Paym~nt
T INDEIVlNITY PAYMENTSIype:
1012612009 STEVEN R &MARGO MaULE 00181615 $27721.47
11/17/2009 STEVEN R &MARGO M BUlE.00182494 $9113.97
0112612010 STEVEN R &MARGO M BUI.E (.10185067 $3592.47
Total Claims Paid for INDEMNITY PAYMENTS
$40427.91
Total Claims Paid
Recovered to Date
Deductible
Outstanding Amount
$40,427.91
($O.OO)
$400.00
$40,827.91
FootNote:
Ifan insuredts deductible or out~of-pocketex.penses are listed,we are requesting payment as a
courtesy to our client"s insured.
Client-$Claim #:H0771913-H077191301.03WA
FEB/l0/2010/WED 10:05 AM
From:
TransPaC Solutions
P.O.Box 36220
Louisville,Kentuoky 40233-6220
taxpayer ID :61-1141758
Contact Information:
Examiner:Wanda Dalhart
Phone:(800)613-5064
Fax:(800)7234869
Email:WandaDalhart@transpacsQlulions.com
.My File #:TPCS-935141·1394649
P.004/031
REQUEST FOR PAYMENT
CASE STATEMENT FOR ADDITIONAL LIVING EXPENSE
Date of Loss:1018/2009
StatQrnent sent to :DISTRICT SeCRETARY
OrAY WATER DiSTRICT
Your Claim # :H0771913-H077191301.03WD lnstructions~
Insured :STEVEN R &MARGO M SoULE •Please include TPC8-935141-1405221 on all
Policy #:HC12Z33141 payments and correspondence to expedite
Claimant :STEV=N R &MARGO M BULE processing.,
ATIENTJON:
AMOUN11S SUBJECT TO CHANGE,PLEASE CONTACT TRANSPAC SOLUTIONS PRIOR TO SETTLl:MENT_
Payment Service Dates
Check Number IPaymentDateStartDateIEndDatePayee
STEVEN R&MARGQ MaULE
STEVEN R &MARGO M BUlE.
Total Claims Paid for INDEMNITY PAYMENTS
00182266
00185068
Total Claims Paid
Recovered to Date
Outstanding Amount
$2779.61
$194.53
$2974.14
$2,974.14
($0.00)
$2,974.14
FootNote:
Ifan insured's deductible or out-of-pocket expenses are listed,we are requesting payment as a
courtesy to our elient's insured.
Client's Claim #:H0771913-H077191301-03WD
FEB/l0/2010/WED 10:06 AM
FEB-03-2010 WED 02:50 PH OWD Adllin SVC&
"
FA](NO.6196601240
P.005/031
p,03
CLAIM AGAINSt
O'l'AYWAl.'ERDISTRlCf
1.Qa""IN>m~'~~~~M/=~~2.QaimQDf(s)Aildre5s(cS;>i =;ij==:;a;;tfukltl 0sIR Cp 'Ifif/.
3.'I'elepbOMNnm'bcrlt);~jLl/.
4.Addt=11S fur Notines (if d.i.fmtont ftom Wove):J..J
S.Ind.dmrt Or OCl::um:nce whiohgives rise 10 claim:(}(l-/c IJ~£)ipk
u.)D$:~Time:'
b)La~atiou;jj;.j5'~~Ptzv t!wte-'/i;r.fr:tM qr.il,(-
I:)Num::ofthe pc:rson(s)injured lIDd description ofperllOnal iqj~ry(jC!).IfN1Y~
'"
7.AmDunt eWmod,ifuudc:r $10.000.Be lIRl:'e Ul aU:ttcb invoi~Or ocher documentaliorJ ref*:tlng
the IlDUlUDt ofda~IIDIltor:lull,hlidudilJj ~bDli m-ntporiJl ift:lulmIng PtnoJlll1 tn~
juJ:Y IlUIitIim-lUlIBI.
,..'
t;~,-,I
rt
f~IiII·
IIl
I
,If'••".,
a)AmolDltcla.iriuld a!l ofdldll ofclaim:
h)Estimatedmnnuntat lin)'pmspec:ti:w:injmy,
damage Dr lo~
f._
FEB/IO/ZOIO/WED 10:06 AM
FEB-D3-201D WED 02:51 PH OUD Admin Svcs FAX RD.6196601240
P.006/031
P.04
d)Explain hew tileclaim milamVIliS t:Q1culat:d:
f\PWc See ,yA....~..,RAultn.t'.d
Hthe amQuot i&ma;etblm $10.000.p1euc iDcfiglllc:wbe1h=ryour cas.=would be iUl IlDlimit=d or
limited.civil ~!(11=Gmr~Cede Sc:ation 910(0):1 UnlimitedCiY'u (Claim tWCf $25.0(0).
_Lfmited Civil (Clllim.les&1hm$25.000)
8,Any ed4itional infamwioD !hal might bt hdpiUl in considering 1bis claiJ:n.ttthe cU'mv(llvell
medical ~p1=.P pnMdc Ihe ~.addrcu BDd tz:lephone nutnber ofany dodDl'S andlnr
hCli,Pitll1s prIJ\IidiDg ~Itd1.r:c:1aiw rcIatts to 1\JJ Ilutomnbile 'Jecid=t or iDe1detU.you may 'he
u)a:d topwvido intlJm:latimJ.canuming YClIIf vehicle lIIld driver'li ~
(qtuldltiontrll:Jllll!e Ii "tIIJdal'JD p'!'fl1ii4~JIDIlr """rm.rdiDn.plaue tdJadr DJliIiloMl $AMtI;~g
'tileJIfRWIlWIIJII(J)tD whIc1t ihiJ Il4dttituuIIlnjimwztilllt }¥I'tlIim)
WfIt1lln,:Pzal:n'lUi0ll Q!IIfaJeclaimis lLMOllY (PMCIx:Ic:Scclion 12).Pilllll&llt10 ccPS=cIions l~.Sand
lon,&lit t)\mriCllPllYeIikto -c=o~r all costs ordct'cna&in lhc I:'ItCIII:lIlllll:1ioo is filed w'hi~is IIlttr deti:tmined
'IIOlto~b=lb~htin llood faith au!wl1h ~1~ClMe.
-,
..--..................,
~
...0'::"....,._..-'-'---_._................._-_..~.._.
.......---....-.-.
"".'t.I.;.~.
-~.~........•.~u--_
Disnster Recovery Systems Inc.
10637 Roselle Street SlIite C
Sim.Diego,CA 92121
Clicul:
'Property:
Mrs.Bull.'
1345 TTidden Springs
CiUlla.Vista,CA 91945
H(.\lIW:(619)274-5275
Operator Illfn:
Operlltor:MlUiELLE
RsUmalor:Michelle Grt"(:nLield
Ru~ille.<1l1:I06.~7 ROllelle StreetSuite #C
SanD~o.CA 92121
Dusin~:ss:(888)989-2596
Type ofR'Itim:ue:
Dale.cnlcrcd:
WaterDanl3ge
10i20i2009
Price List:(;ASD5B_S~P09
Re.'1torntiOl1/Service'Remndel
Estimate:2009-10-20-1215
Emt'J'gmcy .serviL"es dry down dlle lo apRlssurized washing machino::he~Jleuded home.Equipmll11l \NiLS ~pp~al 3 day!!.
Distlstcr R~ovcry S,'stcms Inc.
106:l7 Roselle StreetSuite C
Slin Diel'o,CA 92121
~1l9--10-20-t21!i
2009-10-20-1115
DESCRIPTION
1.Emc!SC'Jlcy sC'lvicc call -after busiuess houIS Rpm-Did walk
IhrOUlPJ.and ~x.plllinc:d whaL n«doo to 00 donl:.Sfu:wanLeu Lc wail Lill
the morning wltil slleC0111d contact1nsucnnce.
2.Rentn1ed thefollowing momingfor wa.lk drrougl1lLnd allthm;7anoll
form in~urlU"lce company.Pl1oto dncW\1ent hefore any demo Rtarted.
3.(',on£611t \.flll1iplllarion charge -perhour
4.Watcc extraction from floor
5.TeN outwet drywall,clC.a1U1p,bag foc disposal iududing ceiling
6.'fenrnut and hag welin~lllation
7.T~ar oul non-,salv WOl'd Dr &bag -at~hr6,wood Door was pulled
III'after hOlll'R
R.Remove C.emmic tile -Smndardgr:tde-'file 1l1'.~rair.~had a vinyl
flooring under it
9.Ttlii'oul non-~i1IV".>"oilblt"vinyl,cui &bag for di~olllll
10.BMcbollJd -Dctllch
1L.AirJUO''er (per 24 heuI period)-No lllowtoIiug 17 fOI3 days
12.Dehumidifier (per24hour period)-No monimrinz 7 tOr 3 da}'1\
13.Electrician had it'bo calk'd 10 lIafo oll'lIIlY 1'.'\:1el\:clricallhal WHlIll
hll7nrd hefore SlX,&figot there.FAXF.D ropyOFHIT.r.WITH
OUR..J::STlMAlli
14.C:ontainment'Ranierl\etup to a.c;.'li~t ill dtying down tile
15.TIquipmen&setup.&alee down,and monitoring (hourly charge)
16.Apply anti-miaobialagent
11.Water P."trac:tion &Remediation Tecl1nician -n.fter hOlll'll
18.T~aI ouL loe kick.lIIld ba¥Ibr dillpos~l
19.uml:ralclean -up,J'uJl Nail.!>,c1t"lW.uUlll,mup llooni,hl:pa vac lu
clean,gc:naal cletll1 up
20..HalU Ucbri!l -per pit:kup Lruc.k lUHd-including dump H:ell
21.Rye protection -pla:dic goggle.'!-Di~rmnhle
Adjumnent5 for Billie SeniceCharges
Cleaning Remediation Teclmici13.ll
TolHI AdjUllbni.'llllllbrBHDC Sc.....icu Cbl:l1'gcs:
LlllCItemTotals:2009-10-20-1215
2009-10-20-1215
Q~TY
1.00 EA(;.r)
1.00 fi:\@
1.50 Im@
160.0U SF@
325.0U S.F@
70.00 SF@
600.00 SP@
45.00 SF@
45.00 SP@
197.0U L.F@
51.00 EA@
21.00 fi:\@
1.00 H,'\@
flO.OO SF@
8.00Int@
1,500.00 SF@
5.00 HR@
32.00 LP@
12.0umt@
3.00 HA@
10.00 F.A:~
UNITCOST
243.68-
45.07=
o.s~
0.lC3-
O.oll-
4.23 =
1.37=
1.12=
1.03-
27.18
07.50=
292.50 =
0.71 =
58.04=
0.26-
R7.15-
2.66=
37.ol =
123.03 =
5.14-
1115/2009
TOTAL
243.68
0.00
67.61
92.tlO
269.75
4ll.20
2,538.00 ~.61.65
50.40 ~
202.91 !1,386.18
1,417.50
292.50
:ill.flO
464.32
390.00
4]5.75
85.12
444.12
369.09
57.40
AdjulIbnent
lln.OR
116.U~
9,087.86
Page:2
Dlsl1stcr Rceovery S)'stcms inc..
10637 Roselle Stre.et SuiteC
SilllDi~go,C1\92121
Grand Tow)Areas:
0.00 SF Walls 0.00 SF Ceiling
0.00 SF Floor 0.00 SYFlooring
0.00 SF LongWall n.on SF ShonWoIl
0.00 Floor Area 0.00 Toml Area
0.00 ElI.lmor Wall Area 0.00 Exll:J'iurp~riIru:.t~.r of
Wi1Il~
0.00 Surface A.rc.a.0.00 Number ofSquares
0.00 TOlal Riugl:Lellglb O.UO 'I'olllillipLmglh
20U9-10-20-1215
0.00 SF Walls nnd Ceiling
0.00 LF FloorPerimeter
0.00 T.F Ceil:Perime[er
cwo Tnterior Wall Area
0.00 Total PcrilllctCI length
11/5/2009 Page:3
Disllster Rt..'Covery Systems Inc.
10637 Roselle Street Suite C
San Diego,CA 92121
Line itemTotal
Totlll A4ill~tmel1Dl t;0rHlli\e ServiceCharge~
Materilll Sa.le~Tax @ 8.750%x
lhplacementCoat Value
NetClaim
Sunlmary
29!l.42
H,971.711
I I(iOR
26.11
S9,1l3.97
$9,113.97
Micllellc (;/reetdicld
2009·10-20·1215 11/5/2009 Page:4
Cl'uhrry-NiltiuaalJDSBrl1B.r'~CamplIIlY
12200 SylvmSmt
NdHollywood,CaJifilmia 91606
P.IIoR:(118)760-1930 I Fax:(818}160-.fi54
Steve!&:MargoBute
1345 Hid&1m~RDad
C1Ua Vtlita,CA9U'I)
I«JI.ilND()BA1J1'tSTA
12.."00SYLVAN STREET
NORTIlIIOILYWOOD.CA 01605
lIome:(619)274-5275
:Bur.ines:(alii:)1I'iO-19BOx2553
:Bmine:!&:(800)7J:J..19alh:14-12
.Policy;:\iIllllW.I':HCl22l3141
Dak:Ccablctrd:
DatufLosa:
Datc:lbtpct:kd;
Ull!i'flOO9
IOlP12OO9
1$.f13~
Da1C Rcccid l~'9IlD09
Dale&tt::R:d:llWl200911:tl AM
Price list CASDSB3)CT09
RatwatiooiMnlcelRrmlJlkli
E.mate:200Y-IC4l9-Ult
Thisldla'will~1!l"1e toprow.yOlIwi:ih the slalm'at''fJJ'j RpClIL As }'OIlale1M'lIR'.I am1Iie~.fie!dadjlJll1erf:ilr
CmIiuIyNatiunal Ios1l1311l~CoqmJ,yassigllCd11)IIrclaim }'Ull1ilWml:Urdror dmui~to)IUUI"]JI1Jperty.1have filnV311Wmy
Iepart aodestimilll!to lbel1ameoflU:e fo.r l1IeIt ~atldCOIWdeta!io1L
F.IlcIoRd isa co:P.foflbe ntimate.Should)lOllhaw:3Il}Iquestions.r~liItZ!he $tim2te01'mypalticipatiOllindiecbims~djmtlttellt~.pIr~00 Melair.atc:mC".oatiICCQo:.'P.rc-"Ill."~rCl:\IiadtGtbat anyd«illi01l ngatding:l"CmDF of)1ClI'"
dIim,OJtheapp1iaIiae ofktmI1s mili:1lIIditi.om ofyour msumm:epolli:y,wittbemadebyfueiolmJa1 <JeaImy-Na!iomd
ID!ltnIJl:e adjustt'C a&ip!d10 your loss.
We accaIiUlllllLy use()Q01l1Il.'toIs 10assistus inft'.a1uuiDg the CO!'iI;md/o(exIaJt of~~ID mum)lUUl"pt:opertylO:ds
JIl'e-1osIS c:oodilion.Yo.lireDDt nllJigcd f.'IZBt'1tJfl8~I:ootractllm.YdIIm ~fnrthr.~ofthetll'IIIrndarwho
w:irr bI!upairing]IOlJrproperty.Crntmy-NaliomlInsurmce C'.(1~mabsm IrJII"e5eut.atiOIl!H){Wlllt3Dlies.fur~work of
any :r:qMir conIract&lr.dndba:.weSIRn1g;1y RnIInmrmd.!has you.cIw.k the baclI;groundaod licmsingsfllW&aftbeamtadorlba1'''''selld*'R!J]Kyour ptl.1ltIty.
moo Sylnn SlReI
NIX&Ia &Dywooct Calilbmia 91606
PboJle:(IUI)7t1l)..103O/Pax:(818)16o.lSS4
:&1MI11-JO-QP-llll
~WiBS'4"liS'1"1l·II'
21.)6 SFQiting
17..:56 SFFloor
11.58 u:FIooI PairDeIt'.I"
41.U SFSllDJtWalL
1..I:W1IB3'5"]1 l'3"Il·&'
4.21 SFCciliDg
4.11 SFfluq
3.25 I.:FF100IPerimer.«
10.00 SFSAoItWall
GOIS to FIooriComl
(;of,·to:nan
llCV DEPREe,ACV
47.'10 (0.00)41.70
174.14 (0.00)17U4
15.113 (0.11)15.66
2U5 (0.00)IUS
114.05 (1511)112.46
410.«2 (O.3it)40.03
81.62 (3.6~71.93
1'J.ll..14 (2.18)121.96
2JB6 (3..9S)215.4·.
31.19 (0.99)30..2i)
53.53 (0.'1,7)53.06
20.41 (0.12)20.29
28.90 (O.}4)·lK..5ft;
21.M (0.20)10.34-
21.49 (a.DO)2149'
100"'2009 page:2.
0.38
O.\lO
2.Z3
1.J6
O.ff1
127
11.49
l.'NITCOST
0peJu iatoI..lIadrylt41t111
o,.,intoE~
29515 SF WaJIa
33.'113 SfWalb.&Cciliug
9.47 SYFloariDg
27.330 SfI..ongWan
5.92 LF Ce:i1.PeJ:imeter
140.67 SFWalls
18.23 SFWallsAt cei1iIJg
3.06 SY J"IoadDg
42.67 SfiLoDgWall
11...5!LFcw.Pe:iml::ler
i.llU
l.00EA
20.IJU
2l.SOU
41.67'SP
170.23'SF
JUlJSF
QUA.1IfTITY
8.....1:EntJ'rO"t
3'5'"xzrO"
1'11"'X6.."
,.....'n""l..~...c ,..."",,16,'1:~~~5~'7:~:;;;~'
."...."'"
".1tf"j"t-'4r.
t.:r~·...·i·..,l.·':'It·101l·:·~
'-'tL)v(;:~'''':...~~..;ii....:.Io,I<J ---..',,,.
D:r.st"KlP'fION
3liuia.Wall:1-
MiamI'Wa.R~I ..
I.SbeJving-\Wife (virqI 003'tM)-
DeIzlr~sesd
J.Drymallrep1lteeaalp«LF-lIP
to :i'tlli
3.SraLlprim.emctR:tlm..1br.600r
~et -<JW:coal
4.Ilrfa4c md.Jla!P.:...filJ:iWnt-pI.u1ic,
JIlIIlG.•(perU)
5.Paint!be walls -1Wocoa1s
6.Underla.ymmt -IW
luaDfmillloE;myplywood
1.Vinyl DoorCOlr'ering,..hclet grooJs)-36.60Sf
Staadardgr.ade
15 %wa\teacldelI fJIr Vinylnom-wveriog(sIulellloocls.)-Sf:wd:u:dpde.
8.Mmtarbedfortile:lloo1s 3 1.13'SF '3.90
9.Tilr:&orwvcring JIJUSF 752
10.Grout $caIer 3U3'SP 0.98
11.Baseboard -2 U'"20.8]LF 251
12.PaiDtbll!eboR·1Wo com 20.I3U 0.98
13.Casmg-2lW 17.00Lf 1.70
14.P2iutdaarOJ'wiDdowopeWag-2 UlOEA 21.04
coalS(pr:nide}
15.Intaiardoor -Det:ld1 dl met-
sIalulllly
C.uhrry-N::ItiuRaJ1ll'SUTIiID.ce Camp:my
moo Sylvan Sired
NtrilHo:ltywoott 0iJif0mia 91~
Pboae:(llS)760-1930IFax:(818)100-·1554
DES'C'JU1"T~Qt;AoS'ItTY t'!m'COST RCV DUREe.AC\"
115.Pamldoor sElib omy-1COIl(pcr l.OOEA U.sI 13.58 (0.2:1)13.37
cidI!}
17.Doorlodrsd-Dend1&.mid l.ooM IU?11.87 (0.00)lR..87
Tuft":LnabyR_1.CNlT.42 lUG t,ob.ll
13WsH"."It 4"n"Iii'
36.06SFCeWag
36.06 SfFJoor
11.2S LFfloorP~
39.33 SFShmtWa.ll
GCIR~1011001'
LsW=-Hf'll",J'7".J'
12.10 SFCeiliDg
12.10 SFFloof
10.0S LF FloorPerimeter
5.11 SF ShartWalL
C',.ol!$to}'Iol)rJC:..1Ib1;
ReV DEPue..lI.CV
21.28 (0.00)2a28
21.56 (0.00)21Ul'I
14.W (O.OlJ)14..6\1
211.30 (0.00)1JUG
41.30 (O.OCl)4130
82Jl6 (0.00)&2..96
1.62 (0.00)1.62-
100..,.2009 PQC:3
Opelllinto»afhTOOlIII
Opcus Urtu E:dftiw
20.17 SFW;lIs
J2.81 Sf 'WiIJIJ4lI:Ceiling
1.4J SYFIcor:iD&
9.:830 SFLon!WaD
10..0!11'Cell.~
170.61 SFW••
206.61 SF Walls &:CciIiug
4.01 SYFIaoring
58.67 SFLongW1dl
19.58 LP Ceil..:Per:iulerer
1-2'4"'Xn"
",a··i"l,
).1 ,i·....l:·,..i·~.,.ii!·:·tA~r··Jt~·::~...~...,dI:---
,,#:...~,."';"'lI-
'D ~~.i!.....r~:
DESCIUPYIO)l'Qu_'''-:nn:t"'XrrCOSl"
18.Windowb1iud-horimatal or I.OOEA.211.28
llatica1-DetlIch11:Ret.
19.WiDdowdr.apery·.bRlWlDe-UJOEA 2t.S6
Detach It:Je>'l'f
JIl.T'lilel:paperho1der-Detacb It l.OOEA )4.~
IaICt
21.Towel bar-DttM:h &:re!iltt 2.00EA 14.15
22.Lightfixlurl'-DdawcI reset lOOM 4130
23.MimJf-pl:ueg1D1-Debc:ha:16.J3SF 5.08
reset
24.lbtt.lasubtiDn-....-R.13 '2.15SF -O.5g
:WOO.lO·0!).l1It
CI'lIhIry-NlIItiuaal JD.'iiUT:.lIlC'i!Compaay
l2200 Sylvan SIRd
NOOIa Hotl~CUtbmia 91606
Phone:(SIS)7dO-l93aIFax:(818}760-15S4
DESCRlPT~O't'"'!'fItlY ~COST KCV DEPREe.Ac\·
25.D.tywa1l replaI:rmmtper LF-up o.151.F IJ6 5M3 (0.0")5MJ
~2.·'I;U
26.DrywalltDstallrr/Finimer··per I.CIOHll 76.53 76.53 (0.00)7ri.53
1Imrl.additional allcwall&e l'D.r
drywallimidrabmel'"n.SpDtseal"13ime I.00EA 17.68 11.ft!(0.12)17.56
'-8.MaHk:mdfllepbpaiJli-p1:u1.ir...·:!'O.61IF O.9Cl :li6'1tl (0.00).¥J1~
J13IlU.Dpe(perLP)
29.PlliartheVfI1l't -twoCOIIB 190.78SF O.€1 127.&2 (1.78)126.04
311.URWa14lllPerllo:v4er 29,411.F 2.00 86.04 (5.00)8O.9S
31.1nmboIInI -t u ][4'-iIKtal/ed ....StLP 3.21 14.10 (0.11)14.5l
(pine).todGck.Iqui~
32.Re-skill toekick HSLF lQ.61 41.59 (2.64)45."5
33.SciI&paintr.lIbirJmy-:towcr-6.33LF 14.34 9rt.TI (0.91)89.80
ilIcl!IIOIIIy
34...B.a1lebo.ard-4 1/4"lO.5UF 3.5S'37.!Jfl (0.4.9)37.40
3:5.Paiotba5llbllml-ntto ooatto lO.S8LF 0.98 10.n (0.06)1031
36.Qsing-2 114"l'1.UOU'1.70 21UllJ (0.34)28.56
31.Pail:ddoarorwindDw~-2 2.00EA 2Uit 4.2..08 (0.31')41.69
coab(per side).doof adwiodov.....·
311..pJliut dIIorslab otlly-1coil:(per 1.00EA 13.58 13.58 (0.21)13.37
side)
39.Door1Adwl:t·DelD.tmet 1.00EA 18.81 IU7 (0.00)18.87
oW.OemfJDOI -tile )6.(l/JS1'0.48 17.3'1 (OJ)Q)11.31
TatlJs:8afllr&DIII.,..t.1I6 1::!...'If fl7.ae
BAC;KBDRlIl
220.32 SFWalk
329.:12 5FWalb.IlC~
11.11 SYFIoodDjJ
SO.<lO SF lolJS WaD
lC..50 LP'Ceil.:PerinleIrJ'
100.00 SFCe:itiDg
100.00 SFFloor
lO.SO I.FFIooIPa'imeIer
lID.OO SF ShortWall
:D:tsaIn,cWall:I .!'JI"x:3'HI"Opus.IntoExtpl'ioJl Gon f.ntrltherFloorlCdlng
CflDlury-Natiuaallusaraace Camp:my
]2200 :s.ylvm Stn:et
NlX1ll Hollywood.Catilbmia 91W6
1'IIoJr:(1S18)7M-19M/Fax:(81B}1oO-15S4
DESCRIPTION QUAlIi'Il'IY UNITCOS-T
41.\V1DI1ow blilld-hW2Irm:al 0[UIOEA 18.28
vatica1·.Dctxh&;m;et:
42.Closet~w IIrklamine Ill"5.83lF 63.58Wire-Ilet2£h&reset .
43.~a),a.er~..wlllCld 1l61;S;f 2.84
8ocIriIl8,rww:welmmdosett1oos'"
44.R.ImlMAddfbr!!lueddowa 11.6H.'F 2.29
applialian()\JCCwood·su'bslrall!.
mmove timndClll!t~
45,Battinmbllion-4"w lU3 20.00Sf 0.59 .
46.D!}'wall~perU·up l2SJU .s.J6~1'1aJl
47.ScaJfprimc.1fJesdcelDel-ClIIIC 65.66SF Q.J8
coat
48.Mask:aIJdprep forpaint-plaslil;48.67U'0.90
fIR...tape (perLF)
4P.Paiartllewalls-twl>coal$lS1.99'SF O.ti1
50.PaiuJdoororWindoI.V opeOOIg.2 LOOE/.\2l.G1
COII5(per side).aI'lIIiodaw"
51.lhUledlIymtiIt-l~n 120.22SF 127
Waalmabog;my plywood
52.E1lginme4 wood:fJooriIng 120.22:sF 10.38
53.Add torglueddowa:app1iclltim 120,22SP 0.93overwoodll'IIlmrd::
54.Basl!board-4 U4"46.17U 359
2009·11)·419·1'1 11
LJ;W:dI3'S"It'lI'''-:I S'
ltj/i SFCl!itiDg
8.:56 SFF.1ooc
S.JJ LFFIooIPerimet8:
18.lS1 SFShart Wall
e..u tilFlaen'CeU1ag
&Ia.Thor
L:.cWdlS'1G"xI"..·,.
11L61 SFCUIi.Qg
U.61 SFFJoor
Ul LFFIoot PeriIrJetcr
ItI.OO SFSlLlIItWall
Goes t.no.~Ceilbl::
KCV DEPREe.ACV
21.28 (O.DG)2828
m.67 (O.lJG)370.61
}3.14 (O.OO}Jl.14
26.71 (0.00)26.n
11.80 (0.00)11.ao
274.'14 (0.00)214.46
24Jl'5 (0.26)24.6.11
43.80 (O.OD)43.30
m.&:S 0·34)216.51
21.01 (O.2Q)20.34
152.1l8 (1.41)151.21
I,.141.1!(M.BS)l,lC2.00
11 1.80 (151)110.2!JI
ld5.75 (2.12}16J.QJ
lQf1412009 P.:.5
0,..5ilWlBAcre.BDRM:
O,ms.I.utoExwliH
Opclll'iatoB.-\CKRDIl.\[
SO.01 SF WaDs
5&:56 SF Wills.&:Ceiling
US SYFIoarine
2P.3~SFLoa!Wll1l
8.33 l:FCWO ~
7&.61 SF Walls
00..34 SfWalls .8l:CtiIiog
1.30 SYFIooImg
46.61 SF Long Wall
98l LFCeil.PcI.imdeJ
• •,3.'8'"X.S'O"
I.:'CinXn"
1-5'1."X I't"
:.......~..~..~~...
..."'"~•.",/",":Jr•..,f:'~··1.·~·rrt~·~......:".I~.·~I
;h:··),"'~.....;tr.lIJt.r'.
.1__
1
•
.~-1''-1i...,...~:~:..:!::;;j.
~~i'f"',,......1
.-;;.I,A..it-,..;".
-"""a"
!IIipillll WaUl
Cmhn'y-NlltWaIlJlosuraar:e Camp:my
122005ylvm Sired
NOf1k Hollywood.catilbmia 91/SD6
JIboDt!:(11&)741)..1910 IFa (818}16Q..1SS4
CON'11l.\iIIED -.BACKBDRM
DESCIlIPTIO~QVA~~cosr RCV DEPREe.Ae;,"
is.PaW!~.twoal3lB 4l).17I.F 0.91 4S.2S (0.28)4U7
56.CalIing·:2 1t4·17.00LF 1.70 28.90 (0.304)2856
57.PaitltdDor orwilldf.lw optDng -2 I.OOEA 21.04 21.00\(G.2/)10..84
com(jB_)dooro~
58...Interiordoll[·DeGdl&reset-LOOEA.21.4!l 21.49 (0.00)11.4go
slBbwly
59.PamtdoorstabODly..1coat{pt:r UIOEl\13.58 l:l53 (0.21)13.3'7
Wfe}
00.Doorrocbet -Ik'la:!l&telid 1.00EA.11.11 11.87 (0.00)lR.87
Tuum:BA.CKDDRM ~)M '7Ul :t,8M.U
247.31 SF Wills
341.31 SfWalb &Ceiling
11.11 SYFIootiog.
8O,ao SF LOII&WaD
306.02 LFCc.il.:PrJ:iDmcr
wl1\'Ul:1..'x 10"s ,.
100.00 SF CcWag
100.00 SFl'loor
J1.9!LFF1oGrPaimc:ta:
80.00 SFShortWan
!lIlniDrW:aB:1-3'IO"X;J'10"'
44.01 SF WIlILI
SO.94 SF Wall"&:Cr.tl~lg
0.77 SYF'WoriDI
:M.61 SfLon!Wall
7.58 I:.F Ceil.PerimelI:r
LxWJlB3'1."s~·J"xli'
6.94 SFCc:U.l
5.94 SFFlIlCll:
.5.0&LF FlDOlPedD1Cfer
18.00 SfSh«tWaU
!oIiDiIIJ'Wall;
MbslDl'Walt:
JOO9·10·~·lHt
I·3'1'·:.t"'0"
I •:z.',"X1f'1I"
Op"l1 iDtolflDDLE!IDRM
OpnliatoEsttrlor
Gon1.:n{j.nIC~ili:&ag:
Gws10Jloer
10lH12009
Ct'uhn'y-NlitillaallIl'iDTaaCe Camplll'ly
l2'200 Sylvm Sired
NIriI.Hon~CaJilbmia91606
Pboae:(SI1)7M-I9tO I Fax:(818)760.15$4
DES,t::R.lPTIO':4 QUA.:'I'TIlY t':'lIT COST
61.WiDdIlwbJUuS·horiziocltIl 0[l.ooM 28.28
mt.ical·Deta.:hIt.relet
42.0tRtOIg;miZl!f-Mt-Iamiue or 5.00U'63.:58
Wire...IJeRd14reld
63.BaIt iDBulatiuu -....-R.13 UUIOSF 0.59
64.Drywallrepl.lammtperLF-1lp 1O.OOLF B36
"''l.'taIl6S.Se;al/pJime tbc uftClCarea-0lIC :ro.OO'SP 0.38
coat
dt'l.Makam!prep torpaial:-p1atic.5'S.SOU'Q.PO
JIIlJlU.rapc:(pefI.:F)
67.Pliiolpmtofthr:walls-two cmts 216.19SF 0.61
6Il...PaintdocrllnuitHklwopaiag-2 UClEA 21.04
coalIi(pI!r side),wil:lcJDw·~·
4!t Paneling 30.00 SF 2.31
jlC.PlII1diDg-DdlldI:aDd resd .'HlOOSF 3.03
1).seal&:yailltplllrJio!99.I4SF 0.•1
12..Quartet round -3l4"'1rim attapof'lO.QOLF 1.44
pIIIC1iDg*
13.Undl:zlaymea.t - Jf4~116.94SF !'21
b1WJlwbogDnyplylwod
74...Engiflc:md woodiJooriAg 116.94SF 10.18
75.Addfor g1ue4 (klwtL:an1Jic:lItior:l 116.94SF (I.v:!
CMrwoodsutJlI1rIa:
7t5.Baseboard-..114"31.QOLF 3.5S1
17.Baseboard -2 11.."9.00LF 2.S1
;lB.Paiu1~-lwDt1lD:ds 4fi.QQLf O.£JS
19.PaintdooTorwmdow opebng.2 UJOEA 21.04
coal!.(pn"!iU)..dooropeIIins.
flO.:In!mordoor-Dmrh&mId:-lOOM 21.49
SI1aIl QaIy
11.PaiDtdaorsbbooly-l coot(par lOOM IHI
side)
82.Door lAJCbe:t-Dcadl&.RlIl:t UIOEA lU1
rotals:MIDDLE BDnl
2009·10·01)·11 J1
Sub.oolll2:CJv;wt
.r..&t.,..·r l.'.'"11it~.!iI.~~:·:••.an :;;10',.~
~....·tfl,....,r ,...·!I'.~l".;i.Jl;-~.r"""r,:",·'r··hot·'
MbUIIrWaR:• -J'O''''X.Il'S"
78.61 SF Walls
81.67 SF WllIs.&Ceili:os
1.11 SY F1clarilli
40.00 SF l.oogWliD
14.00 tF Ceil.~
Ope.siBiDJIlDDLEBDRIIl
LJ:WdS'z:t'lIf'
10.GO SF Cei!ing
IO.GO SFF100c
g.OO LFF.IooIPerimeter:
16.00 SF Shartwin
GtJu bl flaer
RC:\'DEPUe..0\.C\'
28.18 (0.00)28.28
:311.9C (0.00)317.90
s.~(0.00)5.90
RUIl (0.00)13.60
7.«1 (0.08)1.51
52.lIS (0.00)52.(1.5
19B::!(2.58)1&2.94
2U)\(G.2G).!D.84-
m.:It'J (1).50)5&30
91.50 (0.00)tl.50
80.17 (0.93)79J'4
14..:40 (0.1.7)14.13
148.51 (1.'U)H1.0g
l,213.84 (64..08)1>149.16
10111.5 (].47)101.28
t3iUJ (1.1Q)l31.B
13.13 (0.20)22.9J
45.ClIil (0.28)44.80
21.04 (0.20)20.84
21,49 (0.00)1;1.#
13.58 (0.21)13037
1I.1r7 (0.00)18.B7
2,,10U8 74.G:l 2om.CiS'
lW1"'2009 l'Qc:1
CE'utury-NatiuDallmuTl1ace C.mp:my
12200 Sytv.m SIRe!
NdHon~Catifumioa 91606
JIholr:(SI8)100-198QIPax:(818)7li6-1554
LxW.rD:10'.E It'x It'
).IJ..:.
))1'''('''''.''Ii
........!;\\o:~.:.;......::';;",,'..f.~J.,''fl.'"'',,,",,,',It,41·oii.'h~~"~';'"
''t'''.kor'
247.111 SFWaUs
347.81 SFWaJlskCeilins
ILl]SY Flooring
80.00 SF I..on!Wall
36.il2 tFCeu.Pmmelm
100.00 SF Cei!ing
100.00 SFFJoor
32.00 LF'FIoorPerimeter:
80.00 SF Shllft Will
JIIb~Wal:• -.3-'11'·XJ'10"
SuIJrOllm1:EDtry Dft'sfi LxW~B3'l"xoz·.,..lIl'
45:34 SfWalb
52.S}SF Walls4tCe1iin8
0.'80 SYFloaCng
24.67 SF LongWaD
7.75 LFCel!.:Pmmefr;r
7.19 SF Ceiling
7.t9 SFFlo«
5.25 LFFIomPuimda'
1&.01 SF ShooWall
DESCIllPTIaN QIIA'fIlT1'UNTfCOST
83.Window btiIvJ··1iOOmuIal or l.OOEA 1&.2&
\mCll·Detaeh &:reset
84.C1oS'et~.MrlmJineoc 4.91I.F 63.51
Wire -Det1ell a:re5et
IS.RaDllve~wood 9.BJSF :2.84
1Ioodag.ttmO\Ol:rr:maindtrat.c:1oscl"
Rti.~Addfol'lilued down 9.t3'SF 2.29
applialioo overWOClI1.srdlstraJ:1!,
removeIIclosetfloor·
87_BattinaulOI1icm -...-.R13 10.00 Sf .0.59
811.D.rywalhepllmncotperLF-lIIP 2U1LF tI,36
to2'tln
89_SeallpnlDl:;thewrface area.-DI1Il 49.14SF O.Jll
coat
1000·11)·0!)·1H1
Su.ltrllGm 2:CkHt·
Gets...l1aorfCeWaJ
G.C3 tonoW'
LsWsH4'1I":IE 7.'1:·1'
lUll SF CcWng
9.83 SfF.Ioor
&.92 LFFloorPcrilnerrr
16.00 Sf'Shartwan
GOU'IOnODr'
JtC1,"DEPREe.AC\l'
2,J.,2S (0.00)28.28
31:2.&1 (0.00)312.81
27.92 (0.00)27.92
22.51 (0.00)22.51
5.00 (0.00)-5.9~
106.1'4 (O.llO)296.24
lj,75 (0.20)18..55
lQf14'2009 pagc:·IJ
o,nliutDl'RONTBDltM
Opeo.iateEstniol
11..J19 SF WaDs
Rn~SF WaJ13 ~CdIin,g
Ul9syr~
3!'-3:5 SFLongl'J"'aII
13..113 I:fCci1.~('.f
t·4'1)"XU'S"
) .!'l~:x:8'0"
1•rcr'X 6'1"
Mbrlm,.WaIl:
lIinilllW:l\U,
lIiain,r;waU:
]2200 SYWlD Strerl
NlXtIl HoUywood.CaJifumia 91606
Pho.De:(118)760-1930 IPax:(818)1OO-ISS4
COmLW.ED.l'RO;lllTBDDI
D:E9CalP'lro~Qt.'A."fIln"t'!'fITCOST KCV DEPREe,Ac\'
90.Mask andIJRP forpaint •p1asol:ic.S&50tF O.5lO 52.1iS (0.00)52.45
JXIJla"••(paU')
91.Padthe "I\':I.lfs •tworoalli 37t.lOSF 0.67 148.&1 (3.46)24S.lg
92.Pailll door orwiDdDw oprWlg -2 UIOEA.21.04 2U»(0.20)ZO.IlJ
maIli(perr,'ide),wmdow openjDg*
117.03Sf93.tJn.derti,mem-1I~"1.21 t48..ti3 (1.44)147..1.00
1.......lImnbl'Jllll'Y11:\ywotlcl
9f.~wao4fJoozUag 111.03SF 10.31 UI:4.71 (61.l3}I.l50..64
1JS.Add forglueddawn.awIi.c:aticn.117.0JSF 0.93 lOU4 (1.47)1()U7
<roe:wood.SUbstraIc
9t!.BatebOlll1l-'"II"·46.17I.P.'3.59 165.75 (2.12)163.61
97.P3iulbaseboGd-twoc:OlllB 4O.17IJ"0.98 45.1:5 (0.28)44.97
911.Onillg-2114"11.00IF.1.70 2lI.!lO (0.34)2856
5l!l.Paint doorocwindmv opemag -2 l.OOEA 2U»21-04 (O..2Q}10.34
COilI$(per side),dccIr ~
lOG.I::derim:door -Ikiacb.&.Rifid•l.00EA 21.49 2t41 (0..00)21.4~
$l:Ibcmly
10].Paint doon,1abmly·1 [oat(per UVEA 13.58 13.58 (0..21)13.:1'7
side}
102.Door~t -Dtt:lldl &.reset l.ooM 11.111 111.111 (0.00}18.87
i03.(IBr;taIl)BYIJIWI (sIidiDg)dOllr l.00EA.2&.34 ]j,]4 (0.00)133lJ
tiel:-IIlallslln1y-Defacb.&reiiet
"1....111:FROI'iTBDIlM 1.76&.1AI ,.t,.G!2,68U5
LOI'T
200.9l'li SFWills
338..:39 SF Walb .&Cciliug
14.94 SYFlooriDg
106.1'515 SFLoogWaU
].25B I.FCeil Perinwet'
LIlWdIIj'4"x l&'l"xS'
134.-0 SF Ceiliag
134.43 SFFlom:
2758 LFFIoofPmmctt.r
80.65 SFShc1rtWaU
.!WllriJIrWaII:
Uh5iqWIIIlI:
MilIdDjtWallo
J.Ooo·lO·Clfj·11 11
I -4'1."X"'1t"
2 •:l'lf"X "II"
1..3'0'"X 1'0"
(}pees iatoE:stwiolr
Opea'Duo'E:duior
OpftIs iotaEa.a.
Gou·to atidIer.DOOt.'l'Cflm.,.
GeK·,,:no...
GOIJ ioflouJCeiliDlJi
12200 Sylvan SIRrt
Nodh HoIl~Catiltlmia 91606
PhoJIe:(SI8)1M-I98aIFax:(818}16a..JSS4
Sabl'oom 1:0IfR1dmk
.I..iI.I..1"',····111t...JM,.~~~:'.:,,"~:~I:J.~....ttl-A");t.....,
.i.il:->o.p..;r......',.....~..
74.0]SFWan,
14.70 SF WlIlIs.&:Ceiling
1.19 SYFJcaring
36.67 SFI.oo!Wall
P.25 LFCe:I1.Perimeter
10.69 SF CeitiD,g
10.-'i9 SFFIooc
0.25 LFFlnorPerimeter
18.61 SF Shari WalL
•-·,,'r'XS'I1"OpeaS iatoLOI'T
SahrODlll::Ofkrt
12210 SfW;db
117.10 50?WlI1II.&CelIiDg
722 SY FlomiDg
78.QD SFLcogWaD
13.42 LFCol.~
as.OO SF Ceiting
t55.00 SFF100c
:roo7S LF FloorPaimeI'.er
5333 SF ShortW.alL
MhrlllrWall:
lIbshl.W:llIl=
1lie.bJ«Willi:
I •6'8"'X I'.It
1•,,,.,,X .'11"
• •2.'5'"X "S"
0peII1"toLOFT
O]Iees iatoE:u~riu
o,e.s1Iu.Emrb
GM,1.DaorICelUDlJ;
G9ut9(l~&a
Cws·..:Iloor
SabrlJOm 3;0fIB••.baII LxWxH"r :II 3']1 8'
64.67 SF W~JIs
81.61 SFWaIls&CI:iliDg
Uifl SYfL1ariol
4~.33 SFLoogWail
14.3'3 LFCeil.Perimeter
17.00 SF CeiIiDg
11.00 SfFlDor
6.81 LF I1ooI:PaiIDeta:
24.00 SF ShoortW.a1l
Misrilll'Walt.I.l'0'''X8'O''Opa'intIJOffHt
JI.bdal,WaD:1-"""Xli'S"OpeIiS iamEstawJIiJlsJll.WIlIl:I.,,'rX.6'S"O,..I.ut6E1tftiu
JliIlIinc Wall.:1-~.....X 1r8"0pa3w..E:r.terio..
Page:It)
GGH 1e:FIoorlCrlHDJ
e-litJ'loor
e.-lit:noo...
Gnat.Iluor
Rev DEPREe.ACV
24.28 (0.00)18.2!
'733 (0.00)7.33
53155 (ttOG)538.55
4I.!ll5 (052)4&.44
m.1t!(0.00)62.62'
28.28
(l,Sg
&3C5
0.38
O.W
U"lTCOST
I.OOEA
1242SF
liU2U
104.WiDdow'b!iDd -horimahlor
mtical-Dctac-h&'reset:
lOS.Baliinsillalian-4"·-R.B
1D6.DrywlID n:pbccmclllperLF•
lip to2'1ld1
m07.SeatpemOlethandiefloor
pt'Iimefft'-one ~
101.Mzk:mdprep furpWat .
plastit-..paprr.tllpr (pl!l"L:F)
:ul09·11)·~·11 II
12200 Sylvan Slim
NriHo~CaIibnia91606
PhoJae:(lll)760-IDIQI Fax:(818)161).1554
OO:S'IINL'ED -LOFr
DES<'JllP'l~Q'C'A~~COST !lCV DEPREe.AC'V
109.P.aiat lbr walls -two coa&s 444.1.lSf 0.61 3'11.37 (4.:)4)301.0J
I]O.Paintdoor or windmr0,PCt1iIJa•l.OOEA 21.04 21.04 (0.20)20..84
2com (pef side).wiDdol.\l"
Ill.UudrrJaymmf.-]/4"221.12SF 1.21 288.44 (2.711)21:>'65
~yplywood
112.~w004.f1OO1ing :m.12SF JO.31 2;)51..51 '124,4;6).2.:!J3.o.s
113.Add:forglueddown~liatloD 227.12 'SF <J.93 211.22 (l.IIS):lOllT1
"""C[--tsumtulic
114.Bll:Itboanl-41i4"5'8.17I.F 3.59 201.83 (2.67):lOcUS
115.P.aiDt baIieboard -twomatli 5B.17LF 0.98 57J>1 (0.35)56..65
nil.(lDst4llI}CabiDetJy-to\\'l!I~)4.2.H.F Ci2.2Q 261.35 (0.00)264.15
lIIlia -DdacIl&MIe1
U7.Sell&;paint cabiIIetly -10MI'-lO.SOLF I·ut 150.57 (1.62)H8.9S
flees ODly.andsidepand.DllDp
wrllll:e"
U~.Casiog-2 1J4~l02.QOLF 1.70 m.40 (2.07)171.13
119.PaUll-doo:r or windInV opmiIIg-6.00Ei\2U14 k~.M (1.18)llS.06l-com (pcr_).door~
120.P.liDt-doat~outy-1 «:o:a:t(per 6.00EA 13.:58 81A8 (1.21)80.21
side}
121.Pah1Iwoods'behriDg.12--24"9.83LF 1.54 1·6J2 (0.15)15.97
w:id1h ..1ooat,top of'pcaywall-
TotalII:LOfT ....i5!.32 ll........'4olWlI.85
usnBDRH
472.33 SF Walls
651.54 SF Walk&Ceillog
'9.54 SYFIoorini
SUS LFCeil.~
FDDIllda ~CeIIInl)S'9"1U'%"xU')"
119.21 SFCl!i1lng
175.81 SFF.IooI:
48.25 L'FFIoml'erimef.e[
1-~'6'"X,'S"
lWlf12009 Page:11
Cmhlry-NlItWaaJ ]U'iur.tMe Camp31ly
12200SyhlmSlRet
NdHotlywood,.Calilbmia 91~
Phoue:(IIS)161}..19aaIFax:(818)166-1554
LxW:.H S'6"s,'1'"I:It.'
,I"*"..-r'l.-''111t~:"r:~':.1.1,,,,:i:",'..f.
~!l."4~""""t-t"',..·;.y,·i~.Ji~lt'~lIII"Tx':"-,,_.s.,.'
44UlP SfWaD.,
!iUS SF WaDs.&:Cei\ins
Ug SYFloarina
44.00 SF Lon!WaU
IUlO tFceil.~
I~_96 SF CeitiJJ,g
16.96 SF'Flooc
4..81 LFFloorPerimet.er
2:4.61 SF ShortWill
JIIbdII:'WaR:
JliasiqWall:
• •3'}·'X.S'll"
I •.1.'1"X 1'0"
0pea5bdDlI'STaBDRM"
0,_WIIE1uliu
GeesillJllleriCellbl!
&1ft IeDuor/CliIilIJ
lPlUl SFWulb
242.44 SF Walls ·ItCdlinz
4.al SY Floodna
M.aO SF LoDgWa8
2Ul LFCc::i1.Pcrim::tcr
43.J}SF 0=iIWg
un SFFloct
24.50 LF FlaOI Pcrimcrcr
43JJ SF S1lortWall
SBbrllGm 3:a-t1
O.pca.iatoHaD
69..11 SFWaiis
7'-94 SF Walls ~Cciliug
0..87 SYfloocing
lLB SF LongWall
1U13 L'F Ceil.Per.imctcr
G9C3 t.Jlo",..
Ls,WsHtJ'll":I:1,'z,&'
1.8)SFCcUiDg:
7JB SfFloor
8.00 LF Floor:Pto.riuJelrr
Hi.GO Sf'ShortWall
GUill'fvl1ol)r
llCV DEPREe.ACV
3,225.68 (133.11)3.09l.91
18HII (3,06)182.62
:30!U!(L,OO)306.8l1'
3"31.18 (!U3}nus
83.&7 (O.SI)83.31i
4.2.98 (0.00)42.98
2'11.34 (0.00)28.34
63.12 (059)62.51
l.l22
322
1.27
3.94
0.98
2).4'
21.34
21.0'4
UNlTCOST
Opcu~intoHaD.
l.OOEA
.lOOEA
8HUE
8S..J3LF
2.00EA
UUIGSFmooSf'
244.00 SF
QtTAPiTITY
I •3']0":X D'S"
1-2'4"X5'8"
j't'j't·,il..
t,f ,1f.••::'.;."*.\,,,.~.~·..........r'~.,.r··,~A"_~..;,..,,,.>:"'l!!;;,;ji:'..•~""It:•.:It'AO.,...,
DEJiC'KlPTION
a~2..R&REngineered wood tlomiiug:
123.R&RAdd forgkal.dAJwD
~ODoverWOClCl~
124.Underb}'JIIeDI-]/4"
lnu1ilWlOOgJul1 plywood
12~.R&llBasebctJrd·4114"
126.hiDtbucboard-lWOCOlI6
121.fariml&Kr-Deradi&'reset-
lIatt<lDly
12!1.BJPa5 (sliding)door!let-s1ah!i
OIl1y -DeIaclt&:~
129.PamdamocwilJdaw0'}'Ifll.ing-
2 ~ats (pcr~)
200!)·10·~1'1Jt lWl4f.ZOOSI Page:U
Ct'IIhrry-Nlltioaall'll.'liDraace Campaay
12200 Sy.tvm Sired
Nlldh H~~0Iti1bmia 91~
JIbonc!:(&18)16l)..198a I Fax:(818)700-1554
COl\'T.Il\"'UED-MSTRBDRlIil
em'COST )lCV DEPREe.
'l'oiaJll:lWiJ."R8DRM
Sl'AlR\liELL F.!WI....Siair1IIAJ 7·II~'so 111'l15116"
7S I:?SfWlIUII
16.P:'l SF WllJl~&Cei1i1J6
3.69 SYFloating
1.17 LFQ:I1.P'erinl:1e,.
HiSYCtoq
U.24Sn.bm
12.~g I.F:F!oof Perimeter:
Tll'Uls:ST.URWELL
no.Maskand prep fellp;riD:1.-
plastic,paper,&ape (prr.LF)
131.PaiDt..walts -two (:(Jr;Ill;
131.P:aiflt.llOlnLbiI-W1Ilmouated
m.R&R.&ginmmwoodfl!ooriD:
134.R&R.Addforg!aed.dowll
appbtion.overwood SlJ'l,.;traJr
135.~..]/4"
Ja1laDf1llliboglMyp:!Ywood
134.S1airII(liing..fo.r WIXldflooring
Gou ..no...
Ga.t1 tolIoor
RCV DEPREe.ACV
06.45 (0.00)6.4.5'
50.33 (0.70)49.63
U.JQ (U2)II.OS
439.43 (18.22)-4tl.21
W7.m (O.412)1-96.6l
42.2.1 (0.41)4l..8{\
401.85 (56.81)345.04
l,lISPAO '''A!t81.7Z
1.27
0.90
.&.93
0.61
0.76
13.22
3.22
U:arCOST
3J.24SF
4S.(JOLr
7.t1LF
1'5.12Sf
15.92LF
33.24SF
33.24'SF
••&"'''XS'O''
I -0'''''X !r0"
DESCRIP'Im.s
HilI5iDt Wall:
lIioim&Wall!
:WO!HO·O!Hlll Page:13
ClOuhlry-NliltioDlIIJIDSUTIIB~~CamplIBY
12200Sy1vm Streel
NOl1k HoIlywwd.,Qltilbmia91600
Phone:(SI8)1d1)..l9M IFax:(Sl8)16O-ISS4
.1..1....,,,,of"~..,..
ll.Jjl.~~·•••I.~..:.A;:.~.
""-{.,'&.1"1-'"JjfI'-';;i..J1:"11.f;,I";t-"'.....'-,...~.'
210.44 SF Walls
453.11 SFWaJls&Cming
lU9 in'EloDritli
126.00 SF 1.011!WaD
4ClI.~]u:ceil.~
111.07 SFCeitirJg
m.61 SFFloor
31tsg LFF.1ooI:Perimetel:
Iitoo SFShort Wall
4.7.'U"X4'10"
I -""1'"11'0"
26.61 SF Walls
303.67 SF Walls I:Ceiling
0.11 SY Flooring
21UlO SFLongWaU
150 LFCd:P'cimder
7.00 SFCdi.Qg
7.00 SFFloclt
2..50 LFFIoosPerimctc:r
HI.OO SF 51J.mtWatl
Sw!H'..._1:Offftl
:nJ09·10·09'·1:1It
~u t9 Jk~rJCelJi.1
e.-·..IIoor
Goo illJ!loer
Ls;WsHa'fit :I;"Jl:'J'
ROO SfCeifi.ug
50.1..00 SFFlo«
12.00 LF FIum:PtJimcla:
54.00 SfShortWall
Gou to:FIaltrJCelHDg;
Goa ,.:J'IooWCelJlDJ
KCV DEP'REC.AC\'
113.12 (0.00)113.12:
139'.01 (0.00)1.19.0l
19.07 (0.00)19.07
385.23 (0.00)UUJ
31$.92 (0.39).165]
57.1<1 (0.00)5H6
lOflol'2009 Page:1..,.
28.28
O.3tl
0.93
139.01
059
S.3«5
LWTCOSI
()pe"s i"toI'._l1yRoom
Opu...bIl&E:uviw
o,.as iRlvMt..I'B
OpNSWitFanaUy.Roam
OpftIs LlItoEstalimr
108.00 SfWaJb
159.00 SFWaJJs&CeiliDB
5.67 SYFlaaring
76.50 SF LongWall
11.00 LFCe.11.:PerirJa:r
f.OOEA
1.00EA
32.3JSF
4'I'i.0'8LT
M.l1LF
91.11SF
I -"f"X S'(I"
I ..1'4'":x 6'S"
1-1'S'"X 6'1"
1··S',"X"0"
I.&"6"xro"
31i~slqW:nIII
IIh"WII1D!
Ubllill&W.1l:
DESeIllPTlroI
:llIhdIl,W.D:
JlilAJlI,WaU:
137.Wiudow1JfuId -hmlzmdal or
W:I:lica1-Debcll&:met
138.e.gilia-DeIxb &:R:SIet
~39.Ba1tinsulation.·....•-R13
!4C'.~r,aU~pe.rLF
...,to2'1a1l.
141.Stiit1'Jrime:llJiOlC!ban1hc:fkllIr
perimeIer-0Ile00:II
142.Mask:wall -1JIasOC,plIIIn'••
(perU)
Cl'IIhlry-Nl1tiuaaII.:'iuaDr-t!CcuupltllY
mOD Sy.lvDI Slreel
NonIl H~nywood,CaJifilmia 91606
Phoae:('18)760-1980 I Pax:(S18}160--I554
C:O~"'II!'Io"1J.ED ~F_1lJ:R~om
D:ESCRlPt[o.~QVA.~t'!m'COST RCV DEPREe.AC\~
14:3.51&"dtywa1l-1uIDg.l1ped,230.81SJ'1.73 JS&.06 (0.00)399.06
~.mdy hpaiDt,~·.
<:ci'brJg*
144.IlrywaD-GelHnll..iboRl:-pm 2.UOHll 4529 90.53 (0.00)91158
1DIr,:addit'iamlaIloInm:te litJ~
3tC~
145.TllXt1ICe dt}Jwall-mll)Of:h/5.kim DO.61SF O.PI 226.06 «(tOO)21.6.06
COlE
.44.TahJre drywall-madIlm.230.6"'1S.F 034 7.1.43 (O.lXJ)18.4J
147.Ma:tkandprqtm-~-OO.17I.F.a.PO sus (0.00)54.15
pla.'ltil",fl2IIJeI.tapr(per :F)
1>18.8e1l1primethe ceiling-meam 23<t.67SF 0.38 87.fi5 (0.92)id.7J
149.Paint lIJe wattslIDdcdliog-two 64-5.13SF fJ.trI 432.61 (Ii.03)416.64
COllIS
ISO'.Paim:daotOfwiodaw opeIIing-f.OOEA 21.04 84.16 (0.79)r3372ooalr>(per side),wmoowopniIlgs.
151.Bascbtml-"I!4"46.08LF 3.59 165.43 (2.11)16.33?
152..hintJaasetmrd-twoCOiII5 4fi08LF <l.P8 45.16 (0.28)44.sa
1153.Cuiug-2.1f4"34.00U 1.70 51.10 (0.69)5'1-11
154.PaiDt.cloor0rwindowO'pfllinr-1.OOEA 21.114 41.611 (0.31»4U9
2 com (per~).doo(~m.Painl:400uhbODly··l c§t(per 2.00EA 1358 27.16 (0..12)24.1-4
side)
lS6-..Door.IockKt.•Ddadl&:laet 200EA 1&.87 37.14 (G.OD)l7.14
157.cm:ftoor-tile 230.61SF 0.48 110.72 (0.0(1)llO:n
TilUls:FIUIIiJya.o..%....~n.o!zpn.3(
Kltell••
:JOL61 SFWalls
-4-7?J11 SFW:!lls.&Ceiling
10515 SYfku::inH
B2.0D SFI..on:Wall
~1.113 LF Ceil.Pef:imeIP.r
LII:Wdf.14'...II:.11.'s 51'
176.00 SFCt:WDg
176.00 SFflooa:
lUO I,F FllJaI PuiTndl1l
108.00 Sf ShmtWall
lIIiniDlJ \iaD:
lIIIlU'iq'Willi:
JliI~waUl
:1009 lO·~·U Jt
! .8'~'::c:9'0"
I •5'10"X d'3"
1··7'0·'X "0"
apOUI iJrtoE:rtftw.
0peB~intDEnerioI'
Opfts Wi.Estn'iH
Gou·fIII Dowleoilia,
Gw5'IOFJoIll'
GMa a.FIo.../C.1JiD1I
lWl'('"lOOP Page:1.5
CflUhJry-N:lriollal I""iuralKe Camp;my
12200SylvlD S~I
Not1b Hollywood,C'Wtbmia 91600
~:(11S)741)..IilaQ/Pax:(818)100-1554
DESCJlIPTIO.N QUA."iYln'UNlTC05T RCV DEPue.ACV
158.~ssed IiPUinae-.Detach 5.00EA 3.43 11.15 (6.00)11.IS
&IesettrimOlI1y
159.W:iDdow'b1i!Id-bclrimntal Qt 200EA 21..21 Sli.5ti (t).00}56.56
vr.rtical-Dd:ath&:iud:
16ll".Drywallr.ezDeIIIperLF -6.00LF 1.36 50.16 (0.00)50.1-&
lip to2'tin
lISt.St:aLpaime lbe md'ilI:earea -mae 12.00SiF 0.38 4.56 (0.05)HI
coat
162.5tH"dtyw:I1J.-·!rndg.I3pl!d,1"'.00'SF 1.73 24.12 (0.00)24.22'
Borated,.lQdy forpaillt,JC.P:iIir itt
ceiling"
1153.nr,-n-Gelleral LabuRr-per-I.00HR 4S.29 45.29 (0.00)45.29mm.additimnla1IIowlllJCe fur JqJi1ir
at CfIiJin,g'"
164-.Ma~k:"WDn -p1astfc,paper,•lUlU 0.95 35.~(0.00)15.94
(perLF)
165.'kthwe dIy1n1l ~mKMMh{skim l1~.OOSF 0.98 112.48 (0.00)112.43
c:oM.
1M.Tcmre4I)waIl.~176.00SF 0..34 Si).Il4 (0.00)59.Bt
I~.MukwprcpforpaiDt·37.IJLF 0.90 34.05 {O.DO)14.05
plutic.paper.13pe:(pI':'lJl)
168.SuIIprime tbe cei1ing -one rnHl mi.ClCSP 0.38 6U8 (O.~66..18-
I@.P2iDt'1be wails lIDllcellills-two 417.61 SF O.ffI 120.00 (4.46)315.54
c:oaI5
17ll Trimbuard-1"!I.4"-installed 120QLF 321 31.52 (C'-45)38.07
(pine),toekickrepair"
171.Rb-stiutoc:lick 12.00LF IO.tI!127.32 (6.91)120.41
17.1.Stailll.t.flW&b klc-kick 12.00LF 1.11 1332 (U5)13.17
173.BII.1Ieboard-..114'"l.2.61Ll'3.~45.49 (0.58)-44-'1
174.Plilltbaseboard -two tOlts 12.61LF O.Pll 12.42 (G.OS)12.34
175.Paim:1mebo3ld-ODe(oat I.SOlF 0.65 0.91 (0.01)01>7
I7C.Clean:flour-tile 170.00SF 0.48 84,48 (0.00)g·US
Totals:KitrJl~.]._J141 JUt 1,lP6.11
376.28 SF Wills
50.45 SF W:db.&:Cdling
n.57 SYP'loodn!!
111.00 SF LongW311
47.00 LPCed:Perimiller
LJ;WII:H 111'ItU'1"I I)'
:m.L7 SF ceiIiBg
212.17 SF FIom:
41.00 I.PFlooJPcrimc:ler
100.50 SFShortWall
lIium,WlIU:
!lIisriDJ\\inU~
;WW·10·OO·1Hl
r•3'd"X t'o"
2-4']O"X.f11f"
Opm~lutaE:ttft'IIII'
Opea,intoEstuillr
Gllln fa DoorlCenmJ!;
C..us·hI MitIIe.r 1lllorfC"iliog
Cputury-NatiiluJID.'i1lTl1Dce COUlp31lY
12200SylvID SlReI
North Hollywoocl CalifouU91606
Pboae:(111)7M-19M/Fax:(818)llia.HS4
DESCRIPTION QUAJoi'IITY UNITCOS-'I
171.L1g!1.1 filItun:-Defac:I1 ilhact l.00EA 41.30
178.Wirldow bfuId -horizoIIol IX .lOOEA 21.28
'lIlricaL -J.Jet::R:h&reset
17~t D!yIwIJ rfp'hK:~melll perLF-8.SOLF 8.36
up to2'1aI1
tSl).Seliltprime tbc Mtar:earea-0Qf 11,OOgr 0.38
coat
181.MaskmJprcpfc.r~-6lSOLF O.PO
ph~r.p.apeI..tape (per :F)
182.Pam tbtwall..lIIIiceiliIJg -two 733.01 Sf O.ti1
cmds
183.BaKb.-4114"I.Slllr 3.5P
184·.hint'baseboant·two c:oafls a.SOLF 0.91
IRS.P3iDtImeboard-OIICf'.oat .f9.iOLF 0.65
184-.Paim:400ror wiDdow CI;PCIIini --I..GOEA 21.04
2.collIS (per'llidc)2 wiwbw,2door"'
mB7.P.1inuloor!daboulr·1coat (per 2.CIOEA 13.511
6iide)
188.Door1odeset-Dmcb&:resd 2.00EA 18.81
IB9.C-'k!aJI:ftDor.tile UU4SF 0.48
IIlIa1s:LinDt1leG.
9.1Iroo.1;0.1
Mbd1IrWaD:
UiIlsiDa WaD.:
Yin,WZIII:
••'9'111"X 9'-11"
I •~'6"X it'S"
1-3'0'"Xf'I"
111.14 SFWaJb
144.62 SF WaDs &CeilWs
1.64 liYFlaCJling
8&.50 SFLDog wan
16.50 L:FCeil.P.erimela"
0,-5....Uvinl R_JII.
Op-..WiIIlExwriea'
OPCllt Iato~liw
WW:dI9'I~'JI"4"JI'"
32.18 SFCI!i!iu,g
J2.18 SFFJooc
11.00 LFFloorPerimete:
JO.OO SFShort Wll1l
GtJau :F1aoriCl!lIiaJ
GtIateDoor
Goes t41 Door
RCV DEPREe.ACV
41.30 (O.llO)41.30
56.56 (0.00)5656
71lk'i (0.00)71.06
6.'16 (O.O1}lJ..3'P
51.15 (0.00)>l.l5
491.16 (6.8'1)4&4.32
)1).52 (O.3D).10-13
:S.33 (O.OS)8.21
3'2.18 (0.20}31.9&
aU6 (0.79)&3.37
21.16 (0.42)26.'4
31.74 (0.00)11.74
11157 (0.00)117.51
lA6U$8.74 l,05'l.5'p
Pa~:17
Cmtury-NlIItiuaal In'iUTIiIB.Ce C8mpliBY
122005yh'mSlrerl
North H~n~CllJ.il'onUa 9160c'l
PboBe:(il8)7(il)..1930 I Fax:(818)100.1554
LJ.:Wdllll'3"J:It':II j'
,1...io.J..,,,-j'.t."":1i
~...!fI,.!.t'r:~,.I.~.;,;,....J~....·<ftA"P·_,,,,,,,'!la'",;ii..1I7'l1.I~or ;r,......''''W."'r'
57G.SD SF Walls
94225 SFWaJls&Ct:iIins
40.64 SY Flooring.
t73.2:5 SFI.ous Wan
76.50 tFCell.Perimde.r
355.75 SF CeitiDg
:kS5.75 SFFlooc
0050 LF:E1om Per:imeteI:
m.oo SF Shari WIll
QuA....-nn
,GuotilI10er
llC\'DEPUe.AIT
tfl.~(OJ)o)fil.4'7
14.112 (OJ&)14.66
11351 (1.5R)111.9l
I'UG 1.14 JP4.OIi'
0.61
1.13
0.38
['.:«TeaST
J~.OOSl'
3~.OO'Sl'
169,42SF
••U·...X "f"
100.518-dty\van -lmllg.taped,
~ready bpaillt
fill.Selillpriruetile !illlfilcealeil -ODe
coat
192.PiJiDttile lilIr£Ke al:'<1 -two
c:oat'i.damagM bat'kIulfllfm!iogCIII1,"
CDiEllAL
t1N.rr G051 Rev D&l"UC.AGV
113.05 crus (0.00)-11.3.0.5'
37.01 296.(»1 (0.00)296.06
.n'u~IJ.ltfJ 41U3
Zti,14f."651.30 :!f.187.7&
AdjullhDtl"l
168.08:
J06.U
11·M2
128,34-
IHlS4
143.61-
11:1.14-
1,15!H6
IWlf,"ZOOP Page:11
1.00EA
3,OOHR.
QUAl'fIITY
I!B.H:Mdemi:ll-per.Pil:lmp 1me1l:load·mduding _1IIp ft:1:II
194.GeDCSi31 c1can-.
Tol.ls:c;.~
C:apen1er-finml"TrimlCabinet
D1ywau.~
WoodfIocOog J:al,tllJAs
liIll.ul:di.on lnsbIW:
Paitdm'
T:ikiC'lJItuRxII MableIostaUtr
WallpaperfllU\g5
TotdAdjlilllllJaJls foe,Base SmIiee Cl!aI8m:
Ceouhn"y-Nltiullll Iusurallci!CClDlPImY
moo Sylvan S1Ied
NriHoUywwcI,Odilbmia 91606
PIxJae:(il8)700.19MI Fax:(818)160-1554
...djusla..at
LiII1Ilc.JIl 'luau:%lHIJ-lO-Of-llll
Grand Total Annn:
"~68."J2 SFWalb
1.956.50 SFFloot'
US·Hl SFLangWII1
0.00 BoorArea
0.00 Em:OorWallAR3
1.}12X34 'Sf Ceiling
211.39 SY fo1oofiD&
1,.290.33 SF SbortWall
0.00 Teta1 An:a
0.00 Emaorl'aimdcrof
W~.h
Ci:Wl..Q'I SF WaDBaudCelJmg
5tiO.47 LFFlCIorPerialetct·
634.61 LF Ceil.PI.'\rimetI:r
0.00 Intcrilll'WaD At:ea
0.00 SmtlIr.r AR'a
O.OD ThtI1RidgeUngtb
:l1l09·10·~·1'1 It
0.00 NlIIDbeJofSqwres.
0.00 TIIIal Hipl.cD,gtb
Page:19
Cpuhlry-NariuaaJ11l$UJ'l11lC'i!C.mplUlY
moo Sylv.m Slrerl
Nor1h Hotlywoocl Qllifilmia9160Cl
Phone:(SIS)100.19IOIPax:(818j166.1554
SllDlmaJ')-for DweUiug I
26,8'1(1-06 lI],159.16
831.63-
2&,830.85
2,883.W
2,8&3.09
~'7.o!
rroJ.38)
SJJ,8I7.6S
(44lO.00)
$U....'.6S
700.3&
SM,.".Ol
211,810.15
28,830.&5
10J)%:r.
IOJl%oX
Line Item Total
TWlA~11'JImeDti torBaseSctvice Ch;qes
MaterialSaksT.@ 8.150%x
SulJfotd
Owrbtad
Flam
a.opI!We_atCou1I:aJH.
Le"~1'
Actul CulYaI1I.
LosDnI1ctib1e
-'let Cb1lll
lOO9·10·~1'1It 1<V14!2009 Page;20
Ct'uhn"y-NlIriuaal1II5uTaDceCamplll\Y
12200 Sylvan SIRd
NdHonywooct.Calilbmia 916Oc1
1'boDl!:(il8)7l5O-l9M/Pax:(818)7fS6,.f5S4
Recap by Category wit.Depreciation
ii
RevO&Pltluns
CAdIII'iEtll\"
CLEl,NIN'G
GENERALDE:UOLITJON
DOORS
DM'WALL
FLOOK:CO\'EKING.C'I:ILUIlC TILE
iLOOlt.COWRING~~'1N\'L
FLOOK.CO'\'l:IWiG-WOOD
FJNlSII CABPDIRl:''TlUMWORK.
F.INISHHAJIDWARE
IN&IL.~TION'
LlGJlTl'lXn:KES
!WRRORS &SDOW~R DODRS
p~tI:WOOD WALLEDi'1SD£S
:P.U.~TlIiG
mNDOW:nlE..~TMENT
WALLPAP.Elt
Subtotal
Bate5«1_ellara"
Mar""01S.IMTn
Ov«hr.u1
P«llit
O&PI'1u15hbiot11
1.7g%
10.0%
M.aMl
44U'
fiZIUG
1,102'"
IH.G
3.17:1.93-
394.69
1)12.3!l1
]~n.04
2.,m.'"
%12.8%
Jl.6!
m.7l!
8U6
1ft..
4,,98l.17
nd.2.0
filU3
14,840,06
1,1S9.lCii
nus
1.8IJ.O'
1,883.fI'
Deprec~ACV
US "'11.71
4n6.U
1.1t2.4-i·
lU.t'i2
3.11%.93
7.12 3S7~T
I.e.d.1.1f'7."
518.07 fJ,fITU7
%1.2;171.%11
21:.82
51-'1
:U8.7J
BU'
0_.::0 lfO.H
5!67 ~.AI'
3IM:ZI
S.OP ....04
molD 26,1S'7.""
l.l5U~
51.D.114,!(t
UUAlt
:!.SUM
?".J1t S3,811.fi!
:tOO9·10·~·1'1 It 1Qf14'2009 Page:Zl
Photo Sheet
CentutY....atlonall~Company
12200 Sylvan Street
NorthHoIJywood,California 91110I
Phone:(818)760-1980 I Fax:(818)1&CJ..t554
IDsurccI:Steven &MaIgO Bule
Claim /I:H0771913
Policy II:HC12233141
DSCOOOO1
Data Taken:1011312009
Taken By:BARBARAGUETTE
Front 01risk.
DSCOOO02
Date Taken:10113/2009
Taken By:BARBARAGILLETTE
Most all EMS equipment beiDg picked
up OIlTuesday,Oct 13.
PbotoSbeet - 1-101..,12009
Photo Sbeet
Centlilry-HatlonalIn...ranee Company
12200 SylvanStreet
North HollyWood,California 91806
Phone:(818)760·1980 I Fax:(818)160-1554
InsIircd:Steven &MaJgoBIJIe
Claim f#:H0771913
Policy f#:HC12233141
r;~.
Photo Sheet -2-
DSCOOOO3
Date Taken:10/1312009
Takeo By:BARBARAGI1.Lene
OrigiaattheSCCOIId t100rIaundJy room.
DSCOOON
Date Taken:10113/2009
Taken By:BARBARA GILLEnE
SCClJIId floorIaundJy room.
1011512009
Photo Sheet
Centu,yoNallonailnsurance Company
12200Sylvan Street
North Hollywood,California 91_
Phone:(818)760.1980 I Fax:(818)760.1554
PbotoSheet -3-
Jusurcd:Steven &Margo Bula
Claim f#:H0771913
Policy II:HC12233141
DSCOOO05
Date Taken:1011312009
Taken By:BARBARAGILLETTE
Sccoad ftGorhaDbathroom.toekick
repairs.
DSCOOO06
ii:t:~ii Date Taken:1011312009
Taken By:BARBARAGIUETTE
Toekick RpairaDd drywall repairs
widethe bathroom vani1y cabiJIet.
1011512009
Photo Sheet
Century-Natlonallnsurance Company
12200 Sylvan Street
North Hollywood,California 9160&
Phone:(818)760·1980 I Fax:(818)760-1554
Insw'cd:Steven &Margo Bute
Claim 1#:H0771913
Policy II:HC12233141
DSCOOO07
Date Taken:1011312009
Taken By:BARBARAGIlLETTE
Di)wlaUIql8irs insidethe second floor
bathroom vllllily cabiuet.
DSCOOO08
Date Taken:10/1312009
Taken By:BARBARA GILLETTE
Second tloorhaU bathroom,drywall
repair.
PhotoSheet -4-1011512009
Photo Sheet
Century-HatlonallnsuranceCompany
12200 Sylvan Street
NorthHollywood,California 9iSH
Phone:(818)760.1980 I Fax:(818)760-1554
IIIIW'ed:Staven &Margo Bule
Claim#:H0771913
Policy II:HC12233141
Dsca0009
Date Taken:1011312009
Taken By:BARBARAGILLETTE
Scamd floor ballbathroom lookingout
intothe hall.
Dscooa10
Date Taken:10/1312009
Taken By:BARBARA GILLETTE
Bathroom doorway to the secondtloor
loft.LaUlldJy room doorway onthe left.
PbotoSheet -5-101.,12009
Photo Sheet
Century-Natlonallnsurance Company
12200 SylvanStreet
NorthHollywood,California 91606
Phone:(818)760·1980I Fax:(818)761).1554
Insured:Steven &Margo Sula
Claunf#:HOn1913
Policy ##:HC12233141
DSC00011
Date Taken:10/1312009
Taken By:BARBARA GILLETIE
Second floor,backbedroom.
DSC00012
Data Taken:1011312009
Taken By:BARBARAGILLETTE
Second floor,back bedroom.
PbotoSheet -6-10115/2009
Photo Sheet
century-Natlonallnsurance Company
12200 Sylvan Street
North Hollywood.California 91608
Phone:(818)780.1980 I Fax:(818)760.1554
Insured:Steven &Margo Bule
Claim~:HOn1913
Policy #:HC12233141
DSCOO013
Date Taken:10/1312009
Taken By:BARBARAGILLETTE
SCCODd floor loft,total loss glue down
laminateflooring.Removal bas taken
up part orthe subfloor.
DseOO014
Date Taken:10/13/2009
Taken By:BARBARA GILLETTE
Second floor loft,resetbuilt in cabinet.
PhotoShcet ·7·10/1512009
Photo Sheet
Century-NatJona'fnsurance Company
12200 Sylvan Street
North Hollywood,California 91606
Phone:(818}760·1980 /Fax:(818}760·1554
Insured:Steven&Margo Bule
Claim #:Hon1913
Policy ##:HC12233141
DSCOOO15
Date Taken:10/13/2009
Taken By:BARBARA GILLETTE
Tiles from the laundry room.
DSC00016
Date Taken:10/13/2009
Taken By:BARBARAGILLEne
Second floor,middle bedroom.
Photo Sheet -8-10/1512009
Photo Sheet
Century-Nationallnsurance Company
12200 Sylvan Street
North HoHywood,California 91606
Phone:(818)160.1980 I Fax:(818)760.1554
Insured:Steven &Margo Bule
CIaim#:HOn1913
Policy #:HC12233141
DSC00017
Date Taken:10/1312009
Taken By:BARBARA GIUETTE
Second floor,middle bedroom.
DSCOOO18
Date Taken:10/13/2009
Taken By:BARBARA GILLETTE
Reset some or the bead board paneling
atthe ~ond floor middle bedroom.
PbotoSheet -9-10/15/2009
Photo Sheet
Century-NatJonaI InsuranceCompany
12200 Sylvan SIreet
Nol1hHollywoad.California 91801
Phone:(818)780.1980 I Fax:(818)160-1554
Insured:Steven &Margo Bule
Claim II:H0771913
Policy II:HC12233141
DSCOOO19
Date Taken:1011312009
Taken By:BARBARAGILLETTE
Sccoaci Ooor lofttowards Master
Bedroom.Contiouous wood flooring
iDto themasterbedroom.The IIIllSteris
the oaly100mnotaffcetcd atIbc sccond
floor.
DSCOOO20
Date Taken:10/1312009
Taken By:BARBARA GILLETTE
Sccood floor,fiont bedroom.
PhotoShcet -10-1011512009
Photo Sheet
Century-Natlonallnsurance Company
12200 Syhlan Street
North Hollywood,Califomla 9160.
Phone:(818)760.1980 'Fax:(818)760-1554
Insured:Steven aMargo Bula
Claim I#:H0771913
Policy I#:HC12233141
DSCOO021
Data Taken:10/1312009
Taken By:BARBARA GILLETTE
Scccmd floorfioIIt bedroom.
DSC00022
Date Taken:1011312009
Taken By:BARBARAGIUETTE
Builtin desk atthe second floor loft.
PbotoSheet -II-1011.512009
Photo Sheet
Century-Natlonallnlurance Company
12200 Sylvan Street
NorthHoUywood,California 91606
Phone:(818)760-1980(Fax:(818)760-1554
PbotoShcct -12-
III8UlCd:Steven &Margo Bule
Claim #:HOn1913
Policy /I:HC12233141
-.#DSC00023
Date Taken:10/1312009
Taken By:BARBARA GILLETTE
Maatubedroomatthe second floor.
DSC00024
Date Taken:10/1312009
Taken By:BARBARAGILLETTE
Master bedroom.
10/1512009
Photo Sheet
Century-NatlonallnsuranceCompany
12200Sylvan Street
NorthHollywood,Callfomia 91606
Phone:(818)160-1980/Fax:(818)760-1554
Photo Sheet -Il -
Insured:Steven &Margo Bule
Claim II:H0771913
Policy 1#:HC12233141
DSCOOO25
Date Taken:10/13/2009
~===::::::ii;;~Taken By:BARBARA GILLETTE
Masterbedroom.
DSC00026
Date Taken:10/1312009
Taken By:BARBARA GILLETTE
Master bedroom.one oftwo closets.
lOMI2009
Photo Sheet
Century-Nationallnsurance Company
12200 Sylvan Street
North Hollywood,California 91606
Phone:(818)760.1980 I Fax:(818)760.1554
PbotoSheet -14 -
Insured:Steven &Margo Bule
Claim I#:H0771913
Policy I#:HC12233141
DSC00027
Date Taken:10/1312009
Taken By:BARBARA GILLETTE
Continuous wood flooring at the stairs.
DSC00028
Date Taken:10/13/2009
I Taken By:BARBARA GILLETTE
Family room.
10/1512009
Photo Sheet
Century-Nallonill Insurance Company
12200 Sylvan Street
North Hollywood,California 911508
Phone:(818)760-1980 I Fax:(818)760.1554
Insured:Steven &Margo Bule
Claim I#:H0771913
Policy II:HC12233141
DSC00029
Date Taken:1011312009
Taken By:BARBARA GILLETTE
Familyroom ceiling.
DSC00030
Date Taken:10/1312009
Taken By:BARBARA GILLETTE
Family room,~canned light trim.
PhotoSbcet -IS •1011512009
Photo Sheet
Century-NatlonallnsuranceCompany
12200SylvanStreet
North HoUywood,California 91606
Phone:(818)760-1980 I Fax:(818)760-1554
Insured:Steven &Malgo Bule
CIaimI#:Hon1913
Policy#:HC12233141
DSCOOO31
Date Taken:10/1312009
Taken By:BARBARAGILLETTE
Family room.
DSC00032
Date Taken:10113/2009
Taken By:BARBARA GILLETTE
Family room,detach and reset ceiling
fan for drywall repairs.
Photo Sheet -16-10/15/2009
Photo Sheet
Century-Nationallnsurance Company
12200 Sylvan Street
NorthHollywood,California 91606
Phone:(818)160.1980 I Fax:(818)760-1554
Insun:d:Steven &Margo Bule
Claim 1#:HOn1913
Policy f#:HC12233141
DSC00033
Date Taken:10/1312009
Taken By:BARElARA GILLETTE
Family room otTset.
DSC00034
Oate Taken:10/13/2009
Taken By:BARBARAGILLETTE
Familyroom repairs.
PhotoSheet -17-10/1512009
Photo Sheet
Century-Nationallnsurance Company
12200 Sylvan Sir",
North Hollywood,California 91606
Phone:(818)760.1980 I Fax:(818)160.1554
PhotoSheel -18·
Insured:Steven &Margo Bule
Claim #:H0711913
Policy #:HC12233141
DSCOOO35
~~~f]~I'JII ...tlI Date Taken:1011312009
Taken By:BARBARA GILLETTE
Powder room located next tofamily
room,DO damaiC.
DSC00036
Date Taken:10/13/2009
Taken By:BARBARA GILLETTE
Garage,impacled with tenantpersonal
property.
10/1512009
Photo Sheet
Century-NatlonallnsuranceCompany
12200 SylvanStreet
North Hollywood,California 91606
Phone:(818)760.1980 I Fax:(818)760-1554
Insurcd:Steven &Margo Bule
Claim 1#:H0771913
Policy I#:HC12233141
DSC00037
Date Taken:10/1312009
Taken By:BARBARA GILLETTE
Garage ceiling repairs.
DSCOOO38
Date Taken:10/1312009
Taken By:BARBARA GILLETTE
Oarage ceiling repairs.
Photo Sheet -19·10/1512009
Photo Sheet
Century-Natlonallnsurance Company
12200 Sylvan Street
North Hollywood,California91801
Phone:(818)760.1980 I Fax:(818)76001554
IIlSUtCd:Steven &MalgO Bule
Claim I#:H0771913
Policy 1#:HC12233141
DSCoo039
Date Taken:1011312009
Taken Ely:BARBARAGILLETTE
Kitchea.
DSCoo040
Date Taken:10/1312009
Taken By:BARBARAGILLETTE
KitdJen.
PbotoSheet -20-1011512009
Photo Sheet
Century-HatlonallruluranceCompany
12200 Sylvan Street
NorthHollywood,California 91lOe
Phone:(B18}760.1980 I Fax:(B18)760-1554
Jnswcd:Steven &Margo Bula
Claim ~H0771913
PoIicy~HC12233141
DSCOOO41
Date Taken:10/1312009
Taken By:BARBARA GILLETTE
Kitchell klckicks n:pair.
DSCDOO42
Date Taken:1011312009
Taken By:BARBARA GILLETTE
Kitchen repairs at rock/cks.
PhotoSheet -21-1011512009
Photo Sheet
Century-Natlonallnsurance Company
12200 SylvanStreet
NorthHollywood,California 91886
Phone:(818)76001980I Fax:(818)760.1554
Insured:
CIalmI#:
Policy II:
Steven &Margo Bule
H0771913
HC12233141
DSC00043
Date Taken:10/1312009
Taken By:BARBARA GILlETI'E
Kitchen repairs.
DSCOOO44
Date Taken:10/1312009
Taken By:BARBARA GILLETTE
Livingroom towards kitchen.
Photo Sheet -22-1011512009
Photo Sheet
Century-NatlonallnsuranceCompany
12200 Sylvan Street
North Hollywood,California 91608
Phone:(B18)760-1980 I Fax:(818)760-1554
IDJUJ'Cd:Steven &Margo Bule
Claim 1#:H0771913
Policy 1#:HCl2233141
DSCOOO45
Date Taken:1011312009
Taken By:BARBARA GIUETTE
Living room.
DSCOO046
Date Taken:1011312009
Taken By:BARBARA GILLETTE
Living room.
Photo Sheet -23 •tO/I~I2009
Photo Sheet
Century-Natlonallnsurance Company
12200 Sylvan Street
North Hollywood,California 91806
Phone:(818)760.1980 I Fax:(818)760.1554
Insured:SteYen &Margo Bule
Claim II:H0771913
Policy I#:HC12233141
DSCOOO47
Date Taken:10/1312009
Taken By:BARBARA GILLETTE
LjviDgroom.
PhotoSheet -24-10/1512009
AGENDA ITEM 6e
STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE:March 3,2010TYPEMEETING:Regular Board
SUBMITTED BY:Lisa Coburn-Boyd 0<e8
Environmental Compliance
Specialist
PROJECT:P2434-DIV.NO.2
001101
Adoption of a Mitig ed Negative Declaration for the Rancho
del Rey Groundwater Well Project
APPROVED BY:
(Chief)
APPROVED BY:
(Ass!.GM)
SUBJECT:
Ron Ripperger ~
Engineering Manager
Rod Posada ~"\).
Chief,Engineering
Manny Magafi~
Assistant General Engineering and Operations
GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION:
That the Otay Water District (District)Board of Directors (Board)
approves the adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND)for
the Rancho del Rey Groundwater Well Project (see Exhibit A for
project location).
COMMITTEE ACTION:
Please see Attachment A.
PURPOSE:
To obtain Board authorization for approval of a Mitigated Negative
Declaration for the Rancho del Rey Groundwater Well Project.
ANALYSIS:
The project is the installation and operation of a potable water well
and the construction of a water-treatment facility on an
approximately 0.2-acre property owned by the District in the Rancho
del Rey neighborhood in the City of Chula Vista.A non-operating
water well is currently located on the site;installation of the new
well will be accomplished by drilling a new borehole at some other
location on the property.The existing well will remain and be used
for monitoring or testing purposes.The new well will be drilled to
a depth of approximately 860-feet,will be approximately l8-inches in
diameter and will be constructed of steel well casing and screening
materials.
The onsite water treatment facility will be located in a structure
located in the southeast corner of the site It will feature a water
storage tank,chemical treatment tanks,pumps,a fuel vault,and an
electrical generator.The treatment facility will feature
architecture and materials that mirror the appearance and character
of the existing structures in the vicinity of the site.
ICF International (formerly Jones &Stokes)was issued a Task Order
to prepare the Initial Study and MND for the project under their As-
Needed Environmental Services contract with the District.Based on
the findings of these documents,and with proper mitigation measures
taken as outlined in the draft MND (see Attachment B),the project
will not have a significant effect on the environment.The Initial
Study and Draft MND were submitted for a 20-day review period on
January 28,2010.The findings and mitigation measures will be
finalized and the final MND will be available after the public review
period is compiete and any changes are made based on comments
received during this period.
~FISCAL IMPACT:/~
None.
STRATEGIC GOAL:
This project supports the District Strategic Goal of designing and
constructing new infrastructure to satisfy current and future water
needs for potable,recycled,and wastewater services.
LEGAL IMPACT:
No legal impact is anticipated.However,in compliance with the
California Environmental Quality Act process,the Final MND will have
the normal 30-day legal challenge period once the Notice of
Determination (NOD)is recorded with the County of San Diego.The
NOD will be recorded within five (5)working days after Board
adoption of the MND.
/1f1{{Oilt_7:-
Gen~ral Manager
P:\WORKING\CIP P2434\Planning\Environmental\BD 03-03-10,Staff Report,RDR Well MND Adoption,LCB-RR.doc
LC-B/RR:jf
Attachments:Attachment A
Attachment B
Exhibit A
QA/QC
NAME:DATE:
3
z/~//0
C:::'IR ·1 JECT:
P2434-001101
ATTACHMENT A
Adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Rancho
del Rey Groundwater Well Project
COMMITTEE ACTION:
The Engineering,Operations,and Water Resources Committee
reviewed this item at a meeting held on February 22,2010 and
the following comments were made:
•Staff is requesting that the Board adopt a Mitigated
Negative Declaration (MND)for the District's Rancho del
Rey Groundwater Well Project.
•Staff provided a report to the Committee and indicated
that the attached vicinity map (Exhibit A)displays the
land owned by the Otay Water District and the location of
the Project.
•Staff stated that under their As-Needed Environmental
Services Contract,ICF International (formerly Jones &
Stokes)prepared the Initial Study and Draft MND for the
Rancho del Rey Groundwater Well Project.
•Staff indicated that ICF International identified six (6)
specific impacts and that their mitigation measures are
detailed in the MND.The impacts include Aesthetics,
Biological Resources,Cultural and Peleontological
Resources,Hydrology and Water Quality,Noise,and
Transportation/Traffic.It was noted by staff that based
on the findings of the documents,and with proper
mitigation measures taken as outlined in the draft MND,
the project will not have a significant impact on the
environment.
•Staff stated that the Initial Study and Draft MND were
submitted for a 20-day review period on January 28,2010.
•Individual letters providing information about the
Project,and notification that the Initial Study and
Draft MND were available for review,were sent to
surrounding property owners of the site project (ie.
childcare facility,church,residents)and interested
parties.Staff stated that the District received one (1)
ATTACHMENT 8
.J
Mitigated Negative Declaration for the
Otay Water District Rancho del Rey Groundwater Well
The Otay Water District (District)has reviewed the project described below to determine
whether it could have a significant effect on the environment as a result ofproject completion.
"Significant effect on the environment"means a substantial,or potentially substantial,adverse
change in any ofthe physical conditions within the area affected by the project,including land,
air,water,minerals,flora,fauna,ambient noise,and objects ofhistoric or aesthetic significance.
Name of Project:Rancho del Rey Groundwater Well
Project Description:The project entails installation and operation ofa potable water well and
observation well,and construction and operation ofa water-treatment facility on an approximately
O.2-acre property owned by the District.A non-operating water well is currently located on the
site;installation ofthe new well would either entail removing the existing well casing and
enlarging the well's borehole diameter,or drilling a new borehole at some other location on the
property and abandoning the existing well.
Project Location and Assessor's Parcel Number:The project would be located on an
approximately 0.20-acre site located southeast ofthe intersection ofRancho del Rey Parkway and
Terra Nova Drive,in the community of Rancho del Rey,City of Chula Vista,California.The
APN for the site is 59338240.
Mailing Address and Phone Number ofApplicant Contact Person:
Otay Water District
Attn:Lisa Coburn-Boyd
2554 Sweetwater Springs Boulevard
Spring Valley,CA 91978-2004
(619)670-2219
Lisa.Coburn-Boyd@otaywater.gov
Authority to Prepare a Mitigated Negative Declaration
As provided in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)Section 15070 (Title 14-
California Code ofRegulations),a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND)may be prepared for a
project subject to CEQA when an initial study has identified potentially significant effects on the
environment,but when revisions to the project have been made so that no significant effect on
the environment will result from project implementation.The District is the lead agency and is
responsible for the planning,construction and operation ofthe well and treatment facility.Based
on the findings of the initial study/environmental checklist form that was prepared for this
project and attached hereto,the District has determined that an MND is the appropriate means of
presenting the CEQA-compliant environmental review of the project.
Mitigated Negative Declaration -Rancho del Rey Groundwater Well
Page 2 of4
Findings
The District finds the project described above will not have a significant effect on the
environment in that the attached initial study identifies one or more potentially significant effects
on the environment for which the project applicant,before public release ofthis Draft Mitigated
Negative Declaration,has made or agrees to incorporate measures that clearly mitigate the
effects to a less-than-significant level.The District further finds that,with incorporation ofthese
measures,there is no substantial evidence that this project may have a significant effect on the
environment.The mitigation measures that will be incorporated into the project are listed below.
Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Aesthetics:Exterior lighting required during construction may be visible from adjacent
residences on a temporary basis.
Mitigation Measure 1:Prepare a Community Awareness Program for Project
Construction.In consultation with representatives of the City ofChula Vista,the
District will prepare and maintain a program to enhance community awareness ofproject
construction issues,including noise,vibration,nighttime noise,and nighttime lighting.
At least two weeks prior to the initiation ofproject construction,information packets will
be prepared and mailed to all residences within a 1,500-foot radius of project
construction.The information packets will include information on the purpose of the
project,the estimated construction schedule,and the types ofmachinery to be used on the
site.The packet will also identify the name and phone number of a District
representative who will serve as a project liaison to the community.The project liaison
will be available to respond to community concerns regarding noise,vibration,and light;
provide additional explanation ofthe extent and duration of the issues ofconcern;and
work to resolve these issues to the greatest extent possible.
BiologicalResources:Trees and other ornamental vegetation in the vicinity ofthe site could
provide suitable nesting habitatfor raptors andother birds protected by the Federal Migratory
Bird Treaty Act,andproject construction could result in direct and indirect impacts on nesting
birds.
Mitigation Measure 2a:Avoid Impacts on Vegetation During the Nesting Bird
Season.In order to avoid all potential impacts on nesting migratory birds and raptors,
construction activities involving the removal of vegetation shall be restricted during the
breeding season for migratory birds/raptors (approximately January 15 through August
31).
Ifconstruction activities are proposed within the identified breeding season,Mitigation Measure
2b would be employed.
Mitigation Measure 2b:Preconstruction Nesting Bird Surveys.If construction
activities involving the removal ofvegetation occur between January 15 and August 31,a
Mitigated Negative Declaration -Rancho del Rey Groundwater Well
Page 3 of4
preconstruction nesting bird survey shall be conducted (within three days prior to
construction activities)by a qualified biologist to detennine ifactive nests are present
within or adjacent to the project site in order to avoid the nesting activities ofbreeding
birds/raptors.If nesting activities within 200 feet ofthe proposed work area are not
detected,construction activities would be allowed to proceed.Ifnesting activities are
confinned within this radius,construction activities shall be delayed within an
appropriate buffer from the active nest until the young birds have fledged and left the nest
or until the nest is no longer active as detennined by a qualified biologist.The size ofthe
appropriate buffer shall be detennined by a qualified biologist,but shall be at least 25
feet.
Cultural andPeleontological Resources:Well drilling has thepotential to disturb previously
unidentifiedpaleontological resources or uniquegeologicfeatures beneath the surface ofthe
site.
Mitigation Measure 3:Halt Work ifPaleontological Resources or Unique Geologic
Features Are Encountered.Ifpaleontological resources or unique geologic features are
discovered by the project geologists during drilling,the drilling work will be halted
immediately and the San Diego Museum ofNatural History (Natural History Museum)
will be contacted.In consultation with the Natural History Museum and the project
geologist,the District will detennine the proper steps for documenting,removing,or
otherwise managing the resources or features.
Hvdrology and Water Quality:The project entails discharge ofbrine into the San Diego
Metropolitan Wastewater Departmentsewer system that may exceed wastewater treatment
requirements.
Mitigation Measure 4:Comply with Industrial User Discharge Permit
Requirements.The District will obtain an Industrial User Discharge Pennit from San
Diego Metropolitan Wastewater Department and will comply with all limitations and
requirements stated therein with respect to the discharge salt content,quantity,or other
aspects.
Noise:Project construction would result in a temporary increase in ambient noise that would
be received by adjacentreceptors.
Mitigation Measure 1:Prepare a Community Awareness Program for Project
Construction (see description above)
Transportation/Traffic:The project would construct a driveway along a curved street with
little site visibility.
Mitigation Measure 5:Provide Ample Signage and Safe Design of Project Driveway.
The District will coordinate with the City Department ofPublic Works,Engineering
Mitigated Negative Declaration -Rancho del Rey Groundwater Well
Page 4 of4
Division to ensure that the project driveway is designed to meet all relevant City code
and features adequate signage to the satisfaction ofthe Department ofPublic Works.
Public Review ofthe Mitigated Negative Declaration
Before February 16,2010,any person may:
(1)Review the MND;and
(2)Submit written comments regarding the information,analysis,and mitigation measures in the
MND.Written comments should be directed to the contact person listed above.
Name:Lisa Coburn-Boyd
Title:Environmental Compliance Specialist
Circulated on:January 28,2010
Adopted on:
Initial Study/Environmental Checklist
IJ
,
!
:
I]
"
1.Project Title:
2.Lead Agency Name and Address:
3.Contact Person and Phone Number:
Rancho del Rey Groundwater Well
Otay Water District
2554SweetwaterSprings Boulevard
Spring Valley,CA 91978-2004
Lisa Coburn-Boyd,
Environmental Compliance Specialist
(619)670-2219
I'iI
4.Project Location:The project site consists ofan approximately 0.20-acre
site owned by the District and located southeastofthe
intersection of Rancho del Rey Parkway and Terra Nova
Drive,in the community ofRancho del Rey,City ofChula
Vista,California.The site's regional location is shown in
Figure 1,and an aerial ofthe site is shown in Figure 2.
5.ProjectSponsor's Name and Address:Otay Water District
2554 Sweetwater Springs Boulevard
Spring Valley,California 91978-2004
6.General Plan Designation:Chula Vista:Public and Quasi-Public
7.Zoning:Chula Vista:Public and Quasi-Public
8.Description ofProject:
The project entails installation and operation ofa potable water well and nested piezometer
groundwaterwell (referred to as an "observation well"throughout this document)and a related
water-treatment facility on an approximately 0.2-acre property owned by OtayWater District
(District).Anon-operating water well is currentlylocated on the site;installation ofthe newwell
would be accomplished by drilling a new borehole at some other location on the property.The
existing well would likely remain and be used for monitoring or testing purposes.The new well
would be drilled to a depth ofapproximately 860 feet,would be 18 inches in diameter (enlarged
from the existing 12-inch diameter),and would be constructed ofstainless steel well casing and
screening materials.
After drilling the well,the Districtwould testthe well to assess the feasibility of operating the well
for the intended purpose.Ifthe testing indicates that the water is notsuitable for treatment and
usage as potable water,the treatment facility would not be constructed.For purposes of
environmental review pursuantto CEQA,the District assumes thatthe well will be suitable and the
treatmentfacility would be constructed.The facility would feature an approximately 70,000-gallon
water-storage tank,three chemical treatmenttanks (a hypochlorite tank,caustic tank,and sulfuric
acid tank),a cleaning tank,a neutralization tank,pumps,a fuel vault,and an electrical generator.
The well head would be located outside the treatment facility,and all treatment-related facilities
would be housed inside an approximately 3,600-square-foot,15-foot-highstructure located in the
southeast cornerofthe site.The treatmentfacility would be equipped with automatic indoor fire-
suppression sprinklers to minimize the potential for structure fire.Underground plumbing and
electrical connections between the well head and the treatment facility would be installed.The
treatment facility would feature architecture and materials to mirror the appearance and character
of the residential and institutional structures in the vicinity ofthe site.
New connections to existing water andsewerfacilities in Rancho del Rey Parkway would be
installed as part ofthe project Two new connections to a District water main would be installed,
including one inlet for blending well water with potable water currently runningthrough the
system,and one outlet for distribution ofwell-produced and blended water into the system.A new
Mitigated Negative Declaration
Rancho Del Rey Groundwater Well 1 January 2010
ICF J&S00604.09
OtayWater District Environmental Checklist
connection to the City's sewersystem in Rancho del Rey Parkway would also be installed,enabling
discharge ofbyproduct (brine)from the water treatment facility's reverse osmosis process.This
discharge would be conveyed through the City's sewer mains and into the City ofSan Diego
Metropolitan Sewerage System (Metropolitan Sewer)for treatment This discharge to the
Metropolitan Sewer would rely on the District's capacity in the system rather than the City's.
Power and telephone lines connecting the treatment facility to existing facilities in Rancho del Rey
Parkwaywould also be installed as part of the project.
Anew vehicle access would be constructed off Rancho del Rey Parkway,consisting ofa concrete
driveway and a locked gate.Approximately 3,000 square feet ofthe site surrounding the treatment
facility would be paved with asphalt for parking and circulation for plant employees,chemical-
delivery trucks,and other equipment.The sitewould be designed to convey storm water to the
City's system,and would conform to City specifications for storm waterfacilities.A6-to 8-foot-
high concrete block wall would be constructed around the northern and eastern perimeterofthe
project site.Aconcrete block wall is currently located along the site's southern boundary;this wall
would not be affected by project construction,and would remain afterproject completion.A
decorative fence would be constructed on the site's western perimeter.Landscaping would be
planted around the perimeterofthe site as a visual buffer to the site and the proposedwalls.
Preliminary analysis ofthe well's production indicates thatthe well is anticipated to yield
approximately 400 gallons per minute,equating to 645.2 acre feet peryear,and is anticipated to
have a lifespan of 20-30 years,based on preliminaryestimates.The project would draw water
from a deep,confined alluvial groundwater aquiferknown as the San Diego Formation,which
underlies a large portion ofsouthwestern San Diego County.
The treatment facility is anticipated to employ one part-time worker,working approximately 20
hours perweek to perform regular operational,maintenance,and oversight duties.Chemical
deliveries to the site would occur approximately twice monthly.
Permanent lighting on the site would consistonly ofsecuritylighting,which would be low level,
downward facing,and limited the extent necessary to provide adequate securityfor the treatment
facility,similar in scale to that which exists on the adjacent daycare center.
Project Construction
Project construction would entail site clearing,trenching,grading,drilling the observation well and
new water well;paving;erecting the treatmentfacility structure and perimeter walls;and installing
the components ofthe treatmentfacility.
Well drilling and well casing installation would be conducted by a truck-mounted hydraulic drill rig.
The drill rig will be enclosed atall times by a 10-foot high noise wall placed approximately 20 feet
from the rig.Other heavy equipment to be used during the well construction period would include
one fork lift,one front loader,and hauling trucks.The drilling workwould last for a six-week
duration,with workconducted from 7 a.m.to 7 p.m.,Monday through Friday.Installation ofthe
well casing would be conducted over two,two-day periods of 24-hour work.These shortperiods of
24-hourwork are required during casing installation because halting the installation ofthe casings
would risk having the walls ofthe well shaftclose,which would require re-drilling.The noisiest
aspects ofthe casing installation,which include moving the casing parts and opening/closing roll-
off bins,would be limited to occurring during daylight hours,to the greatest extent possible.
Construction lightingwould be reqUired on the site during nighttime work,but would be shielded
by the presence ofthe noise wall enclosingthe drilling operation.
During drilling,groundwater would be pumped out,separated from the dirtand mud,and pumped
back into the ground.During the testing phase,groundwater would be pumped outand discharged
to the local sewer system to the extent possible,as described above for project operations.
Construction ofthe treatmentfacility would occur an undetermined amountoftime after the well
drilling,following an investigative testing phase in which the District will assess the feasibility of
operating the well for the intended purpose.Site grading,paving,trenching,pipeline installation,
and construction ofthe treatment facility would occur between 8:00 a.m.and 4:00 p.m.,Monday
through Friday.Installation ofwater,sewer,telephone,and electric lines from the proposed water
Mitigated Negative Declaration
Rancho Del Rey Groundwater Well 2 January 2010
ICF J&S00604.09
Otay Water District Environmental Checklist
treatment facility to connections in Rancho del Rey Parkway would require trenching.Most ofthis
would occur on site,butsome off-site trenching would be required within the roadway.Only a
small part ofthe road wouldbe affected,and the projectwould not require full closure of Rancho
del Rey Parkway.The District would prepare a traffic plan indicating the timing ofin-road
construction and specifYing measures to control traffic during the construction,including alerts to
drivers of the construction
Construction-related equipment and materials storage andworker parking would mostly be
accommodated in an onsite staging area,though it is possible that a small area adjacent to the site
would be required for materials staging.The number ofconstruction workers on site would range
from 4 to 12,depending on the phase ofconstruction,with the largest number working during
treatment-plantconstruction.
9.Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:
The project site is located in a developed area in the central portion ofthe City characterized by a
mixture ofsingle-family residential and open space uses,with some institutional uses in the vicinity
ofthe project site,including a child daycare facility immediately eastof the site and a church farther
to the east.The site is bordered on the west by Rancho del Rey Parkway (buffered by an
approximately lO-foot-wide landscaped area),on the north and eastbyan asphalt parking lot
associated with the adjacent daycare facility,and on the south by single-family residences.Figure 2
shows the site and surrounding uses.
The project site is a O.2-acre,irregularly shaped parcel that is entirely disturbed and covered in
non-native grass (turf).The site is currently accessed via the paved parking lot associated with the
adjacent daycare center.The site sits on a graded terrace thatseparates the site from the adjacent
residences to the south.A decorative wooden fence is located on the site's southern boundaryto
separate the site from the residential development.The existing groundwater well is located in the
north-central portion ofthe site.This well is 865 feet deep with a submersible pump and a 5-foot-
tall,2-foot diameteraboveground well head.It was installed in 1991 to supply dust-control water
used during nearby residential construction.Use ofthe well was discontinued in 1994,after which
the District purchased the property but never reinstated the onsite well.
10.Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required:
•City ofChula Vista:Encroachment Permit,Wastewater Disposal Permit
•County ofSan Diego Department ofEnvironmental Health:Water Well Permit
•San Diego Metropolitan Wastewater District:Industrial User Discharge Permit
Mitigated Negative Declaration
Rancho Del Rey Groundwater Well 3 January 2010
ICFJ&S 00604.09
Otay Water District
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
Environmental Checklist
The environmental factors checked belowwould potentially be affected bythis project (Le.,the
project would involve at least one impact thatis a "Potentially Significant Impact"),as indicated by
the checklist on the following pages.
0 Aesthetics 0 Agricultural Resources 0 Air Quality
0 Biological Resources 0 Cultural Resources 0 Geology/Soils
0 Hazards and Hazardous Materials 0 Hydrology/Water Quality 0 Land Use/Planning
0 Mineral Resources 0 Noise 0 Population/Housing
0 Public Services 0 Recreation 0 Transportation/Traffic
0 Utilities/Service Systems 0 Mandatory Findings of
Significance
Determination
On the basis ofthis initial evaluation:
o Ifind thatthe proposed projectCOULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment,and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
[gI Ifind thatalthough the proposed projectcould have a significant effect on the environment,there
will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions to the project have been made by or
agreed to bythe project proponent.A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
o I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment,and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
o I find that the proposed project MAY have an impact on the environment that is "potentially
significant"or "potentially significant unless mitigated"but at least one effect (1)has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuantto applicable legal standards and (2)has
been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis,as described on attached
sheets.An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required,but it must analyze only the effects
that remain to be addressed.
o I find that although the proposed project could have a significanteffect on the environment,
because all potentiallysignificant effects (a)have been analyzed adequatelyin an earlier
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuantto applicable
standards,and (b)have been avoided ormitigated pursuantto that earlier ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION,including revisions ormitigation measures that
are imposed upon the project,nothing further is required.
Printed Name
Mitigated Negative Declaration
Rancho Del Rey Groundwater Well 4
D~tc '
Ofar Wa+~,.D ;~+t:jc.+
For
January 2010
ICF J&S00604.09
Otay Water District
Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Environmental Checklist
1.Abrief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact"answers thatare adequately
supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each
question.A"No Impact"answeris adequately supported if the referenced information sources
show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g.,the project
falls outside a fault rupture zone).A "No Impact"answer should be explained ifit is based on
project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g.,the project will not expose sensitive
receptors to pollutants,based on a project-specific screening analysis).
2.All answers must take account of the whole action involved,including offsite as well as onsite,
cumulative as well as project-level,indirect as well as direct,and construction as well as
operational impacts.
3.Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur,the checklist
answers must indicate whether the impact is potentiallysignificant,less than significant with
mitigation,or less than significant."Potentially Significant Impact"is appropriate if there is
substantial evidence that an effect may be significant.If there are one or more "Potentially
Significant Impact"entries when the determination is made,an Environmental Impact Report
(EIR)is required.
4."Negative Declaration:Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated"applies when the
incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from a "Potentially Significant
Impact"to a "Less-than-Significant Impact".The lead agency must describe the mitigation
measures and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less-than-significant level.
(Mitigation measures from Section XVII,"Earlier Analyses",may be cross-referenced.)
5.Earlier analyses may be used if,pursuant to tiering,program EIR,or other CEQA process,an
effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration [Section
15063(c)(3)(D)].In this case,a brief discussion should identify the follOWing:
a.Earlier Analysis Used.Identify and state where earlier analyses are available for review.
b.Impacts Adequately Addressed.Identify which effects from the above checklist were within
the scope ofand adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuantto applicable legal
standards and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on
the earlieranalysis.
c.Mitigation Measures.For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation
Incorporated,"describe the mitigation measures that were incorporated or refined from the
earlier document and the extentto which they address site-specific conditions for the
project.
6.Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information
sources for potential impacts (e.g.,general plans,zoning ordinances).Reference to a previously
prepared or outside document should,when appropriate.include a reference to the page or
pages where the statement is substantiated.
7.Supporting Information Sources:Asource list should be attached,and other sources used or
individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
8.This is only a suggested form,and lead agencies are free to use different formats;however,lead
agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a
project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected.
Mitigated Negative Declaration
Rancho Del Rey GroundwaterWell 5 January 2010
ICF J&S 00604.09
Otay Water District Environmental Checklist
Less-than-
Potentially Significantwith Less-than-
Significant Mitigation Significant No
I.Aesthetics Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
Would the project:
a.Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic 0 0
[8J 0
vista?
b.Substantially damage scenic resources,0 0 0 [8J
including,butnot limited to,trees,rock
outcroppings,and historic buildings along a
scenic highway?
c.Substantially degrade the existing visual 0 0 0
character or quality ofthe site and its
surroundings?
d.Create a new source ofsubstantial light or glare 0 0 0
that would adversely affect daytime or
nighttime views in the area?
a.Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
Less-than-Significant Impact.As shown in Figure 3,the project site consists of an approximately 0.20-
acre disturbed,fenced area surrounded by commercial and residential development.The project
includes the installation ofwells and the construction ofan associated treatment facility,which would
be housed in a structure measuring approximately 15 feet high and located within the existing fenced
site that houses the existing well.Construction ofthe proposed facilities would represent an extension
ofthe visual character ofthe area,which includes the well site and the existing childcare facility and
associated parking lot.The perimeter ofthe 0.20-acre site currently contains ornamental landscaping,
and the project would also include landscapingaround the perimeter ofthe site,which would serve to
screen the site from the adjacent childcare facility and from motorists on Rancho del Rey Parkway.As a
result,construction ofthe projectwould result in a less-than-significant impact to the visual character of
the surrounding area.
b.Substantially damage scenic resources,including,but not limited to,trees,rock outcroppings,
and historic buildings along a scenic highway?
No Impact.There are no scenic highways within the vicinity ofthe project site.Therefore,the project
would not substantially damage scenic resources along a scenic highway.Additionally,there are no
other scenic resources on the site.Therefore,there would be no impact.
c.Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality ofthe site and its surroundings?
Less-than-Significant Impact.See 1.a above.The project is located on a disturbed parcel ofland
owned by the District that contains an existing well.Construction ofthe project would involve the
presence ofequipment and earth disturbance on a temporary basis.This activity would be visible from
the adjacent daycare facility,but would primarily be screened from view by existing vegetation
surrounding the project site.Activity would not be directly visible from adjacent residences due to
topographic changes because the project site is at a higher elevation than the nearby residences.
Therefore,the project's temporary construction impact would be less than significant.Permanent
Mitigated Negative Declaration
Rancho Del Rey GroundwaterWell 6 January 2010
ICF J&S 00604.09
Otay Water District Environmental Checklist
features on the site include an approximately IS-foot-high structure to house the treatment facility and
a concrete-block wall surrounding the site.The structure would be designed to be consistentwith the
existing structures in the area and would represent an extension ofthe visual character ofthe existing
uses within and surrounding the project site.Landscaping currently surrounds the 0.20-acre project
site,and the projectwould also include landscaping around the perimeter ofthe site.As a result,
implementation of the project would result in a less-than-significant impact to the visual character ofthe
area surrounding the project site.
d.Create a new source ofsubstantial light or glare that would adversely affect daytime or
nighttime views in the area?
Less-than-Significant with Mitigation Incorporated.The projectsite is located in a previously
developed area with existing sources of light and glare.Interior and exterior lighting would be required
for security and operational purposes during both construction and operation ofthe project.
Construction lighting would be required during night work activities,which are estimated to occur until
7:00 p.m.nightly for approximately six weeks and around the clock for two periods ofone or two nights
during the casing installation.This lighting mostly be contained by the noise attenuation system built
around the well-installation area and would be downward directed and shielded,but may be partially
visible from adjacent residences on a temporary basis during construction.The mitigation measure
listed belowwould reduce this impact byfostering community understanding ofthe project
construction process and providing a project liaison to field complaints from the community and
provide resolution to these complaints to the greatest extent feasible.
Mitigation Measure 1:Prepare a CommunityAwareness Program for Project
Construction.
In consultation with representatives of the City ofChula Vista,the District will prepare and
maintain a program to enhance communityawareness of project construction issues,including
noise,vibration,nighttime noise,and nighttime lighting.At least two weeks prior to the
initiation ofproject construction,information packets will be prepared and mailed to all
residences within a l,SOO-foot radius ofproject construction.The information packets will
include information on the purpose of the project,the estimated construction schedule,and the
types of machineryto be used on the site.The packetwill also identify the name and phone
number ofa District representative who will serve as a project liaison to the community.The
project liaison will be available to respond to community concerns regarding noise,vibration,
and light;provide additional explanation ofthe extent and duration ofthe issues of concern;and
workto resolve these issues to the greatest extent possible.
Operational lighting associated with the project would be low level,downward facing,and
limited to the extent necessary to provide adequate security for the treatment facility.Lighting
within the City is regulated by the City's Municipal Code.Construction and operational lighting
associated with the project would be designed to minimize spill light in accordance with Section
17.28.020 the City's Municipal Code,which requires shielding for onsite lighting.Shielding the
lights would focus light on site to avoid spillover onto neighboring properties,while only using
lighting necessary for safety and security purposes.In addition,the project will comply with
Section 19.66.100 ofthe City's Municipal Code,which regulates direct and sky-reflected glare
from floodlights and high-temperature processes such as combustion or welding.The project
would not entail combustion-or welding-related lighting,and any security floodlights would be
downward facing and shielded,as described above.Finally,project lighting would be similar in
Mitigated Negative Declaration
Rancho Del Rey Groundwater Well 7 January 2010
ICFJ&S 00604.09
OtayWaterDistrict Environmental Checklist
scale to that which exists on the adjacent daycare center.As a result,the project would not
adversely affect daytime or nighttime views in the area by creating a significant new source of
light and glare.Impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigated Negative Declaration
Rancho Del Rey Groundwater Well 8 January 2010
ICF J&S 00604.09
Otay Water District Environmental Checklist
II.Agricultural Resources
In determining whether impacts on agricultural
resources are significant environmental effects,lead
agencies may referto the California Agricultural
Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997)
prepared by the California Department of
Conservation.Would the project:
a.Convert Prime Farmland,Unique Farmland,or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland),
as shown on the maps prepared pursuantto the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of
the California Resources Agency,to non-
agricultural use?
b.Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use
orconflict with a Williamson Act contract?
c.Involve other changes in the existing
environment that,due to their location or
nature,could result in conversion ofFarmland
to non-agricultural use?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
o
o
o
Less-than-
Significantwith
Mitigation
Incorporated
o
o
o
Less-than-
Significant
Impact
o
o
o
No
Impact
a.Convert Prime Farmland,Unique Farmland,or Farmland ofStatewide Importance
(Farmland),as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program ofthe California Resources Agency,to non-agricultural use?
No Impact.The project would be located on land that is entirely disturbed and covered in turfand
features scattered ornamental landscaping.According to the San Diego County Important Farmland
Map (CDC 2006),the project site is designated as Urban and Built-Up Lands under the Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP);therefore,the proposed site does not contain any
designated Prime Farmland,Unique Farmland,or Farmland ofStatewide Importance.Thus,no
Prime,Unique,or Farmland ofStatewide Importance would be converted to non-agricultural use as
a result ofthe project.
b.Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or conflict with a Williamson Act
contract?
No Impact.See 2.a above.The project site and adjacent areas are not designated with agricultural
zoning,and the project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use since it would be
located on land that is currently disturbed and designated as Urban and Built-Up Lands underthe
FMMP.According to the San Diego County Williamson Act Lands Map,the project site is designated
as Built-up Lands underthe Williamson Act (CDC 2008).Thus,no Williamson Act contracts exist for
the site.In addition,no agricultural lands are located in the project vicinity.Therefore,
implementation of the project would not conflict with existing agricultural zoning or Williamson Act
contracts.No impact would occur.
Mitigated Negative Declaration
Rancho Del Rey Groundwater Well 9 January 2010
ICF J&S 00604.09
Otay Water District Environmental Checklist
c.Involve other changes in the existing environment that,due to their location or nature,
could result in conversion ofFarmland to non-agricultural use?
No Impact.See 2.a and 2.b above.There are no agricultural land uses located within or adjacentto
the projectsite.The project would not involve any other changes to the existing environment that
could result in the conversion ofFarmland to non-agricultural use.Therefore,no impact to
Farmland would result from implementation ofthe project.
Mitigated Negative Declaration
Rancho Del Rey Groundwater Well 10 January 2010
ICF J&S 00604.09
Otay Water District Environmental Checklist
Less-than-
Potentially Significantwith Less-than-
Significant Mitigation Significant No
III.Air Quality Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
When available,the significance criteria established
by the applicable air quality management or air
pollution control district may be relied uponto make
the following determinations.Would the project:
a.Conflict with or obstruct implementation ofthe 0 0 ~0
applicable air quality plan?
b.Violate any air quality standard or contribute 0 0 ~0
substantiallyto an existing or projected air
quality violation?
c.Result in a cumulatively considerable net 0 0 0
increase ofanycriteria pollutant for which the
project region is a nonattainment area for an
applicable federal or state ambientair quality
standard (including releasing emissions that
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors)?
d.Expose sensitive receptors to substantial 0 0 ~0
pollutant concentrations?
e.Create objectionable odors affecting a 0 0 ~
substantial number ofpeople?
a.Conflict with or obstruct implementation ofthe applicable air quality plan?
Less-than-Significant Impact.The project site is located in the San Diego Air Basin (SDAB),which
is contiguous with San Diego County.The San Diego Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD)is
required,pursuant to the federal and state Clean AirActs,to reduce emissions ofcriteria pollutants
for which the Basin is in nonattainment.The SDAB is currently classified as a nonattainment area
for the federal ozone (8-hour 03)standard and a maintenance area for the federal carbon monoxide
(CO)standard.In addition,the SDAB is classified as a serious nonattainment area for state ozone
(03)and a nonattainment area for the state particulate matter less than 2.5 microns (PM2.5)and
particulate matter less than 10 microns (PM10)standards (SDAPCD 2008).
All areas designated as nonattainment are required to prepare plans showing how the area would
meet the state and federal air quality standards by its attainment dates.The San Diego Regional Air
Quality Strategy (RAQS)is the region's plan for improving air quality in the region.It addresses the
state and federal requirements and demonstrates attainment with ambient air quality standards.
The applicable air quality plans within the SDAB rely on information from California Air Resources
Board (CARB)and the San Diego Association ofGovernments,including projected growth in the
county,which is based in part on local general plans.Therefore,projects that propose development
that is consistentwith the land use designations and growth anticipated by the general plan would
be consistent with applicable air quality plans.As described in response 9.b,the project would be
consistentwith the City ofChula Vista's General Plan Quasi-Public land use designation since it
would constructand operate a well and water treatment facility intended to serve the public's
Mitigated Negative Declaration
Rancho Del Rey Groundwater Well 11 January 2010
ICFJ&S 00604,09
OtayWaterDistrict Environmental Checklist
demand for water resources.The project does notfeature any long-term aspects thatwould be
substantial pollutant emission sources.Project-related traffic generation is limited to vehicle trips
from one part-time employee and trucktrips from bi-monthly chemical deliveries.This small
amount ofvehicle activity would not be a considerable source ofair pollutant emissions.Therefore,
construction of the proposed project would be consistent with the general plan and operation would
not conflict with any local air quality plan or result in violation of air quality standards.This impact
is considered less than significant.
The project entails temporary construction activity,including well drilling,clearing,trenching,
grading,paving,erecting the treatmentfacility structure and perimeterwalls,and installing the
components ofthe treatment facility.The primary construction-related pollutant in terms ofthe
SDAB air quality plan is PM10.Grading and construction activities would be subject to SDAPCD
rules and regulations,including Rule 50 (Visible Emissions),Rule 51 (Nuisance),and Rule 55
(Fugitive Dust Control)(SDAPCD 2009).The principal source ofPM10 emissions would be fugitive
dust from earthmoving activities and vehicle travel on unpaved and paved surfaces.The
requirements ofRules 50,51,and 55 can be met by the implementation ofstandard construction
best management practices (BMPs)for dust control.The standard construction measures utilized
by the District during recent construction projects that will be included as part of the project
include:
•dust prevention to eliminate amounts ofdust that could damage property,cultivated
vegetation,ordomestic animals,or cause a nuisance to persons living in or occupying buildings
in the vicinity ofthe site;
•measures to enclose,cover,water (as needed),or apply non-toxic soil binders according to
manufacturer's specifications on material piles (Le.,gravel,sand,dirt)with a silt content of 5%
orgreater;and
•the application ofwater ornon-toxic soil stabilizers to maintain adequate dust control for active
or inactive construction areas.
The construction and grading activities for the project would also be required to adhere to these
dust control measures,and would thereby be in adherence with applicable SDAPCD rules and
regulations.
b.Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air
quality violation?
Less-than-Significant Impact.See response to 3a.Adiscussion ofthe project's potential
construction-period air quality impacts is provided below.
Construction Impacts
Construction ofthe Rancho del Rey Groundwater Well would result in emissions as a result of
ground disturbance,off-road construction vehicle exhaust,emissions from employee and delivery
travel,and as a result ofoff-gasing from paving activities.Emissions would vary from day to day,
depending on the level ofactivity,the specific type ofconstruction activity occurring,and,for
fugitive dust,prevailing weather conditions.The project's construction emissions were estimated
and compared to SOAPCD air quality impact analysis (AQIA)trigger levels,as shown in SDAPCD
Rule 20.2.An adverse impact on air quality would result if the emission levels from the project were
to exceed any ofthe AQIA trigger levels.As shown in Table 2,project construction is not anticipated
to exceed any AQIA trigger levels.
Mitigated Negative Declaration
Rancho Del Rey Groundwater Well 12 January 2010
ICF J&S 00604.09
OtayWaterDistrict Environmental Checklist
Emissions were calculated using the URBEMIS2007 emissions model.Adetailed project
construction schedule and inventory of construction equipment that would be used for the project's
drilling phase was provided by the client URBEMIS defaults were used to estimate schedule and
inventory ofequipment for the remainingphases ofproject construction.The assumed construction
schedule,hours of construction per day,and types ofconstruction equipment for each phase of
construction is presented in Table 1 below.For purposes ofanalysis,it was assumed that project
construction would occur in seven separate phases.Drilling the production well would occurfirst,
followed by installation ofthe casings for the production well.Next,the observation well would be
drilled and then cased.For modeling input purposes,it was assumed thatbuilding construction,
trenching for utilities,and asphalt pavingwould take place simultaneously aftercompletion ofthe
drilling and installation,though the treatment-plant-related construction would actually occur an
undetermined amount oftime after the well is drilled,following an investigative testing phase.
Table 1.Assumed Construction Inputs
Hours
Construction Phase Start Date End Date Per Day Equipment Assumptions
Well Drilling,water well drill,compressor,backhoe,
(15 work days)!2/1/2010 2/19/2010 12 generator,light,tractor
Well Casing,waterwell drill (casing),compressor,
(2 days)1 2/22/2010 2/23/2010 24 backhoe,generator,light,tractor
Well Drilling,observation well drill,compressor,backhoe,
(15 work days)1 2/24/2010 3/16/2010 12 generator,light,tractor
Well Casing,observation well drill (casing),compressor,
(2 days)1 3/17/2010 3/18/2010 24 backhoe,generator,light,tractor
Building Construction forklift,backhoe,compressor,
(18 work days)2 3/19/2010 4/13/2010 8 generator
Trenching for Utilities excavator,crusher,loader,
(18 work days)2 3/19/2010 4/13/2010 8 backhoe,trencher,welder
Paving 4 cement/mortar mixers,paver,
(7 work days)2 4/6/2010 4/14/2010 8 roller,backhoe
1 Construction equipment,horsepower,and hours ofoperationfor well drilling and well casing wereprovided bythe
client's drilling contractor (personal communicationwith Bill Stuckey,WOC Exploration &Wells,January 2010).
2 Building construction,trenching,and paving werebased on URBEMIS default construction assumptions.
As shown in Table 2,construction of the project would be below applicable SDAPCD thresholds for
criteria pollutants.Construction ofthe project would not result in an impact on air quality in that
emissions would not exceed SDAPCD applicable air quality standards or contribute to existing air
quality violations.
Mitigated Negative Declaration
Rancho Del Rey Groundwater Well 13 January 2010
ICF J&S 00604.09
Otay Water District
Table 2.Estimated Construction Emissions
Environmental Checklist
Metric Tons per
Pounds per day year
Construction Phase ROG NOx CO SOx PMI0 PM2.5 COze
Well Drilling,water well 8.72 76.99 38.18 <1 8.4 4.88 60.5(15 days)
Well Casing,waterwell 14.36 143.91 59.44 <1 10.61 6.91 16.9(2 days)
Well Drilling,observation 8.72 76.99 38.18 <1 8.4 4.88 60.5well(15 days)
Well Casing,observation well 14.36 143.91 59.44 <1 10.61 6.91 16.9(2 days)
Building Construction 3.36 35.45 12.99 <1 1.55 1.42 31.1(18 days)z
Trenching for Utilities 3.91 26.29 16.44 <1 1.7 1.56 20.9(18 days)2
Paving (7 days)z 2.04 12.11 8.86 <1 1.05 0.96 3.9
Maximum Emissions 14.36 143.91 59.44 <1 10.61 6.91 210.7
SDAPCD Significance 75 250 550 250 100 55Threshold
Exceed Threshold?No No No No No No N/A
ROG =reactive organic gas.NOx=oxides ofnitrogen.
CO =carbon monoxide.SOx =sulfur oxides.
PM10 =particulate matter equal to or less than 10 microns.PM2.5 =particulate matter less than 2.5 microns.
COze =carbon dioxide equivalent
Note:URBEMIS emission output sheets and GHG calculation worksheets are provided in Appendix A.
Operational Impacts
Operation ofthe project would result in minimal emissions as a result ofvehicle trips from one part-
time employee and bi-monthly chemical delivery trucks.Onsite use ofelectricity for the
groundwater well,lights,and ancillary equipment would be provided by a connection to the local
electrical grid.Therefore,operational emissions are expected to be minimal and are not anticipated
to exceed SDAPCD thresholds.Operation of the project would not result in an impact on air quality
and emissions would not exceed applicable air quality standards or contribute to existing air quality
violations.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Project construction would result in greenhouse gas (GHG)emissions as a result ofoff-road diesel
equipment exhaustand emissions from employee and material delivery travel.The primary
emissions occur as carbon dioxide (C02)from gasoline and diesel combustion.with more limited
vehicle tailpipe emissions ofnitrous oxide and methane as well as other GHG emissions related to
vehicle cooling systems.Construction period C02 emissions were obtained from the URBEMIS2007
model,and construction period methane (CH4)and nitrous oxide (N20)emissions were calculated
based on the methodology found in the Climate Registry General Reporting Protocol,Version 3.1,for
construction diesel-fuel emission estimates (California Climate Action Registry 2009).GHG
emissions were presented as C02equivalent (C02e)using the methodology for calculating C02e
found in the Climate Registry General Reporting Protocol,Version 3.1 (California Climate Action
Mitigated Negative Declaration
Rancho Del Rey Groundwater Well 14 January 2010
ICF J&S00604.09
Otay Water District Environmental Checklist
Registry 2009).As shown in Table 2,project constructionwould result in approximately 211 metric
tons ofC02e over the entire construction period.The relative quantity of project-related GHG
emissions during short-term construction is negligible in comparison to statewide and worldwide
daily emissions.The project's amount ofemissions,without considering other cumulative global
emissions,would be insufficientto cause substantial climate change directly.Thus,project
emissions in isolation are considered less than significant.However,climate change is a global
cumulative impact,and thus the proper contextfor analysis ofthis issue is not a project's emissions
in isolation,but rather as a contribution to cumulative GHG emissions,which is discussed in the
response to 3.c below.
Because quantitative GHG gUidelines,including thresholds,have not been developed by the SDAPCD,
these emissions are provided for information purposes only.
c.Result in a cumulatively considerable netincrease of any criteria pollutant for which the
projectregion is a nonattainment area for an applicable federal orstate ambient air quality
standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors)?
Less-Than-Significant Impact.See response to 3a and 3b.Cumulative construction impacts on
nearby receptors may occur ifthe project is constructed atthe same time as other development
projects in the area,thereby exposing sensitive receptors to cumulative emission concentrations
(See response 3.d below).However,it is anticipated thatwith the incorporation ofthe standard
SDAPCD dust control measures,the contribution of the project to cumulative impacts related to
PM10 and PM2.S emissions would be less than significant.
Operation ofthe project would not contribute to any significant cumulative impacts related to non-
attainment status for ozone,PM10,or PM2.S.The proposed facilities would involve one part-time
workerand bi-monthly truck trips for chemical deliveries.In addition,as shown in response 3.a,the
project is consistent with applicable air quality management plan because it proposes a land use
consistent with the local general plan.
Construction and operation ofthe proposed project would not result in significant impacts related
to climate change and greenhouse gas emissions.Construction ofthe project would short-term in
nature and the net-increase in emissions that would result from construction would be negligible
when compared to state and worldwide emissions.In term ofoperations,water imported from
other parts ofthe state and/or region require the use ofenergy.and GHG emissions associated with
water supply result from the indirect consumption ofelectricity to pump water throughoutthe state
and region.The purpose ofthis project is to provide potable water supply to nearby residents and
businesses which may reduce the need for water from other parts of the state and/or region.
Therefore,it can be assumed thatlong-term operation ofthe project would result in a reduction in
indirect energy consumption,thereby reducing the amount of GHG emissions related to water
supply.As a result the project would result in a less than significant contribution to cumulative
conditions related to climate change and GHG emissions.
d.Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
Less-Than-Significant Impact.See response to 3a and 3b.Construction ofthe project could
potentially expose sensitive receptors to pollution concentrations as on-road vehicles and off-road
construction equipment operate on the projectsite for approximately 2 months.Diesel engines
(including construction equipment)emit toxic air contaminants (TACs),which are known to
Mitigated Negative Declaration
Rancho Del Rey GroundwaterWeli 15 January 2010
ICFJ&S 00604.09
Otay Water District Environmental Checklist
increase the risk of developing cancer and have acute and chronic health risks in the case of
excessive human exposure.Of particular importance is diesel particulate matter (DPM),which is
identified by the California Air Resources Board (CARB)as a toxic air contaminantand is a known
carcinogen (CARB 1998).Due to the temporary operation ofdiesel engines in proximity to sensitive
receptors,including the daycare facility east ofthe site and residences surrounding the site,the
project's TAC emissions were quantified and incorporated into a health-risk analysis for project
construction.For TACs including DPM that can cause cancer,a unit risk factor can be developed to
evaluate cancer risk.Fornon-cancer health risks,a similar factor called a Hazard Index (HI)is used
to evaluate risk.The HI is calculated by summing the hazard quotients for substances thataffect the
same target organ or organ system (e.g.,respiratory system).The hazard quotient is the ratio of
potential exposure to the substance and the level at which no adverse health effects are expected.
An increased cancer risk of 1 in one million is considered potentially significant while an increased
cancer risk of10 in one million is considered significant.An HI ofless than one indicates no adverse
health effects are expected from exposure,while an HI greater than one indicates adverse health
effects are possible.
Potential sources ofDPM include exhaust emissions from on-road vehicles,Dff-road vehicles (such
as trucks,loaders,backhoes,and excavators),and portable equipment (such as compressors,drills,
and generators).The DPM of greatest health concern are those in the categories offine (PM10)and
ultra-fine (PM2.5).These fine and ultra-fine particles are respirable,which means that they can
avoid many ofthe human respiratory system defense mechanisms and enterdeeply into the lungs.
Therefore,and as discussed below,the use ofdiesel-powered engines for project construction could
expose nearby sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations,potentially resulting in
adverse health effects.
The nearest sensitive land uses to the project area are a daycare facility to the immediate east ofthe
project site as well as residences to the north,west,and south.Therefore,a health risk screening
analysis was conducted using the EPA's SCREEN3 dispersion model to determine if elevated health
risks would result from construction activities at these locations in the vicinity of the project area.
The screening analysis assumes that sensitive receptors are exposed to the approximately 2 months
(59 days)ofconstruction exhaust for 9 hours per day,which is the assumed total daily operating
hours for the daycare facility,the nearest receptor.Receptors were placed at distances ranging from
zero to 4,920 feet (1,500 meters)away from construction activities.These sensitive receptor
locations were selected for the screening analysis to represent the locations where sensitive
receptors at the daycare facility and nearby residences could be exposed to the maximum levels of
DPM from construction equipment activities.This analysis considers the total construction DPM
emissions that would be emitted at the project site over the length ofthe construction period.The
DPM screening analysis results are presented in Table 3.
MitigatedNegative Declaration
Rancho Del Rey Groundwater Well 16 January 2010
ICF J&500604.09
Otay WaterDistrict Environmental Checklist
Table 3.Summary of Potential Health Risk from Project Construction DPM Emissions at the Daycare
Facility
Estimated Health Impact for Receptors Adjacent to Cancer Risk
Construction Activities (per 1,000,000)
Maximum health impact (154 feet from construction activities)0.2
10 feet from construction activities 0.08
25 feet from construction activities 0.11
65 feet from construction activities 0.2
100 feet from construction activities 0.2
250 feet from construction activities 0.2
500 feet from construction activities 0.07
SDAPCD Significance Threshold 10
Chronic
Hazard Index
0.98
0.3
0.5
0.7
0.9
0.7
0.3
1
Note:SCREEN3 model outputs and health risk calculations areprovided in Appendix A.
Table 3 summarizes the modeled project-generated construction-related health risk (potential
cancerand chronic health risks)from DPM at various distances from construction activities.The
doorstep of the daycare facility is approximately 25 feet from the edge of construction activities,
while the parking areas and playgrounds range from 10 feet to 250 feet away from construction
activities.The nearest residence south ofthe projectarea is approximately 35 feet away.This
worst-case analysis assumes the nearest receptors (at the daycare facility)are directly downwind of
construction activities with little to no elevation difference between the source and the receptor.
The highest DPM concentrations and health risks occur between 3 to 250 feet from construction
activities and reduce significantly beyond 250 feet.The maximum health impactwould occur at
approximately 154 feet from construction activities.This distance represents the middle ofthe
daycare facility property as well as the distance to nearbyresidences.However,as shown in Table
3,construction-related DPM emissions would not exceed SDAPeD thresholds for increased cancer
risk and chronic hazard index.DPM emissions would represent a minimal impact to receptors at
both the daycare facility and nearby residences.Therefore,the project's construction would not
expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations,and the construction impact
would be less than significant.
Beyond the construction phase,the project would not result in considerable pollutant emissions
because operation would entail operations would only include a part-time employee and bi-monthly
material deliveries.Therefore,the project's operational phase would not expose sensitive receptors
to substantial pollutant concentrations,and the operational impactwould be less than significant.
e.Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?
Less-Than-Significant Impact.Project-related odor emission would be limited to the construction
period,where emissions from the construction equipment may be evident in the immediately
surrounding area on a temporarybasis.Potential sources that may emit odors during construction
activities include asphalt paving.In addition,material deliveries from heavy-duty truck trips could
create an occasional "whiff'ofdiesel exhaust for nearby receptors along roadways.These odors
would notaffect a substantial number ofpeople,as the scale ofconstruction is small,the frequency
ofpermanent trips is very low,and the potentially affected area is limited due to the localized
evidence ofthese odors.In terms ofoperations,there would be no permanent impacts because the
Mitigated Negative Declaration
Rancho Del Rey Groundwater Well 17 January 2010
ICF J&S 00604.09
Otay Water District Environmental Checklist
water treatment processing would be conducted in an enclosed area.Therefore,the project's odor
impact would be less than significant.
Mitigated Negative Declaration
Rancho Del Rey Groundwater Well 18 January 2010
ICF J&S 00604.09
Otay Water District Environmental Checklist
Less-than-
Potentially Significant with Less-than-
Significant Mitigation Signiflcant No
IV.Biological Resources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
Would the project:
a.Have a substantial adverse effect,either directly 0 0 0
or through habitat modifications,on anyspecies
identified as a candidate,sensitive,or special-
status species in local or regional plans,policies,
or regulations,or by the California Department
ofFish and Game or U.S.Fish and Wildlife
Service?
b.Have a substantial adverse effect on any 0 0 0
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local orregional plans,
policies,orregulations,or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or U.S.Fish and
Wildlife Service?
c.Have a substantial adverse effect on federally 0 0 0
protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of
the Clean WaterAct (including,but notlimited
to,marshes,vernal pools,coastal wetlands,etc.)
through direct removal,filling,hydrological
interruption,or other means?
d.Interfere substantially with the movement of 0 0 0
any native resident ormigratory fish or wildlife
species or with established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors,or impede the use
ofnative wildlife nursery sites?
e.Conflict with any local policies or ordinances 0 0 0
protecting biological resources,such as a tree
preservation policy orordinance?
f.Conflict with the provisions ofan adopted 0 0 0
habitat conservation plan,natural community
conservation plan,or otherapproved local,
regional,or state habitat conservation plan?
a.Have a substantial adverse effect,either directly or through habitat modifications,on any
species identified as a candidate,sensitive,or special-status species in local or regional plans,
policies,or regulations,or by the California Departmentof Fish and Game or U.S.Fish and
Wildlife Service?
Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated.ICF Jones &Stokes staff conducted a sitevisit
on June 11,2009,to determine existing biological resources conditions on the site and to analyze
potential effects ofthe project on sensitive biological resources.The project site consists ofan
existing disturbed,fenced area thatsupports bare ground and some scattered non-native species
and is surrounded bydeveloped areas and some associated ornamental landscaping.The project
footprint would be limited to the existing disturbed/fenced area and some ofthe surrounding
Mitigated Negative Declaration
Rancho Del Rey Groundwater Well 19 January 2010
ICFJ&S 00604.09
Otay Water District Environmental Checklist
ornamental plantings.The project site and immediately surrounding areas do not provide suitable
habitat for listed species.However,the project site is near open space areas and,as a result,onsite
and adjacent ornamental plantings,including pine trees,could provide suitable nesting habitat for
raptors and otherbirds protected by the Federal Migratory Bird TreatyAct (MBTA).The MBTA,
enacted in 1918,is a federal statute whose purpose is to prohibit the kill or transport of native
migratorybirds,orany part,nest,oregg of any such bird unless allowed by another regulation
adopted in accordance with the MBTA.Direct impacts (through loss ofhabitat)and indirect impacts
(through increased noise and dust during construction)on nesting birdsjraptors resulting from
implementation ofthe project would be considered significant.Implementation ofeither Mitigation
Measure 2a or Mitigation Measure 2b would reduce this impact to less than significant.
Mitigation Measure 2a:Avoid Impacts on Vegetation During the Nesting Bird Season.
In order to avoid all potential impacts on nesting migratory birds and raptors,construction
activities involving the removal ofvegetation shall be restricted during the breeding season for
migratory birdsjraptors (approximately January 15 through August 31).
If construction activities are proposed within the identified breeding season,Mitigation Measure
2b would be employed.
Mitigation Measure 2b:Preconstruction Nesting Bird Surveys.
Ifconstruction activities involving the removal ofvegetation occur between January 15 and
August 31,a preconstruction nesting bird survey shall be conducted (within three days prior to
construction activities)by a qualified biologist to determine ifactive nests are presentwithin or
adjacent to the projectsite in order to avoid the nesting activities ofbreeding birdsjraptors.If
nesting activities within 200 feet ofthe proposed work area are not detected,construction
activities would be allowed to proceed.If nesting activities are confirmed within this radius,
construction activities shall be delayed within an appropriate buffer from the active nest until
the young birds have fledged and left the nestor until the nest is no longer active as determined
by a qualified biologist.The size ofthe appropriate buffer shall be determined by a qualified
biologist,but shall be at least 25 feet.
b.Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or othersensitive natural
community identified in local or regional plans,policies,or regulations,or by the California
Department ofFish and Game orU.S.Fish and Wildlife Service?
No Impact.The project site consists of an existing disturbed area surrounded by development and
associated ornamental landscaping.No riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community is
located within or adjacent to the project site.Therefore,no impacts to riparian habitats or other
sensitive natural communities would occur as a result ofthe project.
c.Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section
404 ofthe Clean Water Act (including,butnot limited to,marshes,vernal pools,coastal
wetlands,etc.)through direct removal,filling,hydrological interruption,or other means?
No Impact.The project site consists ofan existing disturbed area surrounded by development.No
jurisdictional wetlands or waterways occur within or immediately adjacentto the project site.
Therefore,the project would not have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands
as defined by Section 404 ofthe Clean Water Act.No impacts would occur.
Mitigated Negative Declaration
Rancho Del Rey Groundwater Well 20 January 2010
ICF J&S 00604.09
Otay Water District Environmental Checklist
d.Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or
wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors,or
impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
Less than Significant Impact.See 4.a above.Construction and operation ofthe projectwould not
interfere with the movement ofany native resident or migratory fish or impedethe use ofnative
wildlife nursery sites because no waterways with the ability to support fish exist on the site and no
native wildlife nurserysites occur in the project area.The project site consists ofa disturbed area
surrounded by commercial and residential development and associated ornamental landscaping.
Removal ofornamental landscaping could disturb potentially suitable nesting habitat for
birdsjraptors,as described above in 4.a,butthe scattered ornamental plantings and roadside
vegetation in the project area do not serve as a wildlife corridor because they do not link areas of
native habitat.Therefore,impacts to wildlife movementfrom the project would be less than
significant.
e.Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources,such as a
tree preservation policy or ordinance?
Less than Significant Impact.The project site is located within the City ofChula Vista's Multiple
Species Conservation Program (MSCP)Subarea.The project site is within an area mapped as
"DevelopmentArea"and within a "Major Projects Boundaries"area.Therefore,the project would
not conflict with the City's MSCP Subarea Plan.Impacts would be less than significant.
f.Conflict with the provisions ofan adopted habitat conservation plan,natural community
conservation plan,or other approved local,regional,or state habitat conservation plan?
Less than Significant Impact.See 4.e above.The project would be consistent with provisions
identified in the City's MSCP.Impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigated Negative Declaration
Rancho Del Rey Groundwater Well 21 January 2010
ICFJ&S00604.09
Otay Water District Environmental Checklist
Less-than-
Potentially Significant with Less-than-
Significant Mitigation Significant No
V.Cultural Resources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
Would the project:
a.Cause a substantial adverse change in the D D D
significance ofa historical resource as defined in
Section 15064.5?
b.Cause a substantial adverse change in the D D D
significance ofan archaeological resource
pursuant to Section 15064.5?
c.Directly or indirectlydestroy a unique D D D
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
d.Disturb anyhuman remains,includingthose D D D
interred outside offormal cemeteries?
a.Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance ofa historical resource as defined in
Section 15064.5?
No Impact.The site is a previously disturbed and graded parcel that is part ofa residential and
public facilities master development that occurred in the 1990s.No historical resources are located
within or immediatelyadjacent to the project site.Therefore,the project would not cause a
substantial adverse change in the significance ofa historic resource.
b.Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance ofan archaeological resource
pursuant to Section 15064.5?
No Impact.The site is a previously disturbed and graded parcel and,therefore,is not likely to
contain subsurface archaeological resources.Therefore,there would be no impact.
c.Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic
feature?
Less Than Significantwith Mitigation Incorporated.The presence or absence ofpaleontological
resources or unique geologic features beneath the surface ofthe site cannot be determined.The
well-drilling aspect of the project has a very low potential to disturb any resources or features that
may be present due to the limited scope ofthe ground disturbance (Le.,an 18-inch well shaft).
Because the absence ofthese resources and features cannot be confirmed,this is a significant
impact,and mitigation is identified below that would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant
level.As a standard practice ofwell drilling,one or more qualified geologists would be present
during the project-related drilling for geologic monitoring and testing purposes.As part oftheir
regular monitoring process,these geologists would be checkingthe earth material that is displaced
by the drilling and would be vigilant ofunusual circumstances such as the presence of
paleontological resources or unique geologic features.The following mitigation would be
implemented on the project to ensure that the project would not substantially destroy any such
resources or features.
Mitigated Negative Declaration
Rancho Del Rey Groundwater Well 22 January 2010
ICF J&S 00604.09
Otay Water District Environmental Checklist
Mitigation Measure 3:Halt Work if Paleontological Resources or Unique Geologic
Features Are Encountered.
If paleontological resources or unique geologic features are discovered by the projectgeologists
during drilling,the drilling work will be halted immediately and the San Diego Museum of
Natural History (Natural History Museum)will be contacted.In consultation with the Natural
History Museum and the project geologist.the Districtwill determine the proper steps for
documenting,removing,or otherwise managing the resources or features.
d.Disturb any human remains,including those interred outside offormal cemeteries?
No Impact.Please see S.b above.
Mitigated Negative Declaration
Rancho Del Rey Groundwater Well 23 January 2010
ICF J&S 00604.09
Otay Water District Environmental Checklist
Less-than-
Potentially Significant with Less-than-
Significant Mitigation Significant No
VI.Geology and Soils Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
Would the project:
a.Expose people orstructures to potential
substantial adverse effects,including the risk of
loss,injury,or death involving:
1.Rupture ofa known earthquakefault,as D D D
delineated on the most recent Alquist-
Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued
by the State Geologist for the area or based
on othersubstantial evidence ofa known
fault?Refer to Division ofMines and
Geology Special Publication 42.
2.Strong seismic groundshaking?D D ~D
3.Seismic-related ground failure,including D D D ~
liquefaction?
4.Landslides?D D D ~
b.Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of D D ~D
topsoil?
c.Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is D D ~D
unstable orthatwould become unstable as a
result of the project and potentially result in an
onsite oroffsite landslide,lateral spreading,
subsidence,liquefaction,or collapse?
d.Be located on expansive soil,as defined in Table D D D
18-1-B ofthe Uniform Building Code (1994),
creating substantial risks to life or property?
e.Have soils incapable of adequately supporting D D D
the use ofseptic tanks or alternative
wastewaterdisposal systems in areas where
sewers are notavailable for the disposal of
wastewater?
a.Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects,including the risk of
loss,injury,or death involving:
1.Rupture ofa known earthquake fault,as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault?
Less-than-Significant Impact.The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault zoning Map shows the nearest
fault from this system,the Point Loma Earthquake Fault Zone,located approximately 6 miles west of
the site.The project would not be subject to rupture along this fault.Figure 9-7 ofthe Chula Vista
General Plan shows potentially active traces ofthe La Nacion fault approximately 0.5 miles east of
the site.The greatest magnitude earthquake expected on the La Nacion fault is estimated to be 6.0.
The project would not experience ground rupture from a quake along this fault system,butmay be
Mitigated Negative Declaration
Rancho Del Rey GroundwaterWell 24 January 2010
ICFJ&S 00604.09
Otay Water District Environmental Checklist
subject to strongseismic ground shaking,as discussed below.The rupture-related impact would be
less than significant.
2.Strong seismic ground shaking?
Less-than-Significant Impact.As with most areas throughout southern California,the project site
would be subject to strong ground shaking in the event of a major earthquake along a nearbyfault.
Adverse affects on construction due to ground shakingare routinely addressed by standard
measures set forth in the Uniform Building Code.As described above in the response to 6.a.1,the
project is approximately 0.5 miles east ofpotentially active traces ofthe La Nacion fault system,
which is estimated as producing up to a 6.0 earthquake.This could produce ground shaking on the
site,but not to the extent that would be out ofthe ordinary and that could not be dealt with by
implementing standard UBC measures.The "Geology and Soils Information Report"prepared for
the project by Southern California Soils &Testing,Inc.(Appendix B ofthis MND)includes seismic
design recommendations in accordance with the 2007 California Building Code,which would be
incorporated into the site.Therefore,this impactwould be less than significant.
3.Seismic-related ground failure,including liquefaction?
No Impact.Figure 9-7 ofthe Chula Vista General Plan identifies areas within the City that are
subject to hazards due to liquefaction.The project site is not shown as a liquefaction hazard area on
this map.Furthermore,the Geology and Soils Information Report (Appendix B)did not identify the
potential for liquefaction to occur on the site.Therefore,there would be no impact.
4.Landslides?
No Impact.Figure 9-7 ofthe Chula Vista General Plan identifies areas within the City that are
subject to hazards due to landslides.The project site is not shown as a landslide hazard area on this
map.Therefore,there would be no impact.
b.Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
Less-than-Significant Impact.The project site is situated on approximately 0.20 acres oflevel
terrain that has been previously graded and disturbed and is surrounded by developed areas.The
project would entail a minor amount ofgrading on the project site that,due to the limited size ofthe
site and the limited scope ofgrading,would not result in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil.
Therefore,this impact would be less than significant.
c.Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable or that would become unstable as a
result of the project and potentially result in an onsite or offsite landslide,lateral spreading,
subsidence,liquefaction,or collapse?
Less-than-Significant Impact.The project would withdraw approximately 645 acre-feet per year
ofgroundwater from the San Diego Formation,a deep,confined alluvial aquifer.The total storage
capacity ofthe San Diego Formation has been estimated to approach orexceed 2 million acre feet
(SDCWA 1997,SDCWA 2003).
In 1996,the San Diego County Water Authority formed the San Diego Formation Task Force to
assess issues associated with groundwater supply developmentfrom the San Diego Formation.To
avoid waterquality impacts associated with seawater intrusion and to avoid subsidence impacts,the
San Diego Formation Task Force concluded that groundwater production from the San Diego
Formation may be limited to approximately 40,000 to 90,000 acre-feet per year (SDCWA 2003).
Mitigated Negative Declaration
Rancho Del Rey GroundwaterWell 25 January 2010
ICF J&S 00604.09
Otay Water District Environmental Checklist
Current and proposed pumping from the middle portion of the San Diego Formation is projected to
be significantly below this threshold.SweetwaterAuthority is the only entity currently pumping
waterfrom the San Diego Formation aquifer in the general project area.SweetwaterAuthority's
total pumping from the San Diego Formation is currentlyapproximately 6,000 acre-feet per year
(SweetwaterAuthority 2009).Ultimate Sweetwater Authority groundwater pumping from the San
Diego Formation is projected at approximately 11,000 acre-feet per year (Sweetwater Authority
2009).
Sweetwater Authority has developed an Interim Groundwater Management Plan (2001)that,in
part,establishes a goal ofmaintaining long-term groundwaterlevels in the San Diego Formation
aquifer.By maintaining long-term static groundwater levels,the interim plan seeks to ensure that
San Diego Formation pumping does not lead to such adverse effects such as seawater intrusion or
subsidence (SweetwaterAuthority 2001).
Land subsidence or geologic instability could occur when a confined groundwater aquifer is
excessively pumped to the pointwhere groundwater aquifer piezometric heads (groundwater
aquifer pressures)are significantly reduced.The projected groundwater pumping rate (645 acre-
feet per year)is a tiny fraction of 1%ofthe total San Diego Formation groundwater storage.Total
ultimate groundwater pumping from the middle portion ofthe San Diego Formation (existing
Sweetwater Authority pumping,proposed ultimate SweetwaterAuthority pumping,and the
proposed Otay Water District project)would also representa small fraction ofthe San Diego
Formation groundwater storage.Because the proposed project involves small groundwater
pumping volumes compared to the available aquifer storage,the project (by itself orin combination
with other regional groundwater pumping projects)would not result in significant changes in
groundwater piezometric heads.As a result,the project is notprojected to not result in geologic
instabilityor discernible subsidence,and these impacts would be less than significant.
d.Be located on expansive soil,as defined in Table 18-1-B ofthe Uniform Building Code
(1994),creating substantial risks to life or property?
Less-than-Significant Impact.The Geology and Soils Report prepared for the project (Appendix B)
indicated that the site is on land that may partially be expansive,but concludes thatthe site is
capable ofsupporting a light structure,such as the proposed treatment plant.The report includes
recommended specifications for constructing foundations on the site,and these recommendations
would be incorporated into the site design.Therefore,this impact would be less than significant.
e.Have soils incapable ofadequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative
wastewater disposal systems in areas where sewers are not available for the disposal of
wastewater?
No Impact.The project does not propose the use ofseptic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal
systems;therefore,no impacts would occur.
Mitigated Negative Declaration
Rancho Del Rey Groundwater Well 26 January 2010
ICFJ&S 00604.09
Otay WaterDistrict Environmental Checklist
Less-than-
Potentially Significant with Less-than-
Significant Mitigation Significant No
VII.Hazards and Hazardous Materials Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
Would the project:
a.Create a significant hazard to the public or the D D D
environmentthrough the routine transport,use,
ordisposal ofhazardous materials?
b.Create a significant hazard to the public or the D D D
environmentthrough reasonably foreseeable
upsetand accident conditions involving the
release ofhazardous materials into the
environment?
c.Emit hazardous emissions or involve handling D D D
hazardous oracutelyhazardous materials,
substances,orwaste within one-quartermile of
an existing or proposed school?
d.Be located on a site that is included on a list of D D Dhazardousmaterialssitescompiledpursuantto
Government Code Section 65962.5 and,as a
result,would it create a significanthazardto the
public or the environment?
e.Be located within an airportland use plan area D D D
or,where such a plan has not been adopted,be
within two miles of a public airport or public
use airport,and result in a safetyhazard for
people residing orworking in the projectarea?
f.Be located within the vicinity ofa private D D D
airstrip and result in a safetyhazard for people
residing or working in the project area?
g.Impair implementation ofor physically interfere D D D
with an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
h.Expose people orstructures to a significantrisk D D D
ofloss,injury,or death involving wildland fires,
including where wildlands are adjacent to
urbanized areas or where residences are
intermixed with wildlands?
a.Create a significant hazard to the public or the environmentthrough the routine transport,
use,or disposal of hazardous materials?
Less-than-Significant Impact.Like nearly all construction projects,project equipment would use
diesel fuel and other common petroleum-based products,but not in quantities that would be
considered beyond that ofany standard construction project and not ofthe quantities thatwould
present any danger to the public.All materials would be transported and used in accordance with
standard practices.Therefore,these construction-related impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigated Negative Declaration
Rancho Del Rey GroundwaterWell 27 January 2010
ICFJ&S 00604.09
Otay Water District Environmental Checklist
Ongoing operation ofthe treatment facility would entail transport,storage,and usage ofchemicals,
including hypochlorite,caustic soda,and sulfuric acid.Transport ofthese chemicals would occur via
bi-monthly truckdeliveries.Transport of these materials is regulated by the California Health and
Safety Code,and project-related transport would comply with all mandatory regulations to ensure
prevention ofhazardous conditions.Once on the site,these materials would be stored in double-
walled tanks and bins constructed for the specific purpose ofproperly containingthe chemicals and
preventing spills orleaks.No chlorine gas would be used on the site.The District has setforth
standard and mandatory safety procedures for the delivery,storage,and use ofhypochlorite in HMS
101.21,"Sodium and Calcium Hypochlorite Safety Procedure,"which lays out safe work practices to
protectemployees and container,delivery,and disposal procedures to protect the environment and
other people who may be in proximity to these chemicals.
Additionally,the sitewould be required to prepare a Hazardous Materials Business Plan,in
accordance with California Health and Safety Code Section 6.95 and County Department of
Environmental Health (DEH)regulations.These mandatory plans documentprocedures for use and
storage ofthese materials,precautions to prevent spills,and response procedures in case ofa spill
so as to prevent substantial risk to human health or the environment.The project-related plan must
be submitted to DEH and approved prior to operation ofthe project,and must be reviewed and
revised annually for recertification with DEH.Mandatory preparation ofand ongoing compliance
with this plan and adherence to HMS 101.21 would ensure that the project's impacts due to the
project-related presence ofhazardous materials would be less than significant
b.Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into
the environment?
Less-than-Significant Impact.See response to 7.a,above.
c.Emit hazardous emissions or involve handling hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances,or waste within one-quarter mile ofan existing or proposed school?
Less-than-Significant Impact.The project is located adjacent to (within 0.25-mile of)a daycare
facility.The project does not entail the routine emission ofhazardous substances.As described in
7.a,above,the projectwould use and store chemicals necessary to treat the groundwater before
adding it to the potable watersystem,but these chemicals will be properly and securely stored
within the enclosed treatment facility,in accordance with the Hazardous Materials Business Plan
thatwill be prepared for the site.Therefore,the on-site chemicals would not pose a significant
hazard to the adjacent daycare facility,and this impact would be less thansignificant.
d.Be located on a site that is included on a list ofhazardous materials sites compiled
pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and,as a result,would it create a significant
hazard to the public or the environment?
No Impact.Areview of the EnviroStar database of hazardous materials sites pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 maintained by the California Department ofToxic Substances
Control (http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/SiteCleanup/Cortese_List.cfm)shows that the project site is not
included in this listing.Therefore,there would be no impact.
e.Be located within an airport land use plan area or,where such a plan has not been
adopted,be within two miles of a public airport or public use airport,and result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
Mitigated Negative Declaration
Rancho Del Rey GroundwaterWell 28 January 2010
ICFJ&S00604.09
OtayWaterDistrict Environmental Checklist
No Impact.The project site is not located within 2 miles ofan airport land use plan,public airport,
or public use airport;therefore,no impacts would occur.
f.Be located within the vicinity ofa private airstrip and result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the projectarea?
No Impact.The project site is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip;thus,no impacts
would occur.
g.Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Less-than-Significant Impact.The project would not result in road closures or otherwise
physically obstruct any roads or access points.The project would result in a very minor amount of
construction traffic and a lesser amount ofpermanent operational traffic,which would likely access
the site via 1-805,HStreet,Del Rey Boulevard,and Rancho del Rey Parkway.This small amount of
project-related traffic would not be substantial enough to interfere with emergency response or
evacuation.Therefore,this impact would be less than significant.
h.Expose people orstructures to a significant risk ofloss,injury,or death involving wildland
fires,includingwhere wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are
intermixed with wildlands?
Less-than-Significant Impact.The project is located in the vicinity ofwildland canyons but is
buffered by development on all sides.Therefore,the project would nothave the potential for
causing a wildland fire.The project features a very small structure and minimal human presence on
the site on an ongoing basis,and therefore would not expose a significant amount ofstructures or
people to wildland fires that may occur in nearby canyons.Therefore,this impact is less than
significant.
Mitigated Negative Declaration
Rancho Del Rey Groundwater Well 29 January 2010
ICF J&S 00604.09
Otay Water District Environmental Checklist
Less-than-
Potentially Significantwith Less-than-
Significant Mitigation Significant No
VIII.Hydrology and WaterQuality Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
Would the project:
a.Violate anywater quality standards orwaste D IZJ D D
discharge requirements?
b.Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or D D IZJ D
interfere substantially with groundwater
recharge,resulting in a net deficit in aquifer
volume ora lowering ofthe local groundwater
table level (e.g.,the production rate ofpre-
existing nearby wells would drop to a level that
would not support existing land uses orplanned
uses for which permits have been granted)?
c.Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern D D D
ofthe site or area,including through the
alteration ofthe course ofa stream or river,in a
manner thatwould result in substantial erosion
orsiltation onsite oroffsite?
d.Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern D D D
ofthe site orarea,including through the
alteration of the course ofa stream or river,or
substantially increase the rate oramount of
surface runoff in a manner thatwould result in
flooding onsite oroffsite?
e.Create orcontribute runoffwater thatwould D D D
exceed the capacity ofexisting or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources ofpolluted
runoff?
f.Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?D D IZJ D
g.Place housing within a lOO-year flood hazard D D D IZJ
area,as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard
Boundary orFlood Insurance Rate Map or other
flood hazard delineation map?
h.Place within a lOO-year flood hazard area D D D
structures thatwould impede or redirect
floodflows?
i.Expose people or structures to a significant risk D D D
ofloss,injury,or death involving flooding,
including flooding as a result ofthe failure ofa
levee or dam?
j.Contribute to inundation by seiche,tsunami,or D D D
mudflow?
a.Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?
Mitigated Negative Declaration
Rancho Del Rey Groundwater Well 30 January 2010
ICF J&S 00604.09
Otay Water District Environmental Checklist
Less-than-Significant Impactwith Mitigation Incorporated.Project construction is small-scale
and not located adjacent to anynatural water bodies.Runoff from the project site does enter the
City's storm drain system,specifically gutters along Rancho del Rey Parkway.Project construction
would entail a minor amount ofstormwater discharge that,due to the nature of construction,has
the potential to include sedimentand pollutants associated with the construction process.Project
construction will comply with the City ofChula Vista's Development Storm Water Manual,which
spells out compliance with the City's requirements for projects to comply with their National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)permit and Standard Urban Storm Water
Mitigation Plan.The project would be required to prepare and implement a project-specific
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP),which includes a site map and a description of
proposed construction activities,demonstration ofcompliance with relevant local ordinances and
regulations,and description of BMPs that would be implemented to prevent soil erosion and
discharge of other construction-related pollutants that could contaminate nearby water resources.
Permittees are further required to ensure that BMPs are correctly implemented and effective in
controlling the discharge ofstormwater-related pollutants.Adherence to these mandatory criteria
would ensure that project construction would have a less-than-significant impact with respectto
water quality standards and waste discharge requirements.
Project operation entails discharge ofbrine from the watertreatment facility into the City's sewer
system,and ultimately into the Metropolitan Sewer system for treatment and disposal.Unchecked
discharge from this source could result in a significant impact on waste discharge requirements
maintained by the San Diego Metropolitan Wastewater Department.However,the project requires
an Industrial User Discharge Permit from thatagency,and the permit may place limits on the salt
content orquantity ofdischarge to minimize the project's environmental impacts.Permit specifics
cannot be determined at this time,but compliance with all requirements set forth in the permit
would ensure that this impactwould be less than significant.
Mitigation Measure 4:Comply with Industrial User Discharge Permit Requirements.
The District will obtain an Industrial User Discharge Permit from San Diego Metropolitan
Wastewater Department and will comply with all limitations and requirements stated therein
with respect to the discharge salt content,quantity,or other aspects.
b.Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater
recharge,resulting in a net deficit in aquifervolume or a lowering ofthe local groundwater
table level (e.g.,the production rate ofpre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level that
would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)?
Less-than-Significant Impact.The project would entail drawing groundwater from the San Diego
Formation,a deep,confined,alluvial groundwater aquiferthat underlies a large portion of
southwestern San Diego County.The San Diego Formation underlies a large portion of
southwestern San Diego County.Based on recent information developed as part ofthe San Diego
County Water Authority San Diego Formation Task Force,the San Diego Formation is believed to be
atleast 1,000 feet thick in an area that extends from the International Border to Mission Bay,
approximately 2 miles inland from the La Na~ion and Rose Canyon Fault Zones (Huntley et al.1996,
SDCWA 1997,SDCWA 2003).The western extentoftheSan Diego Formation is notwell defined,but
it is believed to extend to and under San Diego Bay (Huntley etal.1996,SDCWA 2003).
The total storage capacity ofthe San Diego Formation has been estimated to approach or exceed
2 million acre feet (SDCWA 1997,SDCWA 2003).While the groundwater storage volume within the
Mitigated Negative Declaration
Rancho Dei Rey Groundwater Well 31 January 2010
ICFJ&S00604.09
Otay Water District Environmental Checklist
San Diego Formation is large,usable storage within the aquifer may be limited bywater quality or
hydrogeologic factors.To preventthe potential for inducing land subsidence and/orseawater
intrusion,the San Diego Formation Task Force estimates that thetotal water supply development
potential ofthe San Diego Formation is approximately 40,000 to 90,000 acre-feet per year (SDCWA
2003).Within the middle portions ofthe aquifer (e.g.mid-bay and Otay River area),the annual
production potential of the San Diego Formation may approach 35,000 acre-feet peryear (SDCWA
2003).
Only a limited number ofexisting wells withdraw from this aquifer due to its depth and the salinity
levels.Sweetwater Authority operates several wells that largely (or in part)derive supply from the
San Diego Formation.For decades,Sweetwater Authority's National City well field has historically
produced approximately 1,500 to 2,500 acre-feet peryear of supply (Sweetwater Authority 2009).
In 1999,SweetwaterAuthority implemented additional groundwaterpumping from San Diego
Formationwells to feed the SweetwaterAuthority Richard A.Reynolds Groundwater Desalination
Facility.Since this time,SweetwaterAuthority groundwater pumping to the desalination facility has
ranged from approximately 2,000 to 4,400 acre-feet per year (Sweetwater Authority 2009).
SweetwaterAuthority is proposing to expand the capacity ofits desalination facility to a production
capacity ofapproximately a million gallons per day.With this proposed expansion,Sweetwater
Authority estimates that its total groundwater pumping from the San Diego Formation may
ultimately reach approximately 11,000 acre-feet per year.
The project may extract approximately 645 acre-feet or greater per year.This minor pumping
volume would representa tiny fraction ofthe potential storage volume ofthe San Diego Formation.
The proposed pumping capacity would also represent a small percentage ofthe estimated
groundwater production capacity ofthe San Diego Formation.Further,the projected 645 acre-feet
peryear production would representless than 6%ofthe total ultimate pumpingproposed by
Sweetwater Authority.Because of the limited amount ofproject-related groundwater extraction
and the separation distance between the project and SweetwaterAuthority's San Diego Formation
wells,the project would have a negligible effect on groundwater production in other wells and
would have no effect on the water service capabilities ofthe SweetwaterAuthority.Therefore,this
impact would be less than significant.
c.Substantially alterthe existing drainage pattern of the site or area,including through the
alteration ofthe course ofa stream or river,in a manner that would result in substantial
erosion or siltation onsite or offsite?
Less-than-Significant Impact.The project site is a small,irregularlyshaped parcel that is entirely
disturbed and covered in turfand ornamental vegetation.The site has relativelylevel terrain and is
not located on a major drainage system.The project would increase the site's impervious surface
area by constructing an approximately 3,600 square-foot building and paving approximately 3,000
square feet ofthe site surrounding the treatment facility with asphaltto accommodate parking and
circulation for plant employees,chemical-delivery trucks,and other equipment.Construction
period impacts that may result in on-or offsite erosion or siltation would be minimized to less-than-
significant levels by the implementation ofBMPs set forth in the SWPPP (see a.a above).
Operational impacts related to siltation or erosion would be minimized to less-than-significant
levels by the development and use ofstandard stormwater drainage features.Additionally,no
waterways flow through the project site so the alteration ofa stream orriver would not occur.
Therefore,the project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern ofthe project area,
Mitigated Negative Declaration
Rancho Del Rey Groundwater Well 32 January 2010
ICF J&S 00604.09
Otay Water District Environmental Checklist
including through the alteration of the caurse of a stream orriver,in a manner which would result in
substantial erosion or siltation on or offsite.Impacts would be less than significant.
d.Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,including through the
alteration ofthe course ofa stream or river,or substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding onsite or offsite?
Less-than-Significant Impact.See 8.a and 8.c above.Although the project would increase the site's
impervious surface area,implementation ofstandard stormwater drainage features would be
sufficient to handle the increase in stormwater runoffand would not result in flooding on or off site.
Therefore,impacts would be less than significant.
e.Create or contribute runoffwaterthat would exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
Less-than-Significant Impact.See 8.a and 8.c above.
£.Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
Less-than-Significant Impact.See 8.a and 8.c above.
g.Place housing within a lOO-year flood hazard area,as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard
Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?
No Impact.The project consists of the construction/developmentofa well and associated
treatment facility and does not propose the construction ofany housing.Therefore,no impact
associated with the placement ofhousing within a IOO-year flood hazard area would occur.
h.Place within a lOO-year flood hazard area structures that would impede or redirect
floodflows?
No Impact.The project site is mapped as being outside ofthe IOO-year and SOO-year floodplain
(FEMA 1997).Thus,no impact would occur.
i.Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,injury,or death involving flooding,
including flooding as a result ofthe failure ofa levee or dam?
No Impact.As discussed above,the project area is not located in an area thatis prone to flooding
events.The project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk ofloss,injury,or
death involving flooding,including flooding as a result ofthe failure ofa levee or dam because there
are no levees or dams located in the project vicinity.No impact would occur.
j.Contribute to inundation by seiche,tsunami,or mudflow?
No Impact.The project site is located approximately 6 miles east ofthe Pacific Ocean.The closest
body ofwateris the Sweetwater River,located approximately I mile northwest of the project site.
No impacts associated with inundation by seiche,tsunami,or mudflowwould occur.
Mitigated Negative Declaration
Rancho Del Rey GroundwaterWell 33 January 2010
ICFJ&S00604.09
Otay Water District Environmental Checklist
IX.Land Use and Planning
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less-than-
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less-than-
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
No Impact.The project is located on a small,fenced site that is not connected to the surrounding
community.Therefore,the project would not divide an established community.
b.Conflict with any applicable land use plan,policy,or regulation ofan agency with
jurisdiction over the project (including,but not limited to,a general plan,specific plan,local
coastal program,or zoning ordinance)adopted for the purpose ofavoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
Would the project:
a.Physically divide an established community?
b.Conflict with any applicable land use plan,
policy,or regulation of an agency with
jurisdiction overthe project (including,butnot
limited to,a general plan,specific plan,local
coastal program,orzoning ordinance)adopted
for the purpose ofavoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
c.Conflict with any applicable habitat
conservation plan ornatural community
conservation plan?
a.Physically divide and established community?
o
o
o
o
o
o o
Less-than-Significant Impact.The project site has the General Plan land use designation Public &
Quasi-Public (P-Q),as defined by the Land Use Element ofthe City's General Plan.The P-Q
designation for the site depicts the possible location of future public facilities.The project would be
consistent with the site's P-Q designation since it would construct and operate a well and water
treatment facility intended to serve the public's demand for water resources.The project site has
the P-Q-PublicfQuasi-Public zone designation,as defined by the City's Zoning Ordinance.
Permitted uses in the P-Q zone include agricultural uses,including grazing and livestock raising;
waterreservoirs;and public parks.Uses that are conditionally permitted in the P-Q zone include
utility substations and unclassified uses,which would be consistentwith the well and water
treatmentfacility proposed bythe project.The Because the project does not conflict with the
General Plan orthe Zoning Ordinance,impacts would be less than significant.
c.Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation
plan?
No Impact.The project site is located within the City of Chula Vista's MSCP Subarea.The project
site is within an area mapped as "Development Area"and within a "Major Projects Boundaries"area.
The projectwould occur on a disturbed graded site and would not result in direct or indirect
impacts to sensitive biological resources.The project would not conflict with the City's MSCP
Subarea Plan.Impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigated Negative Declaration
Rancho Del Rey Groundwater Well 34 January 2010
ICF J&S 00604.09
OtayWater District Environmental Checklist
X.Mineral Resources
Would the project:
a.Result in the loss ofavailability of a known
mineral resource thatwould be ofvalue to the
region and the residents ofthe state?
b.Result in the loss ofavailability ofa locally
important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general plan,specific plan,
or other land use plan?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
D
D
Less-than-
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
D
D
Less-than-
Significant
Impact
D
D
No
Impact
a.Result in the loss ofavailability ofa known mineral resource that would be of value to the
region and the residents ofthe state?
No Impact.Figure 9-4 ofthe Chula Vista General Plan shows the project site as not being within an
Aggregate Resource Area.Therefore,the site does not contain known mineral resources,and there
would be no impact.
b.Result in the loss ofavailability ofa locally important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general plan,specific plan,or other land use plan?
No Impact.See lO.a above.
Mitigated Negative Declaration
Rancho Del Rey Groundwater Well 35 January 2010
ICFJ&S00604.09
Otay WaterDistrict Environmental Checklist
Less-than-
Potentially Significant with Less-than-
Significant Mitigation Significant No
XI.Noise Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
Would the project:
a.Expose persons to orgenerate noise levels in D D D
excess ofstandards established in a local
general plan ornoise ordinance or applicable
standards of other agencies?
b.Expose persons to or generate excessive D D D
groundborne vibration or groundborne noise
levels?
c.Result in a substantial permanent increase in D D D
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels existing without the project?
d.Result in a substantial temporary or periodic D D D
increase in ambient noise levels in the project
vicinity above levels existing without the
project?
e.Be located within an airport land use plan area,D D D
or,where such a plan has not been adopted,
within two miles ofa public airport or public
use airport and expose people residing or
working in the projectarea to excessive noise
levels?
f.Be located in the vicinity ofa private airstrip D D D
and expose people residing or working in the
project area to excessive noise levels?
a.Expose persons to or generate noise levels in excess ofstandards established in a local
general plan or noise ordinance orapplicable standards ofother agencies?
No Impact.Chapter 19.68 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code (Noise Ordinance)establishes rules
regarding noise in the city limits.The District is an independent agency thatis not subject to the
Noise Ordinance,and does not operate underits own adopted noise ordinance.Furthermore,
Section 19.68.060 ofthe Noise Ordinance exempts construction activities from complying with the
decibel-level standards set forth in the Noise Ordinance.Therefore,the projectwould not generate
noise levels exceeding applicable noise standards,and there would be no impact.(Additional
discussion ofthe noise generated bythe projectis provided belowin the response to 11.d.)
b.Expose persons to or generate excessive ground-borne vibration or ground-borne noise
levels?
Less-than-Significant Impact.The project would notgenerate ground-borne noise.The well-
drilling and construction aspects ofthe project may generate a very small amount ofground-borne
vibration,butnot ofthe level thatis likely to be perceptible to off-site receptors or cause building
damage.Therefore,this impact is less than significant.
Mitigated Negative Declaration
Rancho Del Rey Groundwater Well 36 January 2010
ICFJ&S00604.09
OtayWaterDistrict Environmental Checklist
c.Result in a substantial permanent h1.crease in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels existingwithout the project?
Less-than-Significant Impact.The project would not result in a permanent increase in ambient
noise.Permanentfeatures ofthe project-related treatment facility would be encased inside a
building,which would preventany treatment-equipment noise from being heard from neighboring
residences and the daycare center.Permanent project-related traffic is limited to approximately one
vehicle trip per day for the onsite operator and approximately one bi-monthly delivery trip.This
increase in traffic would notincrease the ambient noise perceived byresidences in the project area.
As a result,this impactwould be less than significant.Construction noise is temporary,and is
addressed below in the response to l1.d.
d.Result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
Less-than-Significant Impactwith Mitigation Incorporated.Project constructionwould entail an
increase in ambient noise emitted from the project site and received bysurrounding residences and
the daycare center.Construction noise sources would include operation ofthe drill rig engine,
which would likely run throughout the construction day (7 a.m.to 7 p.m.)Monday through Friday
for two estimated three-week periods;well pipe installation,which would be limited to two 1-2 day
period,including overnight work;trenching and installation ofthe onsite utility lines,which would
occur within the stated daytime construction hours;and construction ofthe treatment facility
structure,which would also occur within the stated daytime construction hours.Well drilling and
well pipe installation-the noisiest aspects of project construction-would be contained on all sides
day and night by a noise curtain,which would reduce the noise perceived offsite.However,these
and other aspects of construction noise would be received by adjacent receptors throughout the
project,including the daycare center and church east of the site (daytime only,as these facilities
does not operate during the night)and by adjacent residences.As referenced in the discussion of
l1.b above,Mitigation Measure 1 has been incorporated into the project to increase community
understanding ofthe project and to provide a project liaison to receive,respond to,and resolve
noise complaints to the greatest extent possible.This mitigation measure would reduce this impact
to a less-than-significant level.
e.Be located within an airport land use plan area,or,where such a plan has not been
adopted,within two miles ofa public airport or public use airport and expose people residing
or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
No Impact.The projectsite is notlocated within an airport land use plan or within 2 miles of an
airport land use plan,public airport,or public use airport;therefore,no impacts would occur.
f.Be located in the vicinity ofa private airstrip and expose people residing or working in the
project area to excessive noise levels?
No Impact.There are no private airstrips located in the projectvicinity,so no one residing or
working in the project area would be exposed to excessive noise levels.No impact would occur.
Mitigated Negative Declaration
Rancho Del Rey Groundwater Well 37 January 2010
ICF J&500604.09
OtavWaterDistrict Environmental Checklist
Less-than-
Potentially Significant with Less-than-
Significant Mitigation Significant No
XII.Population and Housing Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
Would the project:
a.Induce substantial population growth in an area,D D D
either directly (e.g.,by proposing new homes
and businesses)orindirectly (e.g.,through
extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
b.Displace a substantial number ofexisting D D D
housing units,necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
c.Displace a substantial number ofpeople,D D D
necessitating the construction ofreplacement
housing elsewhere?
a.Induce substantial population growth in an area,either directly (e.g.,by proposing new
homes and businesses)or indirectly (e.g.,through extension ofroads or other
infrastructure)?
Less-Than-Significant Impact.The project would increase the amount ofpotable water available
to existing and future planned District customers.The purpose of the project is to reduce District
reliance on expensive imported water to serve these customers,and the project is notintended to
expand the District's service area or increase its customer base above that which is currently
planned.Therefore,the project would not indirectly induce population growth,and this impact
would be less than significant.
b.Displace a substantial number ofexisting housing units,necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
No Impact.There are no housing units located on the project site,and the project would not entail
any removal ofhousing units.Therefore,there would be no impact.
c.Displace a substantial number ofpeople,necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
No Impact.No people reside onsite,and the projectwould not otherwise displace people.
Therefore,there would be no impact.
Mitigated Negative Declaration
Rancho Del Rev Groundwater Well 38 January 2010
ICF J&S00604.09
Otay Water District Environmental Checklist
Less-than-
Potentially Significant with Less-than-
Significant Mitigation Significant No
XIII.Public Services Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
Would the project:
a.Result in substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision ofnew or
physically altered governmental facilities ora
need for new or physically altered
governmental facilities,the construction of
which could cause significant environmental
impacts,in order to maintain acceptable service
ratios,response times,or other performance
objectives for any of the following public
services:
Fire protection?0 0
[gJ 0
Police protection?0 0 0 [gJ
Schools?0 0 0
[gJ
Parks?0 0 0
[gJ
Other public facilities?0 0 0
[gJ
a.Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision ofnew or
physically altered governmental facilities or a need for new or physically altered
governmental facilities,the construction ofwhich could cause significant environmental
impacts,in order to maintain acceptable service ratios,response times,or other performance
objectives for any of the following public services:
Fire protection?
Less-Than-Significant Impact.Fire protection service for the site is provided by the Chula Vista
Fire Department (CVFD)Fire Station 4,which is located at 850 Paseo Ranchero.Emergency
response times for the project area are currently timed at less than 7 minutes.The projectwould
neither increase response times nor necessitate additional firefighters for the project area because it
would be limited to the installation and operation ofan existing potable water well and construction
ofa water-treatment facility in a previously developed area.The water-treatment facility would
consist ofa small structure in a developed area thatwould notpresent a considerable new fire risk
such that existing response times or performance objectives services would be affected.The site is
anticipated to employ one part-timeworker,working approximately 20 hours perweek to perform
regular operational,maintenance,and oversight duties.In addition,chemical deliveries would occur
on a bi-monthly basis.Therefore,human presence atthe sitewould be limited and the increased
need for emergency response would be negligible.The project would not result in a considerable
demand on fire-protection services resulting in the requirement for new or altered fire-protection
services,and this impact would be less than significant.
Mitigated Negative Declaration
Rancho Del Rey Groundwater Well 39 January 2010
ICF J&S 00604.09
Otay WaterDistrict
Police protection?
Environmental Checklist
No Impact.See above.Police protection for the site is provided by the Chula Vista Police
Department.Priority 1 emergency response times for the project area are currently timed at 4
minutes and 19 seconds,and Priority 2 emergencyresponse times for the area are timed at 9
minutes and 18 seconds.As described above,implementation ofthe project would install a small
permanent building in a developed area and would notresult in a substantial increase in onsite
human occupation.The project would not create any securityconcerns necessitating additional
police patrol.Therefore,the project would notincrease the demand for or impact response times to
police protection services.No impacts would occur.
Schools?
No Impact.The project would not generate a demand for public school services.No impacts would
occur.
Parks?
No Impact.The projectwould notincrease residential or occupational population;therefore,there
would be no project-related demand on parks,and there would be no impact.
Other public facilities?
No Impact.No other public facilities would be affected by the project.No impact would occur.
Mitigated Negative Declaration
Rancho Del Rey Groundwater Well 40 January 2010
ICF J&S 00604.09
Otay WaterDistrict Environmental Checklist
a.Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be
accelerated?
No Impact.The project would not increase the use ofexisting neighborhood parks,regional parks,
or other recreational facilities;thus,substantial physical deterioration ofthese facilities would not
occur or be accelerated.No impact would occur.
XIV.Recreation
Would the project:
a.Increase the use ofexisting neighborhood and
regional parks orother recreational facilities
such that substantial physical deterioration of
the facility would occur or be accelerated?
b.Include recreational facilities orrequire the
construction or expansion ofrecreational
facilities that might have an adverse physical
effect on the environment?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
D
D
Less-than-
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
D
D
Less-than-
Significant
Impact
D
D
No
Impact
b.Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational
facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
No Impact.The project does not include the construction ofnewrecreational facilities orthe
expansion ofexisting recreational facilities.The construction or expansion of recreational facilities
would not be required.No impactwould occur.
Mitigated Negative Declaration
Rancho Del Rey GroundwaterWell 41 January 2010
ICFJ&S 00604.09
Otay WaterDistrict Environmental Checklist
Less-than-
Potentially Significant with Less-than-
Significant Mitigation Significant No
XV.Transportation/Traffic Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
Would the project:
a.Cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in D D D
relation to the existing traffic load and capacity
ofthe street system (i.e.,result in a substantial
increase in the number of vehicle trips,the
volume-to-capacity ratio on roads,or
congestion at intersections)?
b.Cause,eitherindividually orcumulatively,D D D
exceedance ofa level-of-service standard
established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads or
highways?
c.Result in a change in airtraffic patterns,D D D
including either an increase in traffic levels or a
change in location thatresults in substantial
safety risks?
d.Substantially increase hazards because of a D D D
design feature (e.g.,sharp curves or dangerous
intersections)or incompatible uses (e.g.,farm
equipment)?
e.Result in inadequate emergency access?D D D I:8l
f.Result in inadequate parking capacity?D D D I:8l
g.Conflict with adopted policies,plans,or D D D I:8l
programs supporting alternative transportation
(e.g.,bus turnouts,bicycle racks)?
a.Cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and
capacity ofthe streetsystem (Le.,result in a substantial increase in the number ofvehicle
trips,the volume-to-capacity ratio on roads,or congestion at intersections)?
Less-than-Significant Impact.The project would not generate a considerable amount oftraffic
during the temporary construction period or during ongoing operation.Construction traffic would
likely access the site via the 1-805 H Street exit,Del Rey Boulevard,and Rancho del Rey Parkway.
Because ofthe small size ofthe proposed facilities,the small scale ofproject-related grading,and the
limited equipment required for well drilling,construction would require a very limited amount of
materials and workers and,accordingly,would not entail much material or equipmentdelivery or
worker traffic.Therefore,construction traffic would not result in a substantial increase in volume-
to-capacity ratio on local roads or a substantial increase in intersection congestion.Ongoing project
operation and facility maintenance would entail one part-time employee on a regular basis and bi-
monthly chemical delivery visits.Therefore,the project would generate an average offewer than
onetrip perday on an ongoing basis.This would notresult in a substantial increase in volume-to-
capacity ratio on local roads or a substantial increase in intersection congestion.This impact would
be less than significant.
Mitigated Negative Declaration
Rancho Del Rey GroundwaterWell 42 January 2010
ICFJ&S 00604.09
Otay WaterDistrict Environmental Checklist
b.Cause,either individually or cumulatively,exceedance ofa level-of-service standard
established by the county congestion managementagency for designated roads or highways?
Less-than-Significant Impact.See the response to IS.a above.The project would notgenerate
traffic ofa great enough volume to affect level-of-service standards,and this would be a less-than-
significant impact.
c.Result in a change in air traffic patterns,including either an increase in traffic levels or a
change in location that results in substantial safetyrisks?
No Impact.The project is not located near an airport and does not feature any components that
would in any way affect air traffic.Therefore,there would be no impact.
d.Substantially increase hazards because ofa design feature (e.g.,sharp curves or dangerous
intersections)or incompatible uses (e.g.,farm equipment)?
Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated.The project entails constructinga
new driveway to access the projectsite from Rancho del Rey Parkway.This driveway would be
approximately 150 feet south ofTerra Nova Drive and the driveway to the adjacent daycare center.
The access would be gated and only available to authorized District personnel.As explained above
in the response to IS.a,the projectwould generate a very minor amount oftraffic during
construction and on a permanent basis,limiting the amount oftrips into and out ofthis driveway.
However,the driveway would be located on a curve and near another intersection along Rancho del
Rey Parkway,and would have the potential to result in conflicts between project-related vehicles
and other vehicles travelling Rancho del Rey Parkway.Proper design and signage ofthe driveway
would ensure safe conditions at this location,and this has been incorporated into mitigation
explained below.
Mitigation Measure 5:Provide Ample Signage and Safe Design of Project Driveway.
The District will coordinate with the City Department of Public Works,Engineering Division to
ensure that the project driveway is designed to meet all relevant City code and features
adequate signage to the satisfaction ofthe DepartmentofPublic Works.
Implementation ofthis measure would ensure that safe conditions would be maintained in the
vicinity ofthe project,and would reduce this traffic-hazards impact to a less-than-significant level.
e.Result in inadequate emergency access?
No Impact.The project would not block existing roads,generate a substantial amount oftraffic on
existing roads,or otherwise obstruct existing emergency access.Therefore,there would be no
impact on emergencyaccess.
f.Result in inadequate parking capacity?
No Impact.Worker parking would be accommodated at an onsite construction staging area and
would not utilize any offsite parking lots or street-parking areas.Permanent parking demand of the
facility would entail space for one part-time worker and for chemical delivery and maintenance
trucks,which would be fully accommodated on site.Therefore,the project would not result in no
impact with respectto parking.
Mitigated Negative Declaration
Rancho Del Rey Groundwater Well 43 January 2010
ICF J&S 00604.09
Otay Water District Environmental Checklist
g.Conflict with adopted policies,plans,or programs supporting alternative transportation
(e.g.,bus turnouts,bicycle racks)?
No Impact.Transit service to the general project area is provided by the San Diego Metropolitan
Transit Service (MTS).The project is not located along an MTS route.Rancho del Rey Parkway
contains bike lanes,but the project would not remove or obstruct these bike lanes eitherduring
construction or operation.The projectwould not remove or adversely affect bike racks orany other
alternative transportation facilities.Therefore,there would be no impact.
Mitigated Negative Declaration
Rancho Del Rey Groundwater Well 44 January 2010
ICF J&S00604.09
Otay Water District Environmental Checklist
Less-than-
Potentially Significant with Less-than-
Significant Mitigation Significant No
XVI.Utilities and Service Systems Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
Would the project:
a.Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of 0 0 0
the applicable Regional Water Quality Control
Board?
b.Require or result in the construction of new 0 0 0
water or wastewater treatment facilities or
expansion ofexisting facilities,the construction
of which could cause significant environmental
effects?
c.Require or result in the construction ofnew 0 0 0
stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of
existing facilities,the construction ofwhich
could cause significant environmental effects?
d.Have sufficient watersupplies available to serve 0 0 0
the project from existing entitlements and
resources,orwould new or expanded
entitlements be needed?
e.Result in a determination by the wastewater 0 0 0
treatment providerthat serves or may serve the
project that ithas adequate capacity to serve the
project's projected demand in addition to the
provider's existing commitments?
f.Be served bya landfill with sufficient permitted 0 0 0
capacity to accommodate the project's solid
waste disposal needs?
g.Comply with federal,state,and local statutes 0 0 0
and regulations related to solid waste?
a.Exceed wastewater treatment requirements ofthe applicable Regional Water Quality
Control Board?
Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated.Project construction is small in scale
and not located adjacentto any natural water bodies.Runofffrom the project site does enter the
City's storm drain system,specifically gutters along Rancho del Rey Parkway.Project construction
would entail a minor amount ofstormwater discharge that,due to the nature ofconstruction,has
the potential to include sediment and pollutants associated with the construction process.Project
construction will comply with the City ofChula Vista's DevelopmentStorm Water Manual,which
spells out compliance with the City's NPDES permitand Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation
Plan.The project would be required to prepare and implement a project-specific SWPPP to
demonstrate compliance with relevant local ordinances and regulations,and describes BMPs that
would be implemented to preventsoil erosion and discharge of other construction-related
pollutants that could contaminate nearbywater resources.Permittees are further required to
ensure that BMPs are correctly implemented and effective in controlling the discharge of
Mitigated Negative Declaration
Rancho Del Rey Groundwater Well 45 January 2010
ICF J&S00604.09
Otay Water District Environmental Checklist
stormwater-related pollutants.Adherence to these mandatory criteria would ensurethat project
construction would have a less-than-significant impact with respect to water quality standards and
waste discharge requirements.
Project operation entails discharge ofbrine from the watertreatment facility into the City's sewer
system,and ultimately into the Metropolitan Sewer system for treatmentin the Point Lorna
WastewaterTreatment Plant and ultimate disposal in the Pacific Ocean.The Point Lorna facility
uses a chemical process to treat sewage before discharge.Unchecked discharge from this source
could resultin a significant impact on waste discharge requirements maintained by the San Diego
Metropolitan Wastewater Department.However,the project requires an Industrial User Discharge
Permit from that agency,and the permit may place limits on the saltcontent or quantity of discharge
to minimize the project's environmental impacts.Permit specifics cannotbe determined at this
time,but compliance with all requirements set forth in the permitwould ensure that this impact
would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measure 4:Comply with Industrial User Discharge Permit Requirements.
The District will obtain an Industrial User Discharge Permit from San Diego Metropolitan
Wastewater Departmentand will complywith all limitations and requirements stated therein
with respect to the discharge salt content,quantity,or other aspects.
b.Require or result in the construction ofnew water or wastewater treatment facilities or
expansion of existing facilities,the construction ofwhich could cause significant
environmental effects?
Less-than-Significant Impact.The project entails installing newconnections to the District's
existing water conveyance system and the City's sewer conveyance system.The projectwould
receive potable water from the existing system to mix with the well-related groundwater,but this
usage would not be great enough to requirethe expansion or construction ofwater-treatment
facilities.As explained above in the discussion of 16.a,the project would discharge wastewater into
the City system for conveyance to the Metropolitan Sewertreatmentsystem.This would require a
permit from the San Diego Metropolitan Wastewater Department,butthe volume ofdischarge
would not be ofa volume thatwould require expansion ofthe existing treatment facilities because
the existing Point Lorna WastewaterTreatment Plant has adequate capacity to handle project-
related volume.Therefore,this impact would be less than significant.
c.Require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of
existing facilities,the construction ofwhich could cause significant environmental effects?
Less-than-Significant Impact.The projectwould entail paving a portion ofthe site and installing
onsite storm water drainage facilities thatwould connect to the City system via a gutter drain in
Rancho del Rey Parkway.The increased amount ofstormwater flow from the site would not be of
the scale that would require expansion ofexisting City facilities.Therefore,this impact would be
less than significant.
d.Have sufficientwatersupplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements
and resources,or would new or expanded entitlements be needed?
No Impact.The project would entail using existing District water supplies to allow blending of
water treated on site with potable water currently running through the system.The projectwould
notconsume water;therefore,no impact would occur.
Mitigated Negative Declaration
Rancho Del Rey Groundwater Well 46 January 2010
ICFJ&S00604.09
Olay WaterDistrict Environmental Checklist
e.Result in a determination by the wastewatertreatment provider that serves or may serve
the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition
to the provider's existing commitments?
Less-than-Significant Impact.See the responses to 16.a and 16.b above.The projectwould
discharge wastewater into the City system for conveyance to Metropolitan Sewer's Point Loma
Wastewater Treatment Plant.The plant has adequate capacity to handle project-related volume.
Additionally,the District has an agreement with Metropolitan Sewer whereby they pay for a certain
amountofdischarge into thesystem,and there is adequate capacity in the District's agreed-upon
volume.Therefore,this impact would be less than significant.
f.Be served bya landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's
solid waste disposal needs?
Less-than-Significant Impact.The project would not generate solid waste on an ongoing basis.
Closure of the existing well,if it occurs,may require disposal of a small amount of material,likely in
the Otay Landfill.The small amount ofproject-related solid waste would not be of a scale thatwould
affect the landfill.Therefore,this impactwould be less than significant.
g.Comply with federal,state,and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
No Impact.Project construction and operation would not entail any features that would preclude
compliance with solid waste regulations.No impact would occur.
Mitigated Negative Declaration
Rancho Del Rey GroundwaterWell 47 January 2010
ICFJ&S 00604.09
OtayWaterDistrict Environmental Checklist
XVII.Mandatory Findings ofSignificance
a.Does the project have the potential to degrade
the quality of the environment,substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish orwildlife species,
cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below
self-sustaining levels,threaten to eliminate a
plant or animal community,substantially reduce
the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant oranimal,oreliminate
important examples ofthe major periods of
California history orprehistory?
b.Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited butcumulatively
considerable?("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects ofa project
are considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects ofpast projects,the effects of
othercurrent projects,and the effects of
probable future projects.)
c.Does the project have environmental effects that
will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings,either directly orindirectly?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
D
D
D
Less-than-
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
D
D
D
Less-than-
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
D
D
D
a.Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality ofthe environment,
substantially reduce the habitat ofa fish or wildlife species,cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaininglevels,threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community,substantially reduce the number or restrict the range ofa rare or endangered
plant or animal,or eliminate important examples ofthe major periods of California history
or prehistory?
Less-than-Significant Impact.Discussion ofthe project's impacts with respect to a full range of
environmental issue areas is provided above.The project would not result in any impacts on the
environment,fish/wildlife habitat,orfish/wildlife/plant species that are not discussed above in
Section 4.The project would not result in any impacts on the cultural resources that are not
discussed above in Section 5.These impacts are less than significant.
b.Does the project have impacts that are individuallylimited but cumulatively considerable?
("Cumulatively considerable"means that the incremental effects ofa project are
considerable when viewed in connection with the effects ofpast projects,the effects ofother
current projects,and the effects of probable future projects.)
Less-than-Significant Impact.The project site is located in a developed area that is not planned to
supportadditional development.There are three cumulative projects listed on the City's website-
the the Eastlake III Senior Housing Project (Draft EIR in April 2006);the High Tech High University
Park project (MND in November 2007);and the Target project (MND in March 2009).The first two
of these projects are located more than5 miles east ofthe project site,and the third project is
located more than 3 miles west ofthe project site;due to the distance between the project site and
Mitigated Negative Declaration
Rancho Del Rey Groundwater Well 48 January 2010
ICF J&S 00604.09
Otay Water District Environmental Checklist
the cumulative project sites,these projects would not combine to create any cumulative
construction-phase oroperational impacts.The Eastlake 1lI and High Tech High projects arewithin
the service area ofthe Otay Water District,and the project-related increase in availability ofpotable
water would improve the waterservice to these cumulative projects.The Target project is in the
service area ofthe Sweetwater Authority,and the projectwould have no cumulative effect on
providing waterto the Target project.
c.Does the project have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings,either directly or indirectly?
Less-than-Significant Impact.The project's human-health impacts have been fully evaluated and
discussed above,including impacts related to air quality,hazards,and noise.Asignificant impact
with respect to temporary increases in ambient noise was identified,and mitigation is provided that
reduces this impact to a less-than-significant level,butthis impactis community-nuisance related,
rather than human-health related.Project construction would not produce noise received off site
that would be physically hazardous to people's hearing;therefore,this impact is not a substantial
adverse effect on human beings.
Mitigated Negative Declaration
Rancho Del Rey GroundwaterWell 49 January 2010
ICFJ&S00604.09
Otay WaterDistrict
XVIII.Earlier Analysis
This initial study does not rely on earlier analyses.
Environmental Checklist
Mitigated Negative Declaration
Rancho Del Rey Groundwater Well 50 January 2010
ICF J&S 00604.09
Otav Water District
References
Environmental Checklist
California Air Resources Board.1998.Proposed Identification ofDiesel Exhaust as a Toxic Air
Contaminant.Available:<http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/diesltac/diesltac.htm>.
California Climate Action Registry.2009.California Climate Action Registry General Reporting
Protocol:Reporting Entity-Wide Greenhouse Gas Emissions,Version 3.1.Los Angeles,CA.
January.
California Department ofConservation.2006.San Diego County Important Farmland Map 2006.
Available:<fip:llftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dlrp/FMMP/pdf/2006/sdg06 west.pdf>.Accessed:
October,2009.
___.2008.San Diego County Williamson ActLands 2008.Available:
<fip:llfip.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dlrp/wa/Map%20and%20PDFISan%20DiegoISanDeigoWA 08 0
2..Wlf>.Accessed:October 2009.
City ofChula Vista.2009.Growth Management Oversight Commission 2009 Annual Report.
__.2005.City ofChula Vista General Plan.
__.2004.Chula Vista Municipal Code,Chapter 19.
___.2008.Chula Vista Development Storm Water Manual.
___.Chula Vista Fire DepartmentWebsite.Available:
<http://www.chulavistaca.gov/City_Services/Public_Safety/Fire_Department/Stations/ default.
asp>.Accessed October 2009.
Huntley,David,Shaun Biehler,and C.Monte Marshall.Distribution and Hydrogeologic Properties of
the San Diego Formation,Southwestern San Diego County.San Diego Formation Task Force
Report ofInvestigation.1996.
Otay Water District.2009.Health Safety Manual Section 101.21:Sodium and Calcium Hypochlorite
Safety Procedure.
San Diego Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD).2008.Fact Sheet:Attainment Status.Available:
<http://www.sdapcd.org/info/facts/attain.pdf>.Accessed:January 2010.
---.2009.Rules &Regulations.Available:http://www.sdapcd.org/rules/rules/randr.html.
Accessed:January 2010.
San Diego County Water Authority.San Diego County WaterAuthorityGroundwater Report.1997.
San Diego County Water Authority (SDCWA).San Diego Formation Aquifer Storage and Recovery
Study,Phase I.2003.
Sweetwater Authority.2001.Interim Groundwater Management Plan.
SweetwaterAuthority.Water Supply Assessment.2009.
Welch,Michael R.,Ph.D.,P.E.Consulting Engineer.San Diego,CA.January 13,2010-telephone
conversation with Alex Hardy,ICF International.
Mitigated Negative Declaration
Rancho Del Rev Groundwater Well 51 January 2010
ICFJ&S00604.09
ICF Jones&
Stokes
weEltwater I I.<
Figure 1
Regional Location
tUJatt:ll.
oClUJo
~III
o
i
50
Feet
Source:ESRI Aerial Imagery,
SanDiegoW2008
I=CFJones&Stokes Figure 2
Project Site
Appendix A
Ai r Quality Data
Page:1
1/20/20102:07:12 PM
Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4
Combined Summer Emissions Reports (PoundslDay)
File Name:G:\San Diego\10_Staff\Air Quality Staff\OWD_rancho del rey\Urbemis runs\Construction.urb924
Project Name:OWD Rancho del Rey
Project Location:South Coast AQMD
On-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on:Version :Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006
Off-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on:OFFROAD2007
Summary Report:
CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES
2010 TOTALS (Ibs/day unmitigated)
2010 TOTALS (Ibs/day mitigated)
Construction Unmitigated Detail Report:
ROG NOx CO S02 PM 10 pust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust EM.2.,Q EM.2.,Q QQ2.
~
14.36 143.91 59.44 0.00 4.01 6.60 10.61 0.84 6.07 6.91 18,429.42
14.36 143.91 59.44 0.00 4.01 6.60 8.40 0.84 6.07 6.27 18,429.42
CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Summer Pounds Per Day,Unmitigated
S02 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 Exhaust
Page:2
1/20/20102:07:12 PM
Time Slice 2/1/2010-2/19/2010 8.72 76.99 38.18 0.00 4.01 4.39 8.40 0.84 4.04 4.88 8,809.17
Active Days:15
Mass Grading 02/01/2010-8.72 76.99 38.18 0.00 4.01 4.39 8.40 0.84 4.04 4.88 8,809.17
02/19/2010
Mass Grading Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.00 0.00 4.00 0.84 0.00 0.84 0.00
Mass Grading OffRoad Diesel 8.68 76.90 36.61 0.00 0.00 4.38 4.38 0.00 4.03 4.03 8,622.57
Mass Grading On Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Mass Grading Worker Trips 0.05 0.09 1.57 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 186.59
Time Slice 2/22/2010-2/23/2010 ~Hll1 ~0.00 ill §.&O.1Q.§1 D.M MZ §M 18,429,42
Active Days:2
Mass Grading 02/22/2010-14.36 143.91 59.44 0.00 4.01 6.60 10.61 0.84 6.07 6.91 18,429.42
02/23/2010
Mass Grading Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.00 0.00 4.00 0,84 0.00 0.84 0.00
Mass Grading Off Road Diesel 14.31 143.81 57.86 0.00 0.00 6.60 6.60 0.00 6.07 6.07 18,242.82
Mass Grading On Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Mass Grading WorkerTrips 0.05 0.09 1.57 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 186.59
Time Slice 2/24/2010-3/10/2010 7.27 61.74 29,44 0.00 0.01 3.24 3.25 0.00 2.98 2,98 6,297.41
Active Days:11
Building 02/24/2010-03/21/2010 3.36 35.45 12.99 0.00 0.00 1.55 1.55 0.00 1.42 1.42 3,771.95
Building Off Road Diesel 3.34 35.25 12.68 0.00 0.00 1.54 1.54 0.00 1.42 1.42 3,716.31
Building Vendor Trips 0.02 0.20 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 34.74
Building Worker Trips 0.01 0.01 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 20.90
Trenching 02/24/2010-03/21/2010 3.91 26.29 16.44 0.00 0.01 1.69 1.70 0.00 1.56 1.56 2,525.46
Trenching OffRoad Diesel 3.86 26.20 14.87 0.00 0.00 1.69 1.69 0.00 1.55 1.55 2,338.87
Trenching WorkerTrips 0.05 0.09 1.57 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 186.59
Page:3
1/20/20102:07:12 PM
Time Slice 3/11/2010-3/19/2010 9.32 73.86 38.30 0.00 0.02 4.28 4.30 0.01 3.93 3.94 7,509.54
Active Days:7
Asphalt 03/11/2010-03/21/2010 2.04 12.11 8.86 0.00 0.01 1.04 1.05 0.00 0.95 0.96 1,212.13
Paving Off-Gas 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Paving Off Road Diesel 1.95 11.89 6.98 0.00 0.00 1.03 1.03 0.00 0.94 0.94 979.23
Paving On Road Diesel 0.01 0.11 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 15.21
Paving Worker Trips 0.06 0.11 1.83 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.01 217.69
BUilding 02/24/2010-03/21/2010 3.36 35.45 12.99 0.00 0.00 1.55 1.55 0.00 1.42 1.42 3,771.95
Building Off Road Diesel 3.34 35.25 12.68 0.00 0.00 1.54 1.54 0.00 1.42 1.42 3,716.31
Building Vendor Trips 0.02 0.20 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 34.74
Building Worker Trips 0.01 0.01 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 20.90
Trenching 02/24/2010-03/21/2010 3.91 26.29 16.44 0.00 0.01 1.69 1.70 0.00 1.56 1.56 2,525.46
Trenching OffRoad Diesel 3.86 26.20 14.87 0.00 0.00 1.69 1.69 0.00 1.55 1.55 2,338.87
Trenching Worker Trips 0.05 0.09 1.57 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 186.59
Phase Assumptions
Phase:Mass Grading 2/1/2010 -2/19/2010 -Well drilling
Total Acres Disturbed:0
Maximum Daily Acreage Disturbed:0.2
Fugitive Dust Level of Detail:Default
20 Ibs per acre-day
On Road Truck Travel (VMT):0
Off-Road Equipment:
1 AirCompressors (350 hpjoperating at a 0.65 load factorfor 12 hours per day
1 Bore/Drill Rigs (500 hpj operating at a 0.2 load factor for 12 hours per day
1 Generator Sets (325 hpj operating at a 0.62 load factor for 12 hours per day
1 Signal Boards (10 hpj operating at a 0.8 load factor for 12 hours perday
Page:4
1/20/20102:07:12 PM
1 Skid Steer Loaders (500 hpj operating at a 0.7 load factor for 12 hours per day
1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (85 hpj operating at a 0.88 load factorfor 12 hours per day
Phase:Mass Grading 2/22/2010 -2/23/2010 -Well pulling pipe
Total Acres Disturbed:0
Maximum Daily Acreage Disturbed:0.2
Fugitive DustLevel of Detail:Default
20 Ibs peracre-day
On Road Truck Travel (VMTj:0
Off-Road Equipment:
1 Air Compressors (350 hpj operating at a 0.65 load factor for 24 hours perday
1 Bore/Drill Rigs (500 hp)operating at a 0.6 load factor for 24hours perday
1Generator Sets (325 hpj operating at a 0.62 load factor for 24 hours perday
1 Signal Boards (10 hpj operating at a 0.8 load factor for 24 hours per day
1 Skid Steer Loaders (500 hpjoperating at a 0.7 load factorfor 12 hours perday
1Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (85 hpjoperating at a 0.88 load factor for 12 hours per day
Phase:Trenching 2/24/2010 -3/21/2010 -Trenching for Utilities
Off-Road Equipment:
1 Crushing/Processing Equip (142 hpj operating at a 0.78 load factorfor 8 hours per day
1 Excavators (168 hpjoperating ata 0.57 load factor for 8 hours per day
1 Rubber Tired Loaders (164 hpjoperating ata 0.54 load factor for 8 hours per day
1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hpj operating at a 0.55 load factor for 0 hours per day
1 Trenchers (63 hpj operating ata 0.75 load factor for 8 hours perday
1 Welders (45 hpjoperating at a 0.45 load factor for 8 hours per day
Phase:Paving 3/11/2010 -3/21/2010 -paving
Acres to be Paved:0.07
Off-Road Equipment:
4 Cement and Mortar Mixers (10 hpj operating at a 0.56 load factor for 6 hours per day
Page:5
1/20/20102:07:12 PM
1 Pavers (100 hpjoperating ata 0.62 load factor for 7 hours per day
1 Rollers (95 hpj operating ata 0.56 load factor for 7 hours per day
1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hpjoperating ata 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day
Phase:Building Construction 2/24/2010 -3/21/2010 -Building Construction
Off-Road Equipment:
1Air Compressors (106 hpj operating at a 0.48 load factor for 8 hours perday
1 Forklifts (145 hpj operating at a 0.3 load factor for 8 hours perday
1GeneratorSets (549 hpj operating at a 0.74 load factor for 8 hours per day
1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hpj operating at a 0.55 load factor for 8 hours perday
Construction Mitigated Detail Report:
CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Summer Pounds Per Day,Mitigated
ROG ~CO S02 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 CO2
Time Slice 2/1/2010-2/19/2010 8.72 76.99 38.18 0.00 !,Q1 4.39 8.40 ~4.04 4.88 8,809.17
Active Days:15
Mass Grading 02/01/2010-8.72 76.99 38.18 0.00 4.01 4.39 8.40 0.84 4.04 4.88 8,809.17
02/19/2010
Mass Grading Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.00 0.00 4.00 0.84 0.00 0.84 0.00
Mass Grading OffRoad Diesel 8.68 76.90 36.61 0.00 0.00 4.38 4.38 0.00 4.03 4.03 8.622.57
Mass Grading On Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Mass Grading WorkerTrips 0.05 0.09 1.57 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 186.59
Page:6
1/20/20102:07:12 PM
Time Slice 2/22/2010-2/23/2010 14.36 143.91 59.44 0.00 0.92 6.60 7.52 0.19 §&I 6.27 18.429.42
Active Days:2
Mass Grading 02/22/2010-14.36 143.91 59.44 0.00 0.92 6.60 7.52 0.19 6.07 6.27 18,429.42
02/23/2010
Mass Grading Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.91 0.00 0.91 0.19 0.00 0.19 0.00
Mass Grading Off Road Diesel 14.31 143.81 57.86 0.00 0.00 6.60 6.60 0.00 6.07 6.07 18,242.82
Mass Grading On Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Mass Grading Worker Trips 0.05 0.09 1.57 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 186.59
Time Slice 2/24/2010-3/10/2010 7.27 61.74 29.44 0.00 0.01 3.24 3.25 0.00 2.98 2.98 6,297.41
Active Days:11
Building 02/24/2010-03/21/2010 3.36 35.45 12.99 0.00 0.00 1.55 1.55 0.00 1.42 1.42 3,771.95
Building Off Road Diesel 3.34 35.25 12.68 0.00 0.00 1.54 1.54 0.00 1.42 1.42 3,716.31
Building Vendor Trips 0.02 0.20 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 34.74
BUilding Worker Trips 0.01 0.01 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 20.90
Trenching 02/24/2010-03/21/2010 3.91 26.29 16.44 0.00 0.01 1.69 1.70 0.00 1.56 1.56 2,525.46
Trenching Off Road Diesel 3.86 26.20 14.87 0.00 0.00 1.69 1.69 0.00 1.55 1.55 2,338.87
Trenching WorkerTrips 0.05 0.09 1.57 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 186.59
Page:?
1/20/20102:07:12 PM
Time Slice 3/11/2010-3/19/2010 9.32 73.86 38.30 0.00 0.02 4.28 4.30 0.01 3.93 3.94 7,509.54
Active Days:7
Asphalt 03/11/2010-03/21/2010 2.04 12.11 8.86 0.00 0.01 1.04 1.05 0.00 0.95 0.96 1,212.13
Paving Off-Gas 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Paving OffRoad Diesel 1.95 11.89 6.98 0.00 0.00 1.03 1.03 0.00 0.94 0.94 979.23
Paving On Road Diesel 0.01 0.11 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 15.21
Paving Worker Trips 0.06 0.11 1.83 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.01 217.69
BUilding 02/24/2010-03/21/2010 3.36 35.45 12.99 0.00 0.00 1.55 1.55 0.00 1.42 1.42 3,771.95
Building OffRoad Diesel 3.34 35.25 12.68 0.00 0.00 1.54 1.54 0.00 1.42 1.42 3,716.31
Building VendorTrips 0.02 0.20 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 34.74
Building WorkerTrips 0.01 0.01 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 20.90
Trenching 02/24/2010-03/21/2010 3.91 26.29 16.44 0.00 0.01 1.69 1.70 0.00 1.56 1.56 2,525.46
Trenching OffRoad Diesel 3.86 26.20 14.87 0.00 0.00 1.69 1.69 0.00 1.55 1.55 2,338.87
Trenching Worker Trips 0.05 0.09 1.57 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 186.59
Construction Related Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measures apply to Phase:Mass Grading 2/22/2010 -2123/2010 -Well pulling pipe
For Soil Stablizing Measures,the Apply soil stabilizers to inactive areas mitigation reduces emissions by:
PM10:84%PM25:84%
For Soil Stablizing Measures,the Replace ground cover in disturbed areas quickly mitigation reduces emissions by:
PM10:5%PM25:5%
For Soil Stablizing Measures,the Water exposed surfaces 2x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by:
PM10:55%PM25:55%
For Soil Stablizing Measures,the Equipment loading/unloading mitigation reduces emissions by:
PM10:69%PM25:69%
Page:8
1/20/20102:07:12 PM
Page:1
1/20/2010 2:07:03 PM
Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4
Combined Annual Emissions Reports (Tons/Year)
File Name:G:\San Oiego\10_Staff\Air Quality Staff\OWO_rancho del rey\Urbemis runs\Construction.urb924
Project Name:OWO Rancho del Rey
Project Location:South Coast AQMO
On-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on:Version :Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006
Off-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on:OFFROA02007
SummaryReport:
CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES
ROG NOx CO S02 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust .P.M1Q.PM2.5 Dyst ~~CO2
~
2010 TOTALS (tons/year unmitigated)0.15 1.32 0.64 0.00 0.03 0.07 0.11 0.01 0.07 0.07 145.42
2010 TOTALS (tons/year mitigated)0.15 1.32 0.64 0.00 0.03 0.07 0.10 0.01 0.07 0.07 145.42
Percent Reduction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.04 0.00 2.90 9.00 0.00 0.88 0.00
Construction Unmitigated Detail Report:
CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Annual Tons Per Year,Unmitigated
S02 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 Exhaust
2010
ROG
0.15 1.32
.QQ
0.64 0.00 0.03 0.07 0.11 0.01 0.07 0.07
C02
145.42
Page:2
1/20/20102:07:03 PM
Mass Grading 02/01/2010-
02/19/2010
Mass Grading Dust
Mass Grading Off Road Diesel
Mass Grading On Road Diesel
Mass Grading Worker Trips
Mass Grading 02/22/2010-
02/23/2010
Mass Grading Dust
Mass Grading Off Road Diesel
Mass Grading On Road Diesel
Mass Grading Worker Trips
Building 0212412010-03121/2010
Building Off Road Diesel
Building Vendor Trips
Building Worker Trips
Trenching 02/24/2010-03/21/2010
Trenching Off Road Diesel
Trenching Worker Trips
Asphalt 03/11/2010-03/21/2010
Paving Off-Gas
Paving Off Road Diesel
Paving On Road Diesel
Paving Worker Trips
0.07
0.00
0.07
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.03
0.03
0.00
0.00
0.04
0.03
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.58
0.00
0.58
0.00
0.00
0.14
0.00
0.14
0.00
0.00
0.32
0.32
0.00
0.00
0.24
0.24
0.00
0.04
0.00
0.04
0.00
0.00
0.29
0.00
0.27
0.00
0.01
0.06
0.00
0.06
0.00
0.00
0.12
0.11
0.00
0.00
0.15
0.13
0.01
0.03
0.00
0.02
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.03
0.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.03
0.00
0.03
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.06
0.03
0.03
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.03
0.00
0.03
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.04
0.01
0.03
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
66.07
0.00
64.67
0.00
1.40
18.43
0.00
18.24
0.00
0.19
33.95
33.45
0.31
0.19
22.73
21.05
1.68
4.24
0.00
3.43
0.05
0.76
Page:3
1/20/20102:07:03 PM
Phase Assumptions
Phase:Mass Grading 211/2010 -2/19/2010 -Well drilling
Total Acres Disturbed:0
Maximum Daily Acreage Disturbed:0.2
Fugitive Dust Level of Detail:Default
20 Ibs per acre-day
On Road Truck Travel (VMTj:0
Off-Road Equipment:
1 Air Compressors (350 hpjoperating at a 0.65 load factor for 12 hours per day
1 Bore/Drill Rigs (500 hpj operating at a 0.2 load factorfor 12 hours per day
1GeneratorSets (325 hpjoperating at a 0.62 load factor for 12 hours perday
1Signal Boards (10 hpj operating at a 0.8 load factorfor 12 hours perday
1 Skid Steer Loaders (500 hpj operating at a 0.7 load factorfor 12 hours per day
1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (85 hpj operating at a 0.88 load factorfor 12 hours per day
Phase:Mass Grading 2/22/2010 -2/23/2010 -Well pulling pipe
Total Acres Disturbed:0
Maximum Daily Acreage Disturbed:0.2
Fugitive Dust Level of Detail:Default
20 Ibs peracre-day
On Road Truck Travel (VMTj:0
Off-Road Equipment:
1Air Compressors (350 hpj operating at a 0.65 load factor for 24hours perday
1 Bore/Drill Rigs (500 hpjoperating ata 0.6 load factor for 24 hours per day
1 Generator Sets (325 hpj operating at a 0.62 load factor for 24 hours per day
1 Signal Boards (10 hpj operating at a 0.8 load factor for 24 hours per day
1 Skid Steer Loaders (500 hpjoperating ata 0.7 load factor for 12 hours per day
1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (85 hpj operating at a 0.88 load factor for 12 hours per day
Page:4
1/20/20102:07:04 PM
Phase:Trenching 2/24/2010 -3/21/2010 -Trenching for Utilities
Off-Road Equipment:
1 Crushing/Processing Equip (142 hpj operating at a 0.78 load factor for8 hours perday
1 Excavators (168 hpj operating at a 0.57 load factorfor8 hours per day
1 Rubber Tired Loaders (164 hpj operating at a 0.54 load factorfor8 hours per day
1Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hpj operating at a 0.55 load factor for 0 hours perday
1Trenchers (63 hpj operating ata 0.75 load factorfor 8 hours per day
1Welders (45 hpj operating at a 0.45 load factor for 8 hours per day
Phase:Paving 3/11/2010 -3/21/2010 -paving
Acres to be Paved:0.07
Off-Road Equipment:
4 Cement and Mortar Mixers (10 hpjoperating at a 0.56 load factor for 6 hours per day
1 Pavers (100 hpjoperating ata 0.62 load factor for 7 hours perday
1 Rollers (95 hpjoperating at a 0.56 load factor for 7 hours per day
1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hpj operating at a 0.55 load factorfor 7 hours per day
Phase:Building Construction 2/24/2010 -3/21/2010 -Building Construction
Off-Road Equipment:
1Air Compressors (106 hpj operating at a 0.48 load factor for 8 hours perday
1 Forklifts (145 hpj operating at a 0.3 load factor for 8 hours perday
1GeneratorSets (549 hpj operating at a 0.74 load factor for 8 hours perday
1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hpj operating at a 0.55 load factor for 8 hours perday
Construction Mitigated Detail Report:
CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Annual Tons Per Year,Mitigated
PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 Exhaust
Page:5
1/20/20102:07:04 PM
2010
Mass Grading 02/01/2010-
02/19/2010
Mass Grading Dust
Mass Grading Off Road Diesel
Mass Grading On Road Diesel
Mass Grading Worker Trips
Mass Grading 02/22/2010-
02/23/2010
Mass Grading Dust
Mass Grading Off Road Diesel
Mass Grading On Road Diesel
Mass Grading Worker Trips
BUilding 02/24/2010-03/21/2010
Building Off Road Diesel
Building Vendor Trips
Building Worker Trips
Trenching 02/24/2010-03/21/2010
Trenching OffRoad Diesel
Trenching WorkerTrips
Asphalt 03/11/2010-03/21/2010
Paving Off-Gas
Paving Off Road Diesel
Paving On Road Diesel
Paving WorkerTrips
0.15
0.07
0.00
0.07
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.03
0.03
0.00
0.00
0.04
0.03
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
1.32
0.58
0.00
0.58
0.00
0.00
0.14
0.00
0.14
0.00
0.00
0.32
0.32
0.00
0.00
0.24
0.24
0.00
0.04
0.00
0.04
0.00
0.00
0.64
0.29
0.00
0.27
0.00
0.01
0.06
0.00
0.06
0.00
0.00
0.12
0.11
0.00
0.00
0.15
0.13
0.01
0.03
0.00
0.02
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.07
0.03
0.00
0.03
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.10
0.06
0.03
0.03
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.07
0.03
0.00
0.03
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.07
0.04
0.01
0.03
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
145.42
66.07
0.00
64.67
0.00
1.40
18.43
0.00
18.24
0.00
0.19
33.95
33.45
0.31
0.19
22.73
21.05
1.68
4.24
0.00
3.43
0.05
0.76
._------------------
Page:6
1/20/20102:07:04 PM
Construction Related Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measures apply to Phase:Mass Grading 2122/2010 -2/23/2010 -Well pulling pipe
For Soil Slablizing Measures,the Apply soil stabilizers to inactive areas mitigation reduces emissions by:
PM10:84%PM25:84%
For Soil Stablizing Measures,the Replace ground cover in disturbed areas quicklymitigation reduces emissions by:
PM10:5%PM25:5%
For Soil Stablizing Measures,the Water exposed surfaces 2x daily watering mitigation reduces emissions by:
PM10:55%PM25:55%
For Soil Slablizing Measures,the Equipment loading/unloading mitigation reduces emissions by:
PM10:69%PM25: 69%
OWO Rancho del Rey Construction GHG Calculations
0.000453592
C02lbs/day(fromURBEMISI C02lbstotal CO2 Mr/yr
Construction Phase
Well Drillin
WcliCasin
Buildin Construction
Trenching (orUtilities
ocrRJxMJ Emissions
8.622.6
18.2~2.8
3,716.3
2,338.9
979-.2
on-roademissions
186.6
186.6
55.6
186.6
232.9
OffRoad Emissions
129.338.6
36,485.6
66,893.6
42,099.7
6,854.6
on-roademissions
2.798.9
3.73.2
1.00J.5
3,358.6
1,630.3
orrRood EmiiSions
S8.7
30.3
19.1
3.1
OIH03demissions
1.3
0.2
0.5
0.7
daysof
construction
1S
2
18
18
7
Imul 33.899.8 848.3 281.672.0 9.162.5 127.8 4.2
On road E:mWt.oos and WodcrTn
coz(metrictoa.slyr)CH4(metrictou)'r)reo (metriclODs!}T)
0.038921
0.080181
0.2/8738
0.0089(19
0.066818
0.023910
1.5
1.3
0.2
0.5
0.7
4.1
C02 (metric 10Cl$l)'C)Otber(metric.U,.u,rytJ
utEmissions
0.003273
0.00(17n
0,000080
0.00(1489
0.001503
O.00042~
0.003352
0.00730/
0.000178
0.001734
0.001091
3.1
16.5
19.1
30.3
;8.7
/17.&
OITRoad Emissions
TululCmtSlnJ.ditm Emiuwns
BtJildin-Con.$ltut.tiob
ConstructionPhase
SOIUCCS:URBEMIS2007:CCAR 2009.
,VatDrilLin=
310
N20
21
CH4
GWP
GAS
5.00%
Percent otherGHGs(onroad)
0.90718474
tons/metricton
0.00026
t-_--:====~r--_-===~O':.2~6Table e.6,GRP2.56158M5
C02DieselFuel
Source:CH4 andN20from Construction
kg C02/galdiesel
glgaldiesel construction equip
I<1tio
Gasoline Fuel
kg C02/galdiesel
ratio
C02
L --=:=+-__-:-:=::;:~I_--....,,""""'O;;.;:OOO~lTable e.9,GRP
1.13507E.()5
01/21/10
16:12:49
***SCREEN3 MODEL RUN ***
***VERSION DATED 96043 ***
owd
AREA
.709456E-05
3.5000
28.4500
28.4500
.0000
URBAN
MIXING HEIGHT OPTION WAS SELECTED.
ANEMOMETER HEIGHT OF 10.0 METERS WAS ENTERED.
SIMPLE TERRAIN INPUTS:
SOURCE TYPE
EMISSION RATE (G/(S-M**2))
SOURCE HEIGHT (M)
LENGTH OF LARGER SIDE (M)
LENGTH OF SMALLER SIDE (M)
RECEPTOR HEIGHT (M)
URBAN/RURAL OPTION
THE REGULATORY (DEFAULT)
THE REGULATORY (DEFAULT)
MODEL ESTIMATES DIRECTION TO MAX CONCENTRATION
BUOY.FLUX =.000 M**4/S**3;MOM.FLUX .000 M**4/S**2.
***FULL METEOROLOGY ***
**********************************
***SCREEN AUTOMATED DISTANCES ***
**********************************
***TERRAIN HEIGHT OF O.M ABOVE STACK BASE USED FOR FOLLOWING DISTANCES ***
DIST CONC U10M USTK MIX HT PLUME MAX DIR
(M)(UG/M**3)STAB (M/S) (M/S)(M)HT (M)(DEG)
----------
1.9.129 1 1.0 1.0 320.0 3.50 45.
100.16.20 5 1.0 1.0 10000.0 3.50 45.
200.5.572 5 1.0 1.0 10000.0 3.50 43.
300.2.803 5 1.0 1.0 10000.0 3.50 42.
400.1.718 5 1.0 1.0 10000.0 3.50 44.
500.1.180 5 1.0 1.0 10000.0 3.50 32 .
600..8726 5 1.0 1.0 10000.0 3.50 39 .
700..6792 5 1.0 1.0 10000.0 3.50 2 .
800..5482 5 1.0 1.0 10000.0 3.50 4.
900..4549 5 1.0 1.0 10000.0 3.50 21.
1000..3859 5 1.0 1.0 10000.0 3.50 24 .
1100..3333 5 1.0 1.0 10000.0 3.50 32 .
1200..2920 5 1.0 1.0 10000.0 3.50 29 .
1300..2589 5 1.0 1.0 10000.0 3.50 13 .
1400..2319 5 1.0 1.0 10000.0 3.50 9.
1500..2096 5 1.0 1.0 10000.0 3.50 5.
MAXIMUM 1-HR CONCENTRATION AT OR BEYOND 1.M:
47.30.25 5 1.0 1.0 10000.0 3.50 45.
*********************************
***SCREEN DISCRETE DISTANCES ***
*********************************
***TERRAIN HEIGHT OF O.M ABOVE STACK BASE USED FOR FOLLOWING DISTANCES ***
DIST CONC U10M USTK MIX HT PLUME MAX DIR
(M)(UG/M**3)STAB (M/S)(M/S)(M)HT (M)(DEG)
----------
3.10.64 1 1.0 1.0 320.0 3.50 44.
8.13.94 3 1.0 1.0 320.0 3.50 45.
20.22.43 3 1.0 1.0 320.0 3.50 45.
30.28.30 4 1.0 1.0 320.0 3.50 45.
76.22.45 5 1.0 1.0 10000.0 3.50 45.
152.8.690 5 1.0 1.0 10000.0 3.50 45.
***************************************
***SUMMARY OF SCREEN MODEL RESULTS ***
***************************************
CALCULATION
PROCEDURE
MAX CONC
(UG/M**3)
DIST TO
MAX (M)
TERRAIN
HT (M)
SIMPLE TERRAIN 30.25 47.O.
***************************************************
**REMEMBER TO INCLUDE BACKGROUND CONCENTRATIONS **
***************************************************
OWD Rancho delRey Daycare HRA Heath Risk Inputs and Calculations
0.375 9hrs/24hr$
EmissionCales
0.02625 UrbemisPMtons/vr(II)childrenalsite9hrs/dav
907184.7 grams/ton
3600 seconds/hour
24 hours/day
1.00 percentofday
48days!vr
0.OOS742091 grams/second
AreaCalcs
0.2Maxareadisturbed(acres)
4046.825 meters2/acre
U.4~~i!;~~~IHl
SCREEN3 EmissionRate
7.09456E.06grams!second"meter2
0.3048
SCREEN3Distal'lces
·assumeall PM10eKhaustIsDPM
"assumption is thatemissionsareconstantoverthe
acresdisturbed
Screen3assumptions~rheight
3.5mstackheight
usediscretedistancesaswellasarray'romato1500m
urbansetting
10
25
65'00250'00154.199
3.048
7.62
19.812
30.48
76.2
152.4
receptor!
receptor2
receptor3
receptor4
receptorS
receptor6
47 hlghestcOf1centratlon
"middleofdaycarefadlitv/plavyound
tdaycare parkingarea
•daycaredoorstep
tdaycareparklngarel!l
•daycareplayground
•cornertocornerplayground
•residences
0.3048 Da\ft".rl!Cent"
HIcM!{Contentllillion(47ft)
HRACaks
30.3 SCREEN)1-hoUl'concentration(microlrams/meter3)
o.11·hour->annualconversion
~~:~~~~;~::Il=~~on(micrograms/meter3)
0,1 CWIcer s perIftlIon
06Jlmlltdl~
FromJune2007BAAQMDPERMIT MODELINGGUIDANCE,PI.4
4.23E-07
5 Chronic inhalfatlonREl(micrograms/meter3l
48 daysofconstruction
0,)75 OOllll"5~t d~,.(iMlert%orda¥1
111.Exposure 'requel'lCY{UI
0.131506&49 (l(posUrtduration(EO)
25550Averagingtime(AT)
3020ailvbreathinirate(DBR)
1Inhalationabwrptlonfactor(Al
1.ooE"()3 Mluogramsto milligramsconversion
l.OOE..()3 literstocubicmetersconversion
1.1Cancerpotencyfaetor
UXlEtQ6 rhle.per"",Uon~opll!
JOj~t(Jm)
HRACalcs
days/year
Years
d""l/kgbodvweight
N~,
lm!crogranl
liters
mgJkg-day
No..
IItJlconstructiondays
IItJldoys/36S
10.1SCREEN31·hourconcentration(micrograms/meter3)
O.ll-hour->annualconversion
1.07E+OO SCREEN3 24-hourconcentrationlmicro&rams/meter3j
2.99E-08Calt:ul.lll~dos~(nwl;g·da'()
O.WCilixerf Itlermll1JOr'1)
U2Hal.il Inde:x
lSrntl7..6m1
HRACalcs
14.0SCREEN31·hourconcentrationlmicrograms/meter3)
0.1 I-hour->annualconversion
1.4OE.00SCREEN3 24-hourcorxentratiOfl(miuocrams/meter3j
J,90£-o8Calculateddose(~.d..v)
0.0;C3nC'c!rruklporrrn 0
Q..3 ""
6S!eel{19.8m)
HRACaks
22,4SCREEN3I-hourconc.entration(micrograms/meter3)
0.1 i-hour->annualconversion
2.24E+OOSCREEN3 24-hourc.oncentration(mit/ograms!meter3)
fi.2-8Eo08CJlcula,.d dow:(f1'\f/kl:-day)
U,l~l!ff1sfpell"lV"""]
O.4Hl1t;J,d~)[
100feet(JO..48rn)
HRACalcs
2lU SCREEN3I-hourconcentration(mlcrograms/meter3)
0.1 I-hour->annualconversion
2.83E+OO SCREEN324-houtconcentration(micrograms/meter3)
7.!nE.Qll Cabtliteddo!ejr'N/b·d~yJ
0.1Cilflt"llfflU:perm ton
o.G a~rdlndh
HRACalcs
22.iSCREEN3I-hourc.oncentratlon(micrograms/meter3)
0.1 i-hour->annualconversion
2.25E+OO SCREEN324-hourcOl'lc~ntration(micrograms/meter31
6..28E~a~lcul~t41ddos.(lrrJke.dom
0.1Cant:ett'i!.(pe-IrnioliOlt
OJI l'l.tllltdl M
SIX)feellliZ.4rn~
HflAC~Il:1
&.7 SCRErlf31-hoout(:Drte4ntr~lion("*,OIramSlMet~3)
0.1 l-hour->annualconversion
8.69E-ol SCREEN324-hourconcentration(micrograms/meter3)
2.43E-08 Qk""aleddoseImg/l(l"d;lY)
om Ymn !permlUlIClf'Il
0,2 In ,y
FromJune 2007BAAQMDPERMITMODELING GUIDANCE,pg.4
FromJune20078AAQMD PERMITMODELINGGUIDANCE,pg.4
FromJune20078AAQMO PERMIT MODELINGGUIDANCE,pg.4
FromJune2007BAAQMD PERMIT MODELINGGUIDANCE,pg.4
FromJune20078AAQMDPERMITMODELINGGUIDANCE,pg.4
FromJune2007BAAQMDPERMITMODELING GUIDANCE,P8-4
Appendix B
Geology and Soils Report
San Diego Office Indio OfficeS;SOIL&TESTING.INC.z0:oll.::;
isz0::W;::
:J5l
PHONE(619)280-4321
TOLL FREE
(877)215-4321
FAX(619)280-4717
P.O.Box 60.0627
San Diego,CA 92160-0627
6280 Riverdale Street
San Diego,CA 92120
www.scst.com
PHONE(760)775-5983
TOLL FREI!(8n)215-4321
FAX(760)775-8362
83-740 Citrus Avenue
Suite G
India,CA 92201-3438
www.scst.com
January 20,2010
Lisa Coburn-Boyd
Otay Water District
2554 Sweetwater Springs Blvd.
Spring Valley,CA 91978-2004
Project #1011001
Report #1
Subject:REPORT
GEOLGOY AND SOILS INFORMATION
RANCHO DEL REY WELL SITE
CHULA VISTA,CALIFORNIA
OTAY WATER DISTRICT
Dear Ms.Lisa Coburn-Boyd~
INTRODUCTION
In accordance with your request,Southern California Soil &Testing developed geology and soils
information for the new well and future small water treatment system at the existing Rancho Del
Rey well site in Chula Vista,California.The site is located on the southeast corner of the
intersection of Terra Nova Drive and Rancho Del Rey Parkway.The location is shown on Figure
1.
The scope of work consisted of:
•Notifying Underground Service Alert to locate underground utilities in the area.
•Drilling 1 exploratory test boring 20 feet deep at the location shown on Figure 1 to develop
information on shallow soil conditions.
•Logging the boring and obtaining samples of the materials encountered for examination
and laboratory testing.The log of the test boring is on Figure 1-2.
•Performing laboratory tests to evaluate pertinent engineering properties.Results of a
direct shear test on a relatively undisturbed sample are on Figure 11-1.Representative
grain size distributions are shown on Figure 11-2.
Rancho Del Rey Well Site
Otay Water District
January 20,2010
Project #1011001.1
Page 2
•Reviewing available logs of the existing well to evaluate subsurface conditions at greater
depths.
•Preparing a final letter report summarizing the results of the field and laboratory program.
SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
The surface of the site is relatively flat,with a few sparse weeds.Otay Formation is exposed on
the ground surface and continued to the maximum depth explored,19.5 feet.Formational
materials consist of dense clayey sandstone in the upper 10 feet;hard claystone between a depth
of 10 feet and a depth of 14 feet;and dense clayey sandstone below this depth.No groundwater
was encountered in the test boring.
CONCLUSIONS
The site is underlain by dense and hard sandstone and claystone of the Otay Formation.The
formational materials will provide good support for relatively light structures with foundations at
shallow depths below the bottom of the structure.The formational materials also will provide good
support for new fills.Settlements are expected to be small.Portions of the formational materials
can be expansive and recommendations for minimizing the effects of expansive soils on
structures are contained in the following section.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Earthwork
Existing vegetation and debris should be stripped and removed from the site.Near surface
soils containing organic materials can be stockpiled for later use in landscaping.The depth of
stripping is expected to be three to four inches.
Where structures will be supported at or near existing grades,the upper soils should be
excavated to a depth of at least three feet below planned footing bottom grades.Existing
materials should be excavated to a depth of at least two feet below subgrade beneath slabs-
on-grade.The excavated materials and the surface exposed by excavation should be checked
by the geotechnical engineer to evaluate their expansion potential and suitability for use as
compacted fill.
The surface exposed by excavation should be scarified to a depth of 8 inches,moisture
conditioned to approximately 2 to 4 percentage points above optimum moisture content and
compacted to at least 90%relative compaction based on the ASTM 0 1557 laboratory test
method.All references to relative compaction and optimum moisture content in this report are
based on this test method.The geotechnical engineer should observe materials exposed
during earthwork and evaluate whether they are suitable based on the observed expansion
potential.
Rancho Del Rey Well Site
Otay Water District
Fill and Backfill Placement and Compaction
January 20,2010
Project #1011001.1
Page 3
Generally,the excavated soil will be suitable for use as new compacted fill and backfill except
for expansive materials as determined by the geotechnical engineer.Fill and backfill should be
placed in lifts 8 inches or less in loose thickness,moisture conditioned to approximately 2 to 4
percentage points above optimum moisture content and compacted to at least 90%relative
compaction.
Imported Soil
Imported fill should consist of predominately granular soils free of organic material and rocks
greater than 6 inches in maximum dimension.Imported soils should have an Expansion Index
of 20 or less.Imported soils should be inspected and,if appropriate,tested by SCS&T prior to
transport to the site.
Surface Drainage
Final surface grades around the improvements should be designed to collect and direct
surface water away from the structures and toward appropriate drainage facilities.The ground
around the structures should be graded so that surface water flows rapidly away from the
structures without ponding.In general,we recommend that the ground adjacent to the
structures slope away at a gradient of at least 2%.Densely vegetated areas where runoff can
be impaired should have a minimum gradient of at least 5%within the first 5 feet from the
structure.
Drainage patterns established at the time of fine grading should be maintained throughout the
life of the structures.Site irrigation should be limited to the minimum necessary to sustain
landscape growth.Should excessive irrigation,impaired drainage,or unusually high rainfall
occur,saturated zones of perched groundwater can develop.
Seismic Design
The site coefficients and adjusted maximum considered earthquake spectral response
acceleration parameters in accordance with the 2007 California Building Code are presented
below:
Site Coordinates:Latitude 320 33'43"
Longitude 1170 01'58"
Site Class:D
Site Coefficient Fa =1.078
Site Coefficient Fv =1.622
Spectral Response Acceleration at Short Periods Ss =1.055
Spectral Response Acceleration at 1-Second Period S1 =0.389
SMs=FaSs=1.137
Rancho Del Rey Well Site
Dtay Water District
SM1=FvS1=0.631
SDs=2/3*SMs=0.758
SD1=2/3*SM1=0.421
Structure Foundation Design
January 20,2010
Project #1011001.1
Page 4
New structures can be supported on spread footings with bottom levels in the formational
materials if the bottom level of the structure is more than 5 feet below the lowest adjacent
outside final grade,or in new compacted fill.Footings should have bottom levels at a minimum
depth of 18 inches below the lowest adjacent finished grade.A minimum width of 12 inches is
recommended for continuous footings for single story structures and 15 inches for 2-story
structures.Isolated footings should be at least 24 inches wide.A bearing capacity of 3000
pounds per square foot (psf)can be used.This value can be increased by %when
considering the total of all loads,including wind or seismic forces.
Lateral loads will be resisted by friction between the bottoms of footings and passive pressure
on the faces of footings and other structural elements below grade.A friction factor of 0.35
can be used.Passive pressure can be computed using a lateral pressure value of 350 psf per
foot of depth below the ground surface.The upper 1 foot of soil should not be relied on for
passive support unless the ground is covered with pavements or slabs.
Total footing settlements are expected to be less than %inch.Differential settlements
between adjacent footings,and between the middle and ends of continuous footings,are
expected to be less than %inch.Settlement should occur rapidly and be essentially complete
shortly after construction is complete.
Concrete Slabs-an-Grade
Concrete slabs-on-grade should have a thickness of at least 5 inches and be reinforced with
at least NO.4 reinforcing bars placed at 12 inches on-center each way.Slab reinforcement
should be placed approximately at mid-height of the slab and extend at least 6 inches down
into the footings.
Siabs-on-grade should be underlain by a 4-inch thick blanket of clean,poorly graded,coarse
sand or crushed rock.A moisture vapor retarder/barrier should be placed beneath slabs
where floor coverings will be installed.Typically,plastic is used as a vapor retardant.If plastic
is used,a minimum 10-mil is recommended.The plastic should comply with ASTM E 1745.
Plastic installation should comply with ASTM E 1643.
Current construction practice typically includes placement of a two-inch thick sand cushion
between the bottom of the concrete slab and the moisture vapor retarder/barrier.This cushion
can provide some protection to the vapor retarder/barrier during construction,and may assist
in reducing the potential for edge curling in the slab during curing.However,the sand layer
also provides a source of moisture vapor to the underside of the slab that can increase the
C'~
Rancho Del Rey Well Site
Olay Water District
January 20,2010
Project #1011001.1
Page 5
time required to reduce moisture vapor emissions to limits acceptable for the type of floor
covering placed on top of the slab.The floor covering manufacturer should be contacted to
determine the volume of moisture vapor allowable and any treatment needed to reduce
moisture vapor emissions to acceptable limits for the particular type of floor covering installed.
Temporary Excavations
Temporary excavations should not be steeper than %:1 in the formational materials.Steeper
slopes will require shoring.SCS&T can provide recommendations for temporary shoring if
needed.
The contractor's Competent Person should inspect slopes twice daily while they are exposed.
Any raveling,sloughing,or evidence for instability should be brought to the attention of the
engineer.Personnel should not be allowed access in front of the slope until the observed
condition is evaluated and mitigated if necessary.
Retaining Walls
Retaining wall foundations should be designed in accordance with the recommendations
above for structure foundation design.The active soil pressure for the design of unrestrained
earth retaining structures with level backfills can be taken as equivalent to the pressure of a
fluid weighing 40 pounds per cubic foot (pct).Walls that are restrained against movement at
the top should be designed for at-rest pressures.The at-rest pressure can be taken as
equivalent to the pressure ofa fluid weighing 65 pcf.
A granular and drained backfill condition has been assumed.If any surcharge loads are
anticipated,SCS&T should be contacted for the appropriate increase in lateral pressure.
Retaining walls should be provided with backdrains.A typical wall backdrain detail is shown
on Figure 2.
Seismic Earth Pressure
Seismic earth pressure can be computed using an inverted triangular distribution with a
maximum pressure at the top equal to 18H pounds per square foot (with H being the height of
the retained earth in feet).This pressure is in addition to the un-factored static design wall
load.The allowable passive pressure and bearing capacity can be increased by %for
determining the stability of the wall.
Backfill
All backfill soils should be compacted to at least 90%relative compaction at 2 to 4 percentage
points above optimum.Expansive or clayey soils should not be used for backfill material.The
wall should not be backfilled until the grout has reached an adequate strength.
CLOSURE
Rancho Del Rey Well Site
Dtay Water District
January20,2010
Project #1011001.1
Page 6
In the performance of our professional services.we comply with that level of care and skill
ordinarily exercised by members of our profession currently practicing under similar conditions
and in the same locality.Subsurface conditions can vary from those encountered at the boring
locations.and our data.interpretations.and recommendations are based solely on the information
obtained by us.We will be responsible for those data,interpretations,and recommendations,but
will not be responsible for interpretations by others of the information developed.Our services
consist of professional consultation and observation only,and no warranty of any kind
whatsoever,express or implied,is made or intended in connection with the work performed or to
be performed by us.or by our proposal for consulting or other services,or by our furnishing of oral
or written reports or findings.
If you have any questions.please call me at (619)280-4321.
Respectfully submitted,
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL AND TESTING,INC.
JCle.~
Principal Geotechnical Engineer
JJS:js
(1)Addressee
Attachments:
Figure 1 -Boring Location
Figure 2 -Backdrain
Figures 1-1 and 1-2:-Unified Soil Classification System and Boring Log
Figures 11-1 and 11-2 -Laboratory Test Results
OTAY WATER DISTRICT
RANCHO DEL WAY PARKWAY,CHULA VISTA,CA
RANCHO DEL REY GROUND WATER DEVELOPMENT
CIP P2434
~I
/
.--------'--==1===::-=\D==;\\
)I~~~F:'-'__\CHILDTlM~NgHILDCARE,\
W'\-::-'':0 LOT 108 I~ii CHULA ~~A rn~CT NO.1 \89-5~:N - \MAP NO.12720 .-JC,~~lfmj -
RANCHO DEL REY WELL11_
EXHIBIT A
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
SOIL &TESTING,INC.
RANCHO DEL REY WELL SITE
BY:JJS DATE:1/21/2010
JOB NUMBER:1011001-1 FIGURE:1
Direct Shear Test Results
5.0 I •Shear Strength at I0.2 inches of
4.5 Deformation---•Peak ShearStrength
4.0 ....
I ,/
3.5 /•~,
C'/,
II),~3.0 ~,
II).'II),
CD 2.5 ./,...Iy '.-en ,..../,
CIS ,
CD 2.0 10""".c ~,en .,.;
1.5 ,
;
;
1.0 ,,,
0.5
0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Confining Pressure (ksf)
ANGLE OF COHESION
INTERNAL INTERCEPT
SAMPLE DESCRIPTION FRICTION (PSF)
TP-2@8-10'UNDISTURBED
Peak 36 1550
ShearStrength at 41 690
0.2 inches ofDeformation
~-SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA RANCHO DEL REY WELL SITE(~SOIL &TESTING BY:JJS IDATE:1/21/2010
JOB NUMBER:1011001-11FIGURE 11-1
U.S.Standard Sieve Sizes
0.0010.01
,
1 0.1
Grain Size in Millimeters
B-1@O'-S'
f-+-Ht-+-iI---1+-+-~+--+---+-!t-t-+-+-++-+-+-;--f---f-++++-t-+--+-_.,
:"r
3"2~1-1{2"1~3/4"1/2"3/8"#4 18 #1Q #30 #50 #100 #200 Hydrometer
100 TTn-Thrt=--r-h1-T-rrrnTTI~""~""-"'--:;ii4T~"'iIiiiiii"",;:r""",,,TI-IT-TTTTln-r~--ITTTTTTI-I---"l
....__""90 !
II
80 i
:c 700)0Qi
3:60>-.Q..~50
u:::-;40
~Q)
a.30
20
10
0
100 10
GRAVEL
SAMPLE
TEST PIT NO.:
SAMPLE DEPTH:
FINE MEDIUM
SAND
FINE
I I
SILT AND
CLAY
SAND EQUIVALENT
&-SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA RANCHO DEL REY WELL SITE
SOIL &TESTING,INC.BY:JJS DATE:1/21/2010
JOB NUMBER:1011001-1 FIGURE:11-2
LOG OF EXPLORATORY BORING NUMBER B-1
Date Excavated:1/13/2010 Logged by:AKN
Equipment:6"hollow stem auger Project Manager:JS
Surface Elevation (ft):NIA Depth to Water (ft):NIA
SAMPLES C/)
I--e-C/)
0 Q)-u W-Z ~..9:I--~W 0 >e.....>-C/)co 'C ....=:c ~"C W 0::U 0::~-SI--C/)SUMMARY OF SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS =>-l 0 0::0a..=>I--=>~=>!:::I--W l-I--~0 C/)co w (j;C/)z£5 z ~6 =>0zw0a.e ~>-co=>0::::i0
OTAY FORMATION (To)-Light brownish gray,moist,dense to
1\Iverydense,medium-grained,massive,CLAYEY SANDSTONE.
I-2 Disturbed upper 18 inches.
SA
I-4 II \CAL 50/5"15.87 112 DS
f--
I-6
I-8
I-10 -----------------------------------CALl-----71Mediummaroongray,moist,hard,waxy,CLAYSTONE.1\/SA
I-12
1/\
I-14 -sc Medium-maroon gray-;-moist:densetovery dense-;-medium-- - - -
f--
CAL 50/6"
grained,massive,CLAYEY SANDSTONE.
I-16
I-18 Becomes light gray at 18 feet.
CAL 50/5"
I-?n
SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION LEGEND
UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART
SOIL DESCRIPTION GROUP TYPICAL NAMESSYMBOL
I.COARSE GRAINED,more than 50%of material is largerthan No.200 sieve size.
GRAVELS CLEAN GRAVELS GW Well graded gravels,gravel-sand mixtures,little or no finesMorethanhalfof
coarse fraction is GP Poorly graded gravels,gravel sand mixtures,little or no fines.larger than NO.4
sieve size but GRAVELS WITH FINES GM Silty gravels,poorly graded gravel-sand-sill mixtures.smaller than 3".(Appreciable amountof
fines)GC Clayey gravels,poorly graded gravel-sand-c1ay mixtures.
SANDS CLEAN SANDS SW Well graded sand,gravelly sands,little or no fines.
More than half of
coarse fraction is SP Poorly graded sands,gravelly sands,little or no fines.
smallerthan No.
4 sieve size.SANDS WITH FINES SM Silty sands,poorly graded sand and silty mixtures.
(Appreciable amount of
fines)SC Clayey sands,poorly graded sand and clay mixtures.
II.FINE GRAINED,more than 50%of material is smaller than No.200 sieve size.
SILTS AND CLAYS ML Inorganic silts and very fine sands,rock flour,sandy silt or clayey-sill-
(Liquid Limit less sand mixtures with slight plasticity.
than 50)CL Inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity,gravelly clays,sandy clays,
silty clays,lean clays.
OL Organic silts and organic silty clays oflow plasticity.
SILTS AND CLAYS MH Inorganic silts,micaceous or diatomaceous fine sandy or silty soils,
(Liquid Limit elastic silts.
greaterthan 50)CH Inorganic clays ofhigh plasticity,fat clays.
OH Organic clays of medium to high plasticity.
III.HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS PT Peat and other highly organic soils.
FIELD SAMPLE SYMBOLS LABORATORY TEST SYMBOLS
~-Bulk Sample AL -Atterberg Limits
CAL -Modified California penetration test sampler CON -Consolidation
CK -Undisturbed chunk sample COR -Corrosivity Test
MS -Maximum Size of Particle -Sulfate
~3 -Chloride-Water seepage at time ofexcavation or as indicated -pH and Resistivity
SPT -Standard penetration test sampler OS -Direct Shear
ST -ShelbyTube EI -Expansion Index
\l -Water level at time ofexcavation or as indicated MAX -Maximum Density
RV -RValue
SA -Sieve Analysis
UC -Unconfined Compression
&SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA RANCHO DEL REY WELL SITE
SOIL &TESTING,INC.By:AKN IDate:1/21/2010
Job Number:1011001P-1 IFigure:1-1
Typical Retaining Wall
Backdrain Detail
1
-~------18"min.
c.om.paeledFill.._-~..-
Waterproof back of wall following architect's specifications
4-minimum perforated pipe,SDR35 or equivalent,holes down,1%fall to outlet,
top of pipe below top of slab,encased in 3/4-crushed rock.Provide 3 cubic feet
per linear foot crushed rock minimum.Crushed rock to be surrounded by filter
fabric (Mirafi 140N or equivalent),with 6"minimum overlap.
Provide solid outlet pipe at suitable location.
Q)
®
@
@)
®
Floor Slab
Filter Fabric between rock and soli
Backcut
Compacted
Fill
Miradrain 6000
or equivalent,
213 wall height
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
SOIL &TESTING,INC.BY:
JOB NUMBER:
RANCHO DEL REY WELL SITE
JJS DATE:
1011001-1 PLATE NO.:
1/21/2010
2
~
SCALE:1"=60'
o
RANC,HO DEL REY WELL
CHILDTIME CHILDCARE,
INC
LOT 108
CHULA VISTA TRACT NO.89-5
MAP NO.12720
EXHIBIT A
(96.'1').
(N87'37'44"E)
OTAY WATER DISTRICT
aTAY WA TER DISTRICT
RANCHO DEL WAY PARKWAY,CHULA VISTA,CA
RANCHO DEL REY GROUND WATER DEVELOPMENT
CIP P2434
VICINITY MAP
t;a..
~y!;.....-a
~1/~/
o~
IMPERIAL
BEACH
L~nB~O~,~-r-~;;:;/
'"">
'"...
""~~~...
~0-
.l...I!IIj
ii~!II.Ilg.
~~t------......----------------------------"1~a..
a..~Cl;Z~
0.:'------_....._--------------------------~
AGENDA ITEM 6f
STAFF REPORT
TYPE MEETING:Regular Board
SUBMITTED BY:Daniel Kay ~'i
Associate Engineer
MEETING DATE:
PROJECTI
SUBPROJECT:
March 3,2010
R2058-001103 DIV.NO.1,2
R2077-001103
R2087-001103
APPROVED BY:
(Chief)
APPROVED BY:
(Asst.GM):
SUBJECT:
Ron Ripperger ~
Engineering Manager
Rod posada~~,
Chief,Enginee~~,
Manny Magana i/~~'--o~.
Assistant General Manager,Engineering and Operations
Award of a Construction Management Services Contract for
the Otay Mesa Recycled Water Supply Link Project to RBF
Consulting
GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION:
That the Otay Water District (District)Board of Directors (Board)
awards a professional services contract to RBF Consulting (RBF),for
providing professional construction management services for the Otay
Mesa Recycled Water Supply Link (Supply Link)project and to
authorize the General Manager to execute an agreement with RBF in a
not-to-exceed amount of $708,560 (see Exhibits A,B,and C for
project locations).
COMMITTEE ACTION:
Please see Attachment A.
PURPOSE:
To obtain Board Authorization for the General Manager to enter into a
Construction Management Agreement with RBF.The contract amount is
not-to-exceed $708,560 for providing Construction Management Services
for the Supply Link project.
ANALYSIS:
The Supply Link is primarily a transmission pipeline that will
provide recycled water to the Otay Mesa area.The Supply Link
consists of constructing approximately 3.5 miles of 24-inch steel
pipe,3 miles of 16-Inch PVC pipe,900 linear feet of 8-Inch PVC
pipe,and a pressure reducing station.
The Supply Link is currently being designed in-house by staff.The
design is 60%complete and staff is currently working towards 90%
design.The design is anticipated to be completed in March 2010 with
construction award in May 2010.The Supply Link is critical,in
providing recycled water to the Otay Mesa.
As part of the process to improve the design,staff's goal is to
engage the services of a Construction Manager (CM)during the 90%
design phase of the project.Utilizing the services of a CM during
the design process will allow fresh input regarding constructability
and provide an opportunity for the design staff to include these new
ideas into the final design.Consistent with the District's
practice,a CM'firm is used on larger projects that have a variety of
complex construction activities.The CM augments District staff and
provides the full time inspection and monitoring that is required.
In accordance with Board Policy No.21,staff solicited professional
construction management services from engineering consulting firms by
placing an advertisement on the District's website and with various
publications including the Union Tribune and San Diego Daily
Transcript.
The Pre-Proposal Meeting for the project was held on December 16,
2009.Thirty-five (35)people from various consulting groups
attended the meeting.Twenty-nine (29)firms submitted a letter of
interest and a statement of qualifications.The Request for Proposal
was sent to all twenty-nine (29)construction management and
engineering firms resulting in the following eleven (11)proposals
received on January 8,2010:
•Civiltec
•Butier
•Parsons Brinkerhoff
•RBF
•URS
•MWH Constructors
•Harris &Associates
•Dudek
2
•J.T.Kruer &Company
•Vanir Construction Management
•Richard Brady &Associates
The remaining eighteen (18)firms that chose not to propose are Red
Zone,Valley CM,Southern California Soils &Testing,Christian
Wheeler,MTGL,PBS&J,Lee &Ro,KDG Development and Construction
Consulting,JAS Consultants,G-Force,Aecom,HDR,Pacifica Services,
Kaufman Consultation,R.W.Beck,Professional Service Industries,
Malcom Pirnie,and Ninyo and Moore.
A District review panel evaluated the written proposals and selected
the following firms for a formal interview:
CONSULTING FIRMS
Civiltec
WS
RBF
Harris &Associates
MWH
The Engineer's Estimate is $750,000.
PROPOSED FEE
$327,057
$406,518
$708,560
$772,076
$831,693
The interview selection panel was comprised of four (4)staff members
and one (1)outside member from the City of Coronado (Scott Huth).
The oral interviews were conducted on January 26,2010.After
conducting the interviews,the panel completed the consultant ranking
process and concluded that RBF was the most qualified consultant and
provided the best overall value.A summary of the complete
evaluation is shown in Attachment B.
The range in the proposed fees was due primarily to the approach
presented by each consultant.Their proposed method to accomplish
the work was a direct reflection on their approach to the major scope
items presented in the RFP.The major scope items were
constructability review,inspection,construction management,and
public outreach.Each discipline is clearly identified in the RFP,
however some consultants chose to consolidate these disciplines.
This consolidation approach resulted in lower fees.The interview
panel discussed this approach and determined that it could overload
an individual and create inefficiencies within the project delivery.
These inefficiencies would result in extra costs throughout the
project.The engineer's estimate was determined based on an approach
where one or two individuals are assigned a specific discipline.The
consultants who presented this approach were within the engineer's
estimate.The higher fees were generally due to higher hourly rates,
3
a higher number of hours for upper level positions,and higher
overhead expenses
RBF's proposal and interview demonstrated that they will provide the
proper resources needed to complete each discipline in the scope of
work.After a fee negotiation meeting was held with RBF on January
28,2010,staff was satisfied with their proposed fee and no changes
were made.
This project is very similar to the 30-Inch Recycled Pipeline project
and the 36-Inch Jamacha Road Pipeline project in which RBF was the CM
for both projects.The 30-Inch Recycled Pipeline project was very
successful while the 36-Inch Jamacha Road project is on-going and
progressing well.RBF was also the CM on the District's 640
Reservoir project which was a very successful project as well.
Additional reference checks also verified that RBF is a highly rated
consultant
FISCAL IMPACT:
Funding for the overall project comes from three CIP projects,R2058-
Airway Road,R2077-Alta Road,and R2087-Wueste Road.
The total budget for CIP R2058,as approved in the FY 2010 budget is
$3,000,000 Total expenditures,plus outstanding commitments and
forecast is $1,081,235.See Attachment C for budget detail.
The total budg~t for CIP R2077,as approved in the FY 2010 budget is
$4,100,000.Total expenditures,plus outstanding commitments and
forecast,is $878,844.See Attachment D for budget detail.
The total budget for CIP R2087,as approved in the FY 2010 budget is
$4,500,000.Total expenditures,plus outstanding commitments and
forecast,is $902,657.See Attachment E for budget detail.
Based on a review of the financial budgets,the Project Manager has
determined that each budget is sufficient to support the project.
For the three CIPs,the Finance Department has determined that 100%
of the funding is available from the Expansion Fund.
STRATEGIC GOAL:
This project s~pports the District's Mission statement,"To provide
the best quality of water and wastewater services to the customers of
Otay Water District,in a professional,effective,efficient,and
sensitive manner ..."This project fulfills the District's Strategic
4
Goals No.1 -Community and Governance,and No.5 -Potable Water,by
maintaining proactive and productive relationships with the project
stakeholders and by guaranteeing that the District will provide for
current and future water needs.
LEGAL IMPACT:
None.
J£a-n~--
P:\WORKING\CIP R20B7\Staff Reports\Construction Management\BD 03-03-10,Recycled Supply Link eM Award,(DK-RR)v2.doc
DK/RR:jf
Attachments Attachment A
Attachment B
Attachment C
Attachment D
Attachment E
Exhibit A
Exhibit B
Exhibit C
QA/QC Approved:NAME:
5
DATE:
I I
<::IIR I JEeT:
R2058-001103
R2 07 7-001103
R2 087 -001103
ATTACHMENT A
Award of a Construction Management Services Contract for
the Otay Mesa Recycled Water Supply Link Project to RBF
Consulting
COMMITTEE ACTION:
The Engineering,Operations,and Water Resources Committee reviewed
this item at a meeting held on February 22,2010 and the following
comments were made:
•Staff is requesting that the Board award a professional
services contract to RBF Consulting (RBF)for providing
professional construction management services for the Otay
Mesa Recycled Water Supply Link (Supply Link)project and to
authorize the General Manager to execute an agreement with RBF
in an amount not-to-exceed $708,560.
•Staff indicated that the Supply Link is approximately a 6.5
mile transmission pipeline consisting of steel and PVC pipes
that will provide recycled water to the Otay Mesa area.
•Staff indicated that the Supply Link is currently being
designed in-house by staff and is currently working towards
90%design.Staff stated that the District's goal is to
engage the services of a Construction Manager (CM)during the
90%design phase of the project in order to improve the
design.The services of a CM will also include
constructability review.
•In accordance with Board Policy No.21,staff solicited
professional construction management services from engineering
firms.A pre-proposal meeting was held on December 16,2009.
Thirty-five (35)individuals from various consulting firms
attended the meeting.Twenty-nine (29)firms submitted a
letter of interest and a statement of qualifications,which
the District's Request for Proposal was sent to those firms.
Eleven (11)proposals were received by the District on January
8,2010.
•Staff stated that the interview selection panel was comprised
of four (4)District staff members and one (1)outside member,
Scott Ruth,Director of Public Services for the City of
Coronado.
•The District's panel members reviewed and evaluated the
written proposals and selected five firms to participate in a
formal interview on January 26,2010.
•Staff is recommending that RBF be awarded the professional
construction management services contract as the most
qualified consultant providing the best overall value.
•The District has worked with with RBF on the 30-Inch Recycled
Pipeline project and the 36-Inch Jamacha Road Pipeline
project,and both projects were delivered on time and were
similar inscope to the proposed Supply Link project.
Following the discussion,the Committee supported staffs'
recommendation and presentation to the full Board as a consent item.
7
ATTACHMENT B
SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL RANKINGS BY PANEL MEMBERS
(WRITTEN )ORAL
TOTAL AVERAGE References
Understanding of Soundnessand Consultant's AVERAGE Additional Presentation,Qualityof SCORE SCORE
Qualifications of scope,schedule,Viabilityof ProposedFee commitment SUBTOTAL SUBTOTAL autNly,in,jghl'"Strengthof ptojec communication responsetoStaffresourcesProposedtooeeSCOREissuesmanagerskillsquesUonsProjectPlan
SCORE 20 20 25 35 YIN 100 15 15 10 10 150·Pllss/Fail
Ron Rlpperget 14 14 15 35 78 6 8 7 7 106
ScottHuth 15 16 16 35 62 6 6 3 5 106
Civillec Jake Vaclavek 13 13 12 35 Y 73 79 10 6 7 6 105 108
David Charles 16 15 20 35 66 9 6 7 6 116
Dan;elKsy 12 12 16 35 75 10 10 5 5 105
Ron Rippergol 16 16 16 25 75 75
Scott Huth 15 16 16 25 72 72
Butier Jake Vae/aveh 15 12 12 25 Y 64 71 64 71
David Charles 16 15 19 25 75 75
Dantel Ksy 15 15 16 25 71 71
Ron Rip_16 16 16 14 62 ~;-ScoNHuth 17 16 22 14 71ParsonsJakeVac1avek16131614Y59 65 50 65BrinkerhoffDavidCharles171620146767-Daniel Kay 17 17 20 14 68 66
RonRippetger 19 10 t6 23 70 13 14 0 9 124
Scott Huth 10 18 22 23 62 13 14 9 10 128
RBF Jake VacJavek 17 17 17 23 Y 74 80 15 15 0 0 122 125 Pass
David Charles la 16 22 23 61 12 13 9 6 123
Dania/Kay 19 19 22 23 83 14 14 9 9 120
ROil Ripperger 13 15 15 32 75 12 12 7 7 113
Scott Huth 16 16 15 32 70 11 12 7 6 117
URS Jake Vaclavek 13 12 12 32 Y 69 75 13 12 9 6 111 113
David Charles 16 15 19 32 62 6 10 6 5 111
Daniel Kay 13 12 15 32 72 12 13 6 6 113
Ron Rippergw 19 19 16 19 75 12 13 6 6 116
Scott Huth 17 18 21 19 75 12 12 6 8 113
MWH Jake Vac/avek 17 17 16 19 Y 71 75 14 13 9 6 "5 117
David Charles 17 17 22 10 75 12 12 6 6 115
Dania/Kay \9 19 23 19 60 13 14 9 9 125
Ron Ripperger 16 18 16 21 7t 12 8 6 7 106
Scott Huth 17 16 22 21 76 10 10 6 6 110Harris&Jake Vac/avek 16 Y 66 74 12 9 5 7 101 108Associates151621
David Charles 17 17 20 21 75 10 10 7 6 lOB
Denle/Kay 17 16 21 21 n 12 11 6 6 116
Ron RippMgflr 15 15 15 45 45
Scott Huth 16 16 17 40 40
Dudek"Jake Vaclavek 17 13 12 Y 42 46 42 46
David Char/as 16 16 19 51 51
Dania/Kay 15 13 14 42 42
Ron RlptJMgN 16 14 14 27 71 71
Scoft Huth 12 12 13 27 64 64J.T.Kruer&Jake Vac/avek Y 70 63 70Company1212122763
David Charles t7 17 10 27 80 60
DanielKtty 15 15 15 27 72 72
Ron Ripperger 16 16 16 16 64 64
Vanlr ScottHuth 12 12 14 16 54 54
Construction J8J<e Vaclav6k 13 13 15 16 Y 57 62 57 62
Management David Charles 17 16 19 16 68 68
Danial Kay 17 16 16 16 67 67
Ron Ripperger 15 16 16 17 64 64
ScoNHuth 13 12 13 17 55 55RichardBrady&Jake Vac/avek 12 12 12 17 Y 53 61 53 61AssociatesDavidCharles171720177171
Dania/Kay 16 12 15 17 60 60
'Orallnterviews are forprojects over$200,000.
••Dudek did notsubmit a fee,therefore their scoreis zero (0)
See Next Sheet for Fee Evaluation
P:\WORKING\CIP R2087\Agreemenls·Conlracts-RFPs\ConstructionManagement\Seleetion Process\Summary of Proposal Rankings_Written+Oralwith Names.xls
PM Signature:[)~~
QC~=--
Engineering Manager:~~~o..o~~-T--....,~~:....-/----+-r~--------
ATTACHMENT B (CONT.)
FEE EVALUATION
Firm Civiltec Butier Parsons RBF URS MWH Harris &Dudek*J.T.Kruer &Vanir Construction Richard Brady &
Brinkerhoff Associates *Company Management Associates
Proposed Fee $327,057 $645,961 $1,027,021 $708,560 $406,518 $831,693 $772,076 ?$586,911 $949,849 $905,319
Score 35 25 14 23 32 19 21 0 27 16 17
*Dudek Scored Zero (0)because they did not submit a fee
Proposed Fee Scoring Chart
%Higher Score Amount
Lowest Fee 35 $327,057
0-10%34 $359,762.15
11-20%33 $392,467.80
21-30%32 $425,173.45
31-40%31 $457,879.10
41-50%30 $490,584.75
51-60%29 $523,290.40
61-70%28 $555,996.05
71-80%27 $588,701.70
81-90%26 $621,407.35
91-100%25 $654,113.00
101-110%24 $686,818.65
111-120%23 $719,524.30
121-130%22 $752,229.95
131-140%21 $784,935.60
141-150%20 $817,641.25
151-160%19 $850,346.90
161-170%18 $883,052.55
171-180%17 $915,758.20
151-160%16 $981,169.50
161-170%15 $1,013,875.15
171-180%14 $1,046,580.80
PM Signature:---¥-----::.c.=.:!:.....~~~-------------
Engineering Manager:-...L---"«--*-r---+--+-~H----------
ATTACHMENT C
!siIaJec'rj'p'R'OJECT:
R2058-001103
,R2077-001103IR208 7 - 0 0 1103
Award of a Construction Management Services Contract for
the Otay Mesa Recycled Water Supply Link Project to RBF
Consulting
L,_""",,,,,,,,""""",,,,,",''_'',,,,,'',__,_1.'',,,'',__.'','',,,,,.•_,,,,,,,,,,,__'''',,,,,,,'',,,,,,,,,,__,,,,,,,,,,,,..,,,_,__,,,_,,,,,,,,_,,__,,,,,,,,_,,,,,._,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,",,,,,,,,,,_,,_,,,,,,,,,,__,,,,,,,,_,,,_,.,,,,,,,,,,,,__,,,,,,,,,,,,,_,,,,,__,,,_,,."__,_""",__",,,,_,,,,,,__,,,,,...1
Otay Water District
R2058·RecPL -16-lnch.860 Zone.Airway Road -Otay Mesa/Alta
Date Updated:February 1.2010
Budget Committed
3,000.000
Expenditums
Outstanding
Commitment&
Forecast
Projected Final
Cost Vendor/Comments
we 30088
Reimbursement 123.911 123.911 !123,911 ORIX OTAY LLC
Total we 30088 123,911 123,911 i 123.911
Planning
Addl subprojects I I
10,127 10,127 I--------_.__."._-+
343 343 j
111,645 44,491 !
57,825 57,825i
17 17 11-,---
"57,825----~---------""-17 PETTY CASH CUSTODIAN
"343 GARCIA CALDERON &RUIZ LLP
67,154 111,645 JONES &STOKES ASSOCIATES
"10,127 LEE &RO INC-_.
67,154 179,957112,803 i179,957
Consultant Contracts
Professional Legal Fees
Total Planning
Labor.""··__·-----1--·
Business Meetings
Design
Labor 300,000 155,515 i 144,485 300,000
Consultant Contracts ,,30,45~r--_~~.~~.LI _
10.500 10,500 !
30,450----_...
10,500
HDR ENGINEERING INC
SAN-LO AERIAL SURVEYS
11,842 11,842!11,842 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL
350 350 i
--s-e-rv-lce-ContraciS-----·--'-2,66o~--:i,oefat-350
2,000
MWH CONSTRUCTORS INC-_._..,.,_..•.._-----_._._"...,~.._--------_.._-_...
FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INS CO
14,790 3,100 i 11,690 14,790 SAN-LO AERIAL SURVEYS
138 138 !
·"O-ff-ice-Su-pp-li·e-s------..-'--"32-...32-:
138
32
UNION TRIBUNE PUBLISHING CO
.---~-----
US BANK CORPORATE PAYMENT
Total Design 370,102 213,927 I 156,175 370,102
Construction
Labor ..----,---.---.--Consultant Contracts
736 736 1--193,173'''-''''''-1937173'1 ------:-
736
193,173 J GARY BURKE CORPORATION
Construction Management 203,357 203,357 203,357 RBF CONSULTING
Acceptance/Closeout 10,000 10,000 10,000
Total Construction 407,266 193,909 i 203,357 397,266
Grand Total 1,081,235 644,550 :436,686 1,081,235
QA/QC Approved:
Name:~~_~Date:2.'5>10
Date Updated:February 1,2010
ATTACHMENT D
'-··sUEiJecr/PRoj.E.CT:-r···.·······.·····-----·-.-- --.......... --....................·····1
R2058-001103 i Award of a Construction Management Services Contract for IIR2077-001103 1 the Ota~Mesa Recycled Water Supply Link Proj ect to RBF i
i R2087-001103 ,Consultlng I;__....•.___..~_,"I._....•_H_H._"__.H_..__.. _ _ __.___. .___.___.__.._.__.__.._ _ _..__._.._.__J
Otay Water District
R2077-RecPL-24-lnch,660 Zone,Alta Road -Alta Gate/Airway
Budget
4,100,000
WO 30017
Closed to Fixed Assets
Total WO 30088
Committed
20,651
20,651
Expenditures
20,651 I
20,651
Outstanding
Commitment&
Forecast
ProjectedFinal
Cost
20,651
20,651
Vendor/Comments
Planning
Labor.__._-_._~_..._----
Professional Legal Fees
Consultant Contracts
48,776 48,776 !-··---697-~·--69~----
55,956 23,560 i 32,396
38,003 38,003 I -
48,776 _..._-_..._-_._-----..._----_..
697 GARCIACALDERON &RUIZ LLP
55,956 JONES &STOKES ASSOCIATES
38,003 LEE &RO INC
Total Planning 143,432 111,036 32,396 143,432
Design
Labor
...~ileage_~~imbu~.~~~
OtherAgency Fees
Consultant Contracts
400,000 212,744 !187,256 400,000
21 21 i 21 PETTY CASH CUSTODIAN-1-----6 6+-------.---6 --P~ETWC-A-S-HCO-S-TO-DIAN-------
8,925 8,925 -8,925 HDR ENGINEERING INC
8,000 8,000 8,000 SAN·LO AERIAL SURVEYS
----1-----640 ----640 -----+- -640 C-SWINERTON MANAGEM:-:-E~Nc;:T;:-------.-
201002 20,002 ! -20,002 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL
Service Contracts
Office Supplies
1,800 1,800 I 1,800 SAN·LO AERIAL SURVEYS
138 -----=t3aT--------13S·UNIOr'TTRIBUNEPUBLIS-HINGCO-----
64 64 .64 PETTY CASH CUSTODIAN
Total Design 439,596 252,340 187,256 439,596
Construction
Labor
Consultant Contracts
1,726 1,726
21,808 1---··~2:-;1,806-.------.
700 700 I
1,726.._._-_._-----_....._,.-------_.-._"._------_.-
21,808 JC HEDEN AND ASSOCIATES INC
700 HDR ENGINEERING INC
Service Contracts-.---_.._----.•._._-_....~._---
Construction Management 240,910
21 SAN DIEGO DAILYTRANSCRIPT--i40~9iO RBF CONSULTING-------
Acceptance/Closeout
Total Construction
Grand Total
10,000
275.165
676,644
- i
24,255
406,262
10,000
250,910
470,563
10,000
275,165
67B,644
QA/QC Approved:
Name:~~.';8~Date:2..5-Id
ATTACHMENT E
i SUBJECTIP.RO·JECT:.r-·.··---.-···.-·.---···.----:.-.------.-- -..--:--.----.-_..-.-._-1.
1IR2058-001103 iAward of a Construct~on Management Serv~ces Contract for
I R2077-001103 I the Otay Mesa Recycled Water Supply Link Project to RBF
.~~g.~.!-0 01103 ..J ~?-!!:.~~~!:.~.~s...__.__._.._._........_..._.____.._.__.___.._..__.__......_._.1
Otay Water District Date Updated:February 1,2010
R2087-RecPL·20-lnch 944 Zone,Wueste Road -Olympic/Otay WTP
Budget
Planning
4,500,000
Committed Expenditures
Outstanding
Commitment&
Forecast
ProjectedFinal
Cost Vendor/Comments
Labor
·-ConsUitant Contracts-
43,103 43,103 i
----1-.----60.-97-0----41.i63!
11,100 11,100
47,846 47,846
i 43,103
19:CC,8:-:0C=7-+1----6-0,970-J-ONES-&-S-TOKE-S-A-SSOC-IA-T-E-S·---
11,100 HARRIS &ASSOCIATES INC
47,846 LEE &RO INC
Service Contracts...----------234 2_34~'~..
60 60 i •I
!I
234 UNION TRIBUNE PUBLISHING CO---60-~Ai\iDIEGO -OAILYTRANSCRIPT ..--
Total Planning
Design
Labor
Business Meetings
Other Agency Fees..H •__"_
Consultant Contracts
163,312
400,000
205
4
5,000
143,506
240,006 i
205 i
______._4+1-
19,807 1
159,994 i
5,000 !
163,312
400,000
205 US BANK CORPORATE PAYMENT
Service Contracts
7,870
5,000
11,842.-525
2,750
7,870 !
2,581 i
11,842 i
--525 1 -
2,750
7,870 MORENO AERIAL PHOTO
2,419 I 5,000 WRA &ASSOCIATES INC
,11,842 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL~:-----525 -MWH CONSTRUCTORS INC
2,750 FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INS CO
For Ops Only·Contracted Services
13,750
138
---~---12
1,600
5,118
138
---12:
1,100
5,118 i
13,750 i
500 i
13,750 KEAGY REAL ESTATE
138 UNION TRIBUNE PUBLISHING CO.__.-----_.._-----
12 US BANK CORPORATE PAYMENT
1,600 CABLE PIPE &LEAK DETECTION
5,118 KIRK PAVING INC
Cameras,Survey Equipment 96 ----_.?~-!----96 LEWIS &LEWIS ENTERPRISES---
Total Design 453,910 272,247 181,663 453,910
Construction :i
Labor ----6,078 -----6,07S'r-..!------6,078-----------.. . .__._.~_____-------+__~_--_·_·__._----_-.-0_-_
Consultant Contracts 4,960 -i 4,960 i 4,960 RBF CONSULTING
Service Contracts 103 103 !i 103 SAN DIEGO DAILY TRANSCRIPT
Total Construction 285,434 6,284 279,150 I 285,434
Grand Total 902,657 422,037 480,620 902,657
QAlQC Approved:
Namehz64 ~~~Date:2..~5>10
WUESTE ROAD 24"TRANSMISSION MAIN PROJECT
Wueste Road Pipeline
LENGTH:13,400 FT.
(Olympic Parkwayto Conn.South of
City ofSO's Otay Water Treatment Plant)
APPROX.PROJECT COST:$4,500,000
24"OIA.STEEL PIPE
DESIGN:FY 2010
CONSTRUCT:FY 2010·FY 2011
800 400 0 800 1,600 2,400~~~-iiiiiil--~_iiiiiiiiiiiiiiil~~~~iiiiiiiiiiii~!Feet
P:\Wotking\CIP2087\Graphics\Exhibits-Flg.ues\WuesteExhibit Scale:1"=800'
EXHIBIT A
CIP •R2058 AND R2077
OTAY MESA RECYCLED
WATER SUPPLY I.,.INK
CIP -R2058 AND R20n Overall PipelineLayout
(Revised July2009)EXHIBIT'B'
EXHIBITB
1,700 850 1,700 3,400~i~~liiiiiiiiiiil~~~~~iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil!Feet
927/860 PRY
L:OWER OJiAY
RESERVCi>11i
EXHIBIT C
250 500