N:\3825 - Waterman Crosswalk\Report\Crosswalk Memo.3825.docx
CROSSWALK WARRANTS
The City of El Centro and the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices 2014 (CA MUTCD) do not have published warrants for pedestrian crosswalks.
Therefore, crosswalk warrants from other agencies were reviewed. For the purposes of this memo, the pedestrian crosswalk warrants published by the City of San Diego were utilized.
CITY OF SAN DIEGO COUNCIL POLICY 200-07
The City of San Diego Council Policy 200-07 provides standards and requirements for when to install crosswalks at uncontrolled locations in the City of San Diego and for when they must be accompanied by other traffic control devices. The City of San Diego 2015 Pedestrian Crosswalk Guidelines were developed to expand Council Policy 200-07 to improve pedestrian safety and enhance street crossings. Since its passage in 1990, Council Policy 200-07 was updated in 2015 to incorporate those changes. This Council Policy 200-07 was therefore deemed appropriate to use in the Waterman Avenue Crosswalk Analysis.
The Council Policy consists of the following:
Basic Warrants
Point Warrants
Crossing treatments to supplement marked crosswalks
Requirements for the removal of marked crosswalks
Attachment C includes the excerpts from the City of Dan Diego Council Policy 200-07. If a location meets each of the Basic Warrants and scores a minimum of 16 points in the Point Warrants, it qualifies for a marked crosswalk. Point Warrants are indicated in Table 1 in Attachment C. In addition, crossing treatments and/or warning devices must accompany the crosswalk. Table 2 in Attachment C identifies categories for crossing treatments that are needed based on thresholds of vehicle volumes and crossing distances. Table 3 in Attachment C lists the crossing treatments for each category.
BASIC WARRANTS
The proposed mid-block crossing on Waterman Avenue was evaluated for Basic Warrants as shown in Table A.
11.b
Packet Pg. 256 Attachment: Waterman Ave Crosswalk Warrant Study Memo (6056 : Establishing Mid-Block Crosswalk on Waterman for Jacaranda Apts Off- Mr. Abraham Campos
February 15, 2024
N:\3825 - Waterman Crosswalk\Report\Crosswalk Memo.3825.docx
TABLE A
BASIC WARRANTS
Basic Warrant Warrant Description Project Analysis Warrant Met Pedestrian
Volume Warrant
The pedestrian volumes must be
equal to or greater than ten (10)
pedestrians per hour during the
peak pedestrian hour. Children
under 13, elderly over 64 years
and/or disabled persons count as
1.5 pedestrians. Alternatively,
this warrant can be satisfied
using Latent Pedestrian Demand
if conditions (a), (b), or (c)
under Table 1, T1.1b are met.
The proposed crosswalk is located
in a commercial, residential, and
mixed lane use area. Additionally,
the proposed crosswalk will also be
directly adjacent to mixed land uses
(i.e. housing near commercial) and
is within ¼ mile of the existing First
Responders public park.
Yes
Approach Speed
Warrant
The 85th percentile approach
speed must be equal to or lower
than 40 MPH. This warrant
does not apply when a
pedestrian hybrid beacon or a
pedestrian traffic signal will be
installed
A speed survey was conducted on
the day of the count collection. The
speed survey at this location showed
an 85th percentile approach speed of
37 mph in the NB direction and 39
mph in the SB direction, which are
lower than 40 mph. Attachment B
contains the speed survey.
Yes
Nearest
Controlled
Crossing
The proposed location must be
farther than 250 feet from the
nearest controlled pedestrian
crossing
The nearest controlled crossing
south of the proposed crosswalk is
Lincoln Avenue, which is
approximately 450 feet away. The
nearest controlled crossing north of
the proposed crosswalk is Bradshaw
Avenue, which is approximately
800 feet away.
Yes
Visibility
Warrant
The motorist must have an
unrestricted view of all
pedestrians at the proposed
location. For 40mph, the
required stopping sight distance
is 300 feet.
The stopping sight distance at this
location was calculated based on the
conducted speed survey. Vehicles
traveling in the northbound
direction are traveling at 37 mph
and vehicles traveling in the
southbound direction are traveling
at 39 mph. To be conservative, 40
mph was the speed used to
determine the required stopping
sight distance which is 305 feet in
both directions. 305 feet was
determined to be available in both
directions. Attachment D shows the
visibility exhibit.
Yes
Illumination
Warrant
The proposed location must
have existing lighting.
The proposed location has existing
lighting. Yes
11.b
Packet Pg. 257 Attachment: Waterman Ave Crosswalk Warrant Study Memo (6056 : Establishing Mid-Block Crosswalk on Waterman for Jacaranda Apts Off- Mr. Abraham Campos
February 15, 2024
N:\3825 - Waterman Crosswalk\Report\Crosswalk Memo.3825.docx
TABLE A
BASIC WARRANTS
Basic Warrant Warrant Description Project Analysis Warrant Met Accessibility
Warrant
The proposed location must
have existing accessibility to
disabled pedestrians or have
accessibility improvements
programmed.
The proposed mid-block crossing
includes accessibility improvements
for disabled pedestrians.
Yes
11.b
Packet Pg. 258 Attachment: Waterman Ave Crosswalk Warrant Study Memo (6056 : Establishing Mid-Block Crosswalk on Waterman for Jacaranda Apts Off- Mr. Abraham Campos
February 15, 2024
N:\3825 - Waterman Crosswalk\Report\Crosswalk Memo.3825.docx
POINTS WARRANTS
The proposed mid-block crossing on Waterman Avenue was also evaluated for Point Warrants as shown in Table B.
11.b
Packet Pg. 259 Attachment: Waterman Ave Crosswalk Warrant Study Memo (6056 : Establishing Mid-Block Crosswalk on Waterman for Jacaranda Apts Off- Mr. Abraham Campos
February 15, 2024
N:\3825 - Waterman Crosswalk\Report\Crosswalk Memo.3825.docx
TABLE B
POINTS WARRANTS
Number of
Pedestrians (Peak Hour) Points
Total
Available
Points
Project
Analysis Points
T1.1a Pedestrian Volume Warrant
10 – 25 4
10 N/A N/A a 26 – 50 8
51+ 10
T1.1b Latent Pedestrian Demand Warrant (in lieu of Pedestrian Volume Warrant) (a) The proposed crosswalk is in a
commercial, mixed land use, or highdensity residential area. 3 10
The proposed crosswalk is located in a
commercial, residential, and mixed lane use area.
Attachment E includes the City of El Centro
Zoning Map.
7 (b) A pedestrian or shared use path
is interrupted by a restricted
crossing.
3 N/A
(c) A pedestrian attractor/generator is
directly adjacent to the proposed
crosswalk as defined in the
explanatory notes below.
4 The proposed crosswalk is within ¼ mile of an
existing public park. The proposed crosswalk will
also be directly adjacent to mixed land uses (i.e.
housing near commercial).
T1.2 General Condition Warrant
(a) The nearest controlled crossing is
greater than 300 feet from the
proposed crosswalk.
3 18
The nearest controlled crossing north of the
proposed crosswalk is Bradshaw Avenue, which
is approximately 800 feet away.
3 (b) The proposed crosswalk will
position pedestrians to be better seen
by motorists.
3 As part of the Waterman Avenue road diet
improvements, on-street parking and buffered
bike lanes will be provided, which may inhibit
pedestrians from being seen by motorists. The
proposed crosswalk with curb extensions will
allow pedestrians to be better seen by these
vehicles.
3 (c) The proposed crosswalk will
establish a mid-block crossing
between adjacent signalized
intersections or it will connect an
existing pedestrian path.
3 The proposed crosswalk will connect the future
pedestrian path proposed as part of the Jacaranda
Gardens Apartments Project.
1 (d) The proposed crosswalk is
located within ¼ mile of pedestrian
attractors/generators as defined in the
explanatory notes below.
3 The proposed crosswalk is within ¼ mile of an
existing public park (First Responders Park). The
proposed crosswalk will also be within ¼ mile of
proposed mixed land uses (i.e. housing near
commercial).
3 11.b
Packet Pg. 260 Attachment: Waterman Ave Crosswalk Warrant Study Memo (6056 : Establishing Mid-Block Crosswalk on Waterman for Jacaranda Apts Off- Mr. Abraham Campos
February 15, 2024
N:\3825 - Waterman Crosswalk\Report\Crosswalk Memo.3825.docx
TABLE B
POINTS WARRANTS
Number of
Pedestrians (Peak Hour) Points
Total
Available
Points
Project
Analysis Points
(e) An existing bus stop is located
within 100 feet of the proposed
crosswalk.
3 N/A N/A
(f) Other factors 3 N/A N/A
T1.3 Gap Time Warrant
Average Number of Vehicular
Gaps per Five-Minute Period Total Available Points Project Analysis Points 0 – 0.99 0
N/A N/A
1 – 1.99 1
2 – 2.99 8
3 – 3.99 10
4 – 4.99 8
5 – 5.99 1
6 or over 0
Total Points 17
Footnotes:
a. The Jacaranda Gardens Apartments Project is anticipated to generate a demand of at least 10-25 pedestrians during the peak hour.
However, for the purposes of this analysis, the points obtained from the Latent Pedestrian Demand Warrant were applied in lieu of the Pedestrian Demand Warrant.
Based on the above analysis, the proposed location meets the Basic and Points Warrants and therefore qualifies for a marked crosswalk.
PROPOSED CROSSING TREATMENT
Table 2 in Attachment C identifies categories for crossing treatments thresholds based on the pedestrian crossing distance and average daily traffic (ADT). Per the current midblock design, the pedestrian crossing distance is approximately 56 ft and the ADT on Waterman Avenue was counted as 2,237 vehicles, which falls into Category C.
Attachment B includes the ADT counts in the project location. Per the thresholds presented in Table 3 in Attachment C, at least one of the following treatments is required as the nearby volume, speed and crossing distance would place this location into Category C:
11.b
Packet Pg. 261 Attachment: Waterman Ave Crosswalk Warrant Study Memo (6056 : Establishing Mid-Block Crosswalk on Waterman for Jacaranda Apts Off- Mr. Abraham Campos
February 15, 2024
N:\3825 - Waterman Crosswalk\Report\Crosswalk Memo.3825.docx Radar Speed Feedback Signs.
Striping changes such as narrower lanes, painted medians, road diets, or other speed reducing treatments.
Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFBs)
Staggered crosswalks and pedestrian refuge island
Horizontal deflection traffic calming treatments if the City of San Diego’s Traffic Calming Guidelines are met.
As a part of the implementation and final design, the project proposes to implement RRFBs and striping changes (i.e. narrower lanes and road diets) as shown in Attachment A.
Figure 1: Vicinity Map
Figure 2: Crosswalk Location Map
Attachment A: Crosswalk Conceptual Plan
Attachment B: Existing Traffic Count Sheets
Attachment C: Council Policy 200-07
Attachment D: Visibility Exhibit
Attachment E: City of El Centro Zoning Map
11.b
Packet Pg. 262 Attachment: Waterman Ave Crosswalk Warrant Study Memo (6056 : Establishing Mid-Block Crosswalk on Waterman for Jacaranda Apts Off- 0 2.5
[5 Miles
Vicinity Map
Waterman Crosswalk
Figure 1 N:\3825\GIS
Date: 1/22/24
·|}111
§¨¦8§¨¦8
·|}86
·|}78
·|}115
·|}86
·|}111·|}115
·|}98
^_
PROJECT
SITE
§¨¦10
Mexico
USA
J
Waterman Ave
Bradshaw Ave
W. Lincoln Ave
11.b
Packet Pg. 263 Attachment: Waterman Ave Crosswalk Warrant Study Memo (6056 : Establishing Mid-Block Crosswalk on Waterman for Jacaranda Apts Off- Figure 2
Crosswalk Location Map WATERMAN CROSSWALK
N:\3825\Figures
N
NTS
Bradshaw Avenue
N Waterman Avenue
W Lincoln Avenue
11.b
Packet Pg. 264 Attachment: Waterman Ave Crosswalk Warrant Study Memo (6056 : Establishing Mid-Block Crosswalk on Waterman for Jacaranda Apts Off-
ATTACHMENT A
CROSSWALK CONCEPTUAL PLAN
11.b
Packet Pg. 265 Attachment: Waterman Ave Crosswalk Warrant Study Memo (6056 : Establishing Mid-Block Crosswalk on Waterman for Jacaranda Apts Off-
11.b
Packet Pg. 266 Attachment: Waterman Ave Crosswalk Warrant Study Memo (6056 : Establishing Mid-Block Crosswalk on Waterman for Jacaranda Apts Off-Site Improvements)
ATTACHMENT B
EXISTING TRAFFIC COUNT SHEETS
11.b
Packet Pg. 267 Attachment: Waterman Ave Crosswalk Warrant Study Memo (6056 : Establishing Mid-Block Crosswalk on Waterman for Jacaranda Apts Off-
City of El Centro
Waterman Avenue
B/ Bradshaw Avenue - Lincoln Avenue
24 Hour Directional Speed Survey
ECO005
Site Code: 057-231044
Counts Unlimited, Inc.
PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
Phone: (951) 268-6268
email: [email protected]
Northbound
Start 1 16 21 26 31 36 41 46 51 56 61 66 71 76
Time 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 999 Total
11/16/23 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
01:00 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
02:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
03:00 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
04:00 0 0 1 2 5 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10
05:00 0 1 2 3 7 8 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25
06:00 0 2 2 7 11 10 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 34
07:00 1 0 2 17 17 14 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 57
08:00 0 3 9 25 17 9 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 65
09:00 0 3 23 48 10 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 90
10:00 0 7 16 23 7 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 57
11:00 3 6 17 17 27 13 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 89
12 PM 0 1 9 20 39 20 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 90
13:00 0 2 12 19 26 23 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 86
14:00 0 2 13 20 36 16 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 93
15:00 0 1 5 23 30 15 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 77
16:00 0 2 2 24 37 25 7 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 99
17:00 0 2 8 20 32 13 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 80
18:00 0 2 4 18 33 15 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 75
19:00 0 2 1 13 19 8 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 47
20:00 0 1 5 9 13 5 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 37
21:00 0 0 0 5 7 4 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19
22:00 0 0 1 3 3 6 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 14
23:00 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
Total 4 37 133 321 377 215 57 8 1 1 0 0 0 0 1154
Daily 15th Percentile : 24 MPH
50th Percentile : 31 MPH
85th Percentile : 37 MPH
95th Percentile : 40 MPH
Statistics Mean Speed(Average) : 31 MPH
10 MPH Pace Speed : 26-35 MPH
Number in Pace : 698
Percent in Pace : 60.5%
Number of Vehicles > 55 MPH : 1
Percent of Vehicles > 55 MPH : 0.1%
11.b
Packet Pg. 268 Attachment: Waterman Ave Crosswalk Warrant Study Memo (6056 : Establishing Mid-Block Crosswalk
City of El Centro
Waterman Avenue
B/ Bradshaw Avenue - Lincoln Avenue
24 Hour Directional Speed Survey
ECO005
Site Code: 057-231044
Counts Unlimited, Inc.
PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
Phone: (951) 268-6268
email: [email protected]
Southbound
Start 1 16 21 26 31 36 41 46 51 56 61 66 71 76
Time 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 999 Total
11/16/23 0 1 0 2 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 6
01:00 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
02:00 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
03:00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
04:00 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
05:00 1 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
06:00 0 1 1 3 5 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13
07:00 1 2 2 2 7 8 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 28
08:00 1 1 1 9 16 11 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 46
09:00 1 2 3 6 18 14 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 50
10:00 2 1 9 17 26 16 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 76
11:00 1 0 6 15 26 22 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 76
12 PM 0 2 4 15 35 23 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 88
13:00 1 0 8 17 27 30 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 94
14:00 0 3 6 21 31 26 6 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 96
15:00 1 2 2 12 28 28 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 79
16:00 1 0 7 13 48 27 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 104
17:00 0 1 2 10 39 29 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 92
18:00 1 1 1 7 21 24 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 63
19:00 1 1 7 12 17 10 6 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 56
20:00 0 0 3 6 17 13 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 43
21:00 0 0 2 6 16 10 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 37
22:00 0 1 4 4 5 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18
23:00 0 0 0 4 3 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 9
Total 12 19 70 183 388 298 94 17 1 0 1 0 0 0 1083
Daily 15th Percentile : 26 MPH
50th Percentile : 33 MPH
85th Percentile : 39 MPH
95th Percentile : 43 MPH
Statistics Mean Speed(Average) : 33 MPH
10 MPH Pace Speed : 31-40 MPH
Number in Pace : 686
Percent in Pace : 63.3%
Number of Vehicles > 55 MPH : 1
Percent of Vehicles > 55 MPH : 0.1%
11.b
Packet Pg. 269 Attachment: Waterman Ave Crosswalk Warrant Study Memo (6056 : Establishing Mid-Block Crosswalk
City of El Centro
Waterman Avenue
B/ Bradshaw Avenue - Lincoln Avenue
24 Hour Directional Speed Survey
ECO005
Site Code: 057-231044
Counts Unlimited, Inc.
PO Box 1178
Corona, CA 92878
Phone: (951) 268-6268
email: [email protected]
Northbound, Southbound
Start 1 16 21 26 31 36 41 46 51 56 61 66 71 76
Time 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 999 Total
11/16/23 0 1 0 3 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 7
01:00 0 0 0 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4
02:00 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
03:00 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
04:00 0 0 1 2 6 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11
05:00 1 1 4 4 7 8 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 29
06:00 0 3 3 10 16 13 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 47
07:00 2 2 4 19 24 22 10 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 85
08:00 1 4 10 34 33 20 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 111
09:00 1 5 26 54 28 18 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 140
10:00 2 8 25 40 33 20 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 133
11:00 4 6 23 32 53 35 8 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 165
12 PM 0 3 13 35 74 43 9 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 178
13:00 1 2 20 36 53 53 14 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 180
14:00 0 5 19 41 67 42 11 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 189
15:00 1 3 7 35 58 43 7 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 156
16:00 1 2 9 37 85 52 11 5 0 1 0 0 0 0 203
17:00 0 3 10 30 71 42 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 172
18:00 1 3 5 25 54 39 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 138
19:00 1 3 8 25 36 18 9 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 103
20:00 0 1 8 15 30 18 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 80
21:00 0 0 2 11 23 14 5 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 56
22:00 0 1 5 7 8 7 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 32
23:00 0 0 0 7 4 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 13
Total 16 56 203 504 765 513 151 25 2 1 1 0 0 0 2237
Daily 15th Percentile : 25 MPH
50th Percentile : 32 MPH
85th Percentile : 38 MPH
95th Percentile : 42 MPH
Statistics Mean Speed(Average) : 32 MPH
10 MPH Pace Speed : 31-40 MPH
Number in Pace : 1278
Percent in Pace : 57.1%
Number of Vehicles > 55 MPH : 2
Percent of Vehicles > 55 MPH : 0.1%
11.b
Packet Pg. 270 Attachment: Waterman Ave Crosswalk Warrant Study Memo (6056 : Establishing Mid-Block Crosswalk
ATTACHMENT C
COUNCIL POLICY 200-07
11.b
Packet Pg. 271 Attachment: Waterman Ave Crosswalk Warrant Study Memo (6056 : Establishing Mid-Block Crosswalk on Waterman for Jacaranda Apts Off-
CURRENT
CITY OF SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA
COUNCIL POLICY
SUBJECT: MARKED CROSSWALK CRITERIA AT UNCONTROLLED
LOCATIONS
POLICY NO.: 200-07
EFFECTIVE DATE: June 11, 2015
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
Marked crosswalks are an important tool that can enhance pedestrian safety with proper traffic
controls on public streets. There have been many changes in technology and practice related to
pedestrian safety since Council Policy 200-07 was adopted in 1990. This council policy
incorporates those changes and supersedes that policy based on the 2015 City of San Diego
Pedestrian Crosswalk Guidelines.
1.2 Purpose
The main function of marked crosswalks is to channelize pedestrians to desirable paths of travel
across streets at intersections or mid-block locations. Crosswalks alone at uncontrolled
locations do not guarantee the safety protection of pedestrians, therefore careful consideration
of their location and warning devices is essential. This Council Policy provides standards for
when to install crosswalks at uncontrolled locations, and for when they must be accompanied by
other traffic control devices.
Council Policy 200-07 consists of:
§ Basic Warrants
§ Point Warrants
§ Crossing treatments to supplement marked crosswalks
§ Requirements for the removal of marked crosswalks
CP-200-07
11.b
Packet Pg. 272 Attachment: Waterman Ave Crosswalk Warrant Study Memo (6056 : Establishing Mid-Block Crosswalk on Waterman for Jacaranda Apts Off-
CURRENT
CITY OF SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA
COUNCIL POLICY
1.3 Summary
Council Policy 200-07 provides the requirements uncontrolled pedestrian crossings must meet
in order to be considered for a marked crosswalk, how a crosswalk must be marked, and the
process of removal, if necessary.
If a location meets each of the Basic Warrants and scores a minimum of 16 points in the Point
Warrants, it qualifies for a marked crosswalk. Point Warrants are indicated in Table 1. In
addition, crossing treatments and/or warning devices must accompany the crosswalk. Table 2
identifies categories for crossing treatments that are needed based on thresholds of vehicle
volumes and crossing distances. Table 3 lists the crossing treatments for each category.
For unusual conditions not identified in this policy, engineering judgment should be used to
apply these guidelines or adjust them to fit individual field site conditions. These guidelines are
not intended to be a substitute for engineering knowledge, experience or judgment.
In addition, any removal of a marked crosswalk must follow the procedure outlined in the
California Vehicle Code.
2.0 POLICY
2.1 Basic Warrants
Each of the following warrants must be satisfied in order for an uncontrolled location to be
considered for a marked crosswalk.
2.1.1. Pedestrian Volume Warrant
The pedestrian volumes must be equal to or greater than ten (10) pedestrians per hour
during the peak pedestrian hour. Children under 13, elderly over 64 years and/or
disabled persons count as 1.5 pedestrians. Alternatively, this warrant can be satisfied
using Latent Pedestrian Demand if conditions (a), (b), or (c) under Table 1, T1.1b are
met.
2.1.2. Approach Speed Warrant
The 85th percentile approach speed must be equal to or lower than 40 MPH. This
warrant does not apply when a pedestrian hybrid beacon or a pedestrian traffic signal
will be installed.
CP-200-07
11.b
Packet Pg. 273 Attachment: Waterman Ave Crosswalk Warrant Study Memo (6056 : Establishing Mid-Block Crosswalk on Waterman for Jacaranda Apts Off-
CURRENT
CITY OF SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA
COUNCIL POLICY
2.1.3. Nearest Controlled Crossing
The proposed location must be farther than 250 feet from the nearest controlled
pedestrian crossing (measured from the nearest edge of the proposed marked crosswalk
to the closest edge of the controlled crossing).
2.1.4. Visibility Warrant
The motorist must have an unrestricted view of all pedestrians at the proposed location
for a distance required by the following table (stopping sight distance is to be
interpolated when 85th percentile speed is between 5 mph increments):
85th Percentile Speed
(MPH)
Stopping Sight Distance
(feet)
25 150
30 200
35 250
40 300
2.1.5. Illumination Warrant
The proposed location must have existing lighting.
2.1.6. Accessibility Warrant
The proposed location must have existing accessibility to disabled pedestrians or have
accessibility improvements programmed.
2.2 Point Warrants
Point warrants are the number of points a location is required to meet (in with the Basic
Warrants above) to qualify for a marked crosswalk. Sixteen points are required and can be
achieved through pedestrian volumes or latent pedestrian demand, general conditions, and/or
the average gaps in traffic. A summary of each Point Warrant and the allocation of points are
presented in Table 1. A discussion of each Point Warrant variable follows the table.
CP-200-07
11.b
Packet Pg. 274 Attachment: Waterman Ave Crosswalk Warrant Study Memo (6056 : Establishing Mid-Block Crosswalk on Waterman for Jacaranda Apts Off-
CURRENT
CITY OF SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA
COUNCIL POLICY
Table 1: Point Warrants
T1.1a Pedestrian Volume Warrant
Number of Pedestrians (Peak Hour) Points Total Available Points
10 – 25 4
26 – 50 8
51+ 10
10 T1.1b Latent Pedestrian Demand Warrant (in lieu of Pedestrian Volume Warrant) Condition Points Total Available
Points
(a) The proposed crosswalk is in a commercial, mixed land use, or high
density residential area.
3 (b) A pedestrian or shared use path is interrupted by a restricted crossing. 3 (c) A pedestrian attractor/generator is directly adjacent to the proposed
crosswalk as defined in the explanatory notes below.
4 10
T1.2 General Condition Warrant
Condition Points Total Available
Points
(a) The nearest controlled crossing is greater than 300 feet from the
proposed crosswalk.
3 (b) The proposed crosswalk will position pedestrians to be better seen by
motorists. 3
(c) The proposed crosswalk will establish a mid-block crossing between
adjacent signalized intersections or it will connect an existing pedestrian path.
3 (d) The proposed crosswalk is located within ¼ mile of pedestrian
attractors/generators as defined in the explanatory notes below. 3 (e) An existing bus stop is located within 100 feet of the proposed
crosswalk. 3
(f) Other factors. 3
18 CP-200-07
11.b
Packet Pg. 275 Attachment: Waterman Ave Crosswalk Warrant Study Memo (6056 : Establishing Mid-Block Crosswalk on Waterman for Jacaranda Apts Off-
CURRENT
CITY OF SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA
COUNCIL POLICY
Table 1: Point Warrants (continued)
T1.3 Gap Time Warrant
Average Number of Vehicular Gaps per Five-Minute Period Points Total Available Points
0 – 0.99 0
1 – 1.99 1
2 – 2.99 8
3 – 3.99 10
4 – 4.99 8
5 – 5.99 1
6 or over 0
10 Total Available Points 38
Table 1, Explanatory Notes:
T1.1a Pedestrian Volume Warrant
The Pedestrian Volume Warrant assigns point values based on pedestrian crossing volumes at the proposed
location. Children under 13, elderly over 64 years and/or disabled persons count as 1.5 pedestrians.
T1.1b Latent Pedestrian Demand Warrant (in lieu of Pedestrian Volume Warrant)
The Latent Pedestrian Demand Warrant may be used in lieu of the Pedestrian Volume Warrant.
T1.2 General Condition Warrant
The General Condition Warrant presents six (6) unique categories. A location can score either zero (0) or three
(3) points for each unique category, making a total of 18 points possible. The general conditions include the
following:
(a) The nearest controlled crossing is greater than 300 feet from the proposed crosswalk.
The distance should be measured from the proposed location of the crosswalk to the nearest controlled
intersection, i.e. stop sign, traffic signal, etc.
(b) The proposed crosswalk will position pedestrians to be better seen by motorists.
This condition should be considered at locations where one leg of the intersection provides better sight
distance than the other legs or midblock location with better sight distance.
(c) The proposed crosswalk will establish a mid-block crossing between adjacent signalized intersections.
This warrant refers to a condition where there is a major pedestrian attractor/generator nearby, and an
adequate crossing can be provided that could help channelize a heavy flow of mid-block pedestrians.
CP-200-07
11.b
Packet Pg. 276 Attachment: Waterman Ave Crosswalk Warrant Study Memo (6056 : Establishing Mid-Block Crosswalk on Waterman for Jacaranda Apts Off-
CURRENT
CITY OF SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA
COUNCIL POLICY
Table 1: Point Warrants (continued)
(d) The proposed crosswalk is located within ¼ mile of a pedestrian attractor/generator as defined below:
- International Border Crossing
- Major Multi-Modal Transit Centers
- Transit Stops
- Elementary/Middle/High Schools
- Universities and Colleges
- Neighborhood Civic Facilities (Libraries, Post Office & Religious Facilities)
- Neighborhood and Community Retail
- Pedestrian Intensive Beaches
- Parks & Recreation (excludes non-useable open space)
- Mixed Land Uses (housing near employment and/or commercial)
(e) A bus stop is located within 100 feet of the proposed location.
This warrant applies if there is a bus stop within 100 feet of the proposed crosswalk.
(f) Other factors.
Other factors allow for extenuating circumstances not covered in the proposed warrants. These are to be
evaluated using engineering judgment.
T1.3 Gap Time Warrant
Gap time is the time needed for a pedestrian to cross the travelled lanes of a roadway at an average walking speed
without the need for a driver to yield. The number of usable gaps (or gaps that exceed the minimum time needed
to cross) are counted during the peak vehicular hour and averaged per five-minute period.
2.3 Crossing Treatments
2.3.1 Crossing Treatment Thresholds
If the proposed crossing location meets the criteria set by both the Basic and Point
warrants, the next step is to evaluate the most appropriate crossing treatment(s) to be
installed with the marked crosswalk. Marked crosswalks at streets that have less than
1,500 ADT can be installed with signs and markings alone. Table 2 provides thresholds
for determining whether additional treatments are required prior to installing a marked
crosswalk. The thresholds are based on vehicle volumes, vehicle speeds, and pedestrian
crossing distance at the proposed location. Location types are divided into categories A,
B, C, and D, and are used to determine the appropriate treatment for the proposed marked
crosswalk location.
CP-200-07
11.b
Packet Pg. 277 Attachment: Waterman Ave Crosswalk Warrant Study Memo (6056 : Establishing Mid-Block Crosswalk on Waterman for Jacaranda Apts Off-
CURRENT
CITY OF SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA
COUNCIL POLICY
2.3.2 Crossing Treatments
Table 3 presents treatment requirements for the categories shown in Table 2. As new
devices or treatments are proven, they may be considered in lieu of these treatments, with
the City Engineer’s approval.
Table 3: Crossing Treatments for Uncontrolled Marked Crosswalks if Warrants are Met Category Crossing Treatments
A
The following is required:
· (W11-2) Pedestrian Warning Signage with the corresponding (W16-7P) arrow plaque as
shown in CA MUTCD Section 2C.50
B
At least one of the following is required:
· (R1-6) State Law – Yield to Pedestrian sign if median is present · Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFBs)
· Raised crosswalk or other traffic calming treatments if the City of San Diego’s Traffic
Calming Guidelines are met
C
At least two of the following are required:
· Radar Speed Feedback Signs
· Striping changes such as narrower lanes, painted medians, road diets, or other speed reducing treatments.
· RRFBs
· Staggered crosswalks and pedestrian refuge island
· Horizontal deflection traffic calming treatments 1
if the City of San Diego’s Traffic Calming
Guidelines are met
D
A Traffic Signal is required if the CA MUTCD warrants are met and it is recommended by a traffic
engineering study. Otherwise at least one of the following is required:
· Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon if the CA MUTCD warrants are met · Horizontal deflection traffic calming treatment 1
with RRFBs if the City of San Diego’s Traffic
Calming Guidelines are met
1. Horizontal deflection treatments include, but are not limited to: roundabouts, pedestrian refuge islands, and pedestrian pop-outs.
CP-200-07
Table 2: Crossing Treatment Thresholds for Uncontrolled Marked Crosswalks if Warrants are Met
Crossing
Distance 2
Roadway ADT
(vehicles per day)
< 1,500 1,501 – 5,000 5,001 – 12,000 12,001 – 15,000 > 15,000 < 40’ A B B C C D
1 40’ to 52’ A B C C D
1 D
> 52’ A B C
1 C D 1 D D
1. For streets with more than one lane at an approach or posted speed limit 30 mph or greater.
2. Crossing distance can be measured to a pedestrian refuge island if one is present.
11.b
Packet Pg. 278 Attachment: Waterman Ave Crosswalk Warrant Study Memo (6056 : Establishing Mid-Block Crosswalk on Waterman for Jacaranda Apts Off-
CURRENT
CITY OF SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA
COUNCIL POLICY
2.4 Stop Controlled Crosswalks
At stop controlled intersection approaches, stop signs are the major factor controlling both the
motorist’s and pedestrian’s behavior, rather than crosswalk markings. The warrants reflected in
this policy do not apply at stop controlled intersection approaches. At such approaches stop
bars are intended to define pedestrian paths. A marked crosswalk may be installed at a stop
controlled intersection on a case by case basis if a clear benefit to pedestrians is demonstrated.
Examples of such demonstrated benefits are:
§ An all-way stop controlled intersection where at least one street is a one-way street with
more than one lane, and marking the far side crossing will highlight pedestrian crossing
(all approaches that pedestrians are allowed to cross should be marked in this case).
§ An all-way stop controlled intersection where pedestrians are restricted on one or more
legs and marking the alternate crossing routes will highlight where pedestrians are
allowed to cross.
2.5 Removal of Crosswalks
It shall be the Policy of the City of San Diego to follow the California Vehicle Code
requirements when a crosswalk is considered for removal.
The California Vehicle Code, Section 21950.5, states the following:
(a) An existing marked crosswalk may not be removed unless notice and opportunity to be
heard is provided to the public not less than 30 days prior to the scheduled date of removal.
In addition to any other public notice requirements, the notice of proposed removal shall be
posted at the crosswalk identified for removal.
(b) The notice required by subdivision (a) shall include, but is not limited to, notification to the
public of both of the following:
(1) That the public may provide input relating to the scheduled removal.
(2) The form and method of providing the input authorized by paragraph (1).
CP-200-07
11.b
Packet Pg. 279 Attachment: Waterman Ave Crosswalk Warrant Study Memo (6056 : Establishing Mid-Block Crosswalk on Waterman for Jacaranda Apts Off-
CURRENT
CITY OF SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA
COUNCIL POLICY
3.0 HISTORY:
“Installation of Parking Facility Guide Signs”
Adopted by Resolution R-171103 - 05/31/1962
Repealed by Resolution R-212199 - 12/12/1974
“Comprehensive Pedestrian Crossing Policy”
Adopted by Resolution R-275560 - 04/23/1990
“Marked Crosswalk Criteria at Uncontrolled Locations”
Amended by Resolution R-309772 - 06/11/2015
CP-200-07
11.b
Packet Pg. 280 Attachment: Waterman Ave Crosswalk Warrant Study Memo (6056 : Establishing Mid-Block Crosswalk on Waterman for Jacaranda Apts Off-
ATTACHMENT D
VISIBILITY EXHIBIT
11.b
Packet Pg. 281 Attachment: Waterman Ave Crosswalk Warrant Study Memo (6056 : Establishing Mid-Block Crosswalk on Waterman for Jacaranda Apts Off- W Lincoln Avenue
3 0 5 ’
11.b
Packet Pg. 282
Attachment: Waterman Ave Crosswalk Warrant Study Memo (6056 : Establishing Mid-Block Crosswalk on
ATTACHMENT E
CITY OF EL CENTRO ZONING MAP
11.b
Packet Pg. 283 Attachment: Waterman Ave Crosswalk Warrant Study Memo (6056 : Establishing Mid-Block Crosswalk on Waterman for Jacaranda Apts Off- 86 8 8
86 CN
R3
R1
R1
R1
R2
R1
CG
R3
CH
MU1 MU1
CD
R2
LU
R1
CG
R1
R3
CN
R1
R1
R3
R1
CH
R3
R1
CG
R1
CN
R3
R1
R3
CG
R1
R1
CG
MG
CT
MG
CT
R3
CG
CN
R3
ML
R1
R2
LU
R2
CN
R1
R1
ML
R3
CH
R1
CH
R2
R1
CC
CN
CC
CN
R1
CG ML
R2
CH
CT
CG
CO
R3
CG
R2
ML
CT
LU
CO
CG
R3
LU
CG
R1
LU
LU
MG ML
R3
ML
R1
CN
R1
R2
CH
CT
R1
CN
LU
CG
ML
CG R1
R2
CH
CG
CH
R1
R1
ML
MU1
R2
LU
LU
LU
LU
R1
LU
CH
R2
R2
CG
CG
R1
R1
R3
CN
CG
CG
LU
LU MG
LU
ML
LU
ML
LU
ML
CG
R3
CG
LU
MG
ML
LU
LU
LU
LU
LU
LU
LU
R1
MG
CN
R1
MG
CT
LU
ML
LU
R1 R3
R1
R1
R3
LU
R2
CO
R3
R1
R1
LU
R1
CG
CO
R1
LU
R2
R1
CG
LU
R1
R3
R1
ML
LU ML
LU
R2
CG
RAP
LU
CG
CG
R3
R3
LU
CN
LU
R1
Vine Ct
Elm Cir
Heil Cir
8th St
Vallecito Ct
S 18th St
Stacey Ct
Virginia Ln
Heil Ct
Sandy Ave
N 23rd St
N 22nd St
N 21st St
S Wilson St Bends Blvd
County Rd
Yucca Dr
Hazel Ave
Maple Ave Hamilton Ave
McCullom St
S 23rd St
Skyview
la Solana Ave
Oak St
Westwind Dr
N Fairfield Dr
N 2nd St
N 1st St
Poplar Dr
21st St
Wake Ave
S 11th St
WeakleySt
Woodside Dr
Willow Dr
Brushwood Ave
Felipe Ave
6th St
Marlene Ave
Rebecca St
19th St
Victoria Ct
S 24th St
Boone Rd
W Lancaster Rd
Montecito
Cedar Ave
Moiola Ave
Kadin Dr
Charles Elmore
Bernadi St
E Neil Rd
St
S Cypress Dr
W Commercial Ave
Chaparral Dr
Lollie Ln
Mountainview Ave
Bell Ln
Desertview Ave
Ford Dr
Rubert Franks Dr
Driftwood Dr
Legacy Dr
Robert J Porter Dr
Jillian Dr
Desert Gardens Dr
Appaloosa Rd
Clark Rd
S 9th St
Beverly Ln
Villa Way
S 22nd St
N 19th St
N 17th St
Bougainvillea Trl
S 14th St
S 12th St
Allen Dr
14th St
N Earls St
Citrus Ln
Frontage Rd
Taylor Dr
Whitney Way
Silver Wood St
Barbara Way
Bass Cove Rd
Magnolia Ave
San Diego Ave
N 18th St
Palmview Ave
Applestill Rd
McCabe Cove Rd
Duff Rd
Rose Ave
Cruickshank Dr
Oleander Ave
Plank Dr
N 10th St
Sagebrush St
E Villa Ln Villa Ln W Buena Vista Ave
Thomas Dr
Smokewood Ave
Willow
Bend Dr
Wall Rd
Glenwood Dr
Sandalwood Glen Ave
Cypress Dr
W Wall Rd
Imperial Ave N Imperial Ave
Cedro Ave
Foxtrail Dr
Santa Rosa Rd
Gillet Rd
23rd St
Myrtle Rd
Preble Rd
Glenwood Rd
la Brucherie Rd
Southwind Dr
S Haskell Dr
Higgins Ln
Sunset Rd
Fieldview Ave
Riverview Ave
Sandalwood Dr
Mesquite St
Silverwood St
Sampson St
E Olive St
W Heil Ave
Olive Rd
S Imperial Ave
Old Hwy 111
Solano Ave
Betty Jo McNeece Loop 10th St
Quail Run Dr
Jacaranda Dr
Manzanita Dr
Alejandro St
Danenberg Dr
E State St
E Aurora Dr
Stacey Ave N 4th St
Tangerine Dr
Pico Ave
W Orange Ave
N Waterman Ave
New St
Oak Rd
Hospital Loop
Meadowview Ave
Valleyview Ave
W Elm Ave
E Heil Ave
W Adams Ave
Industry Way
Cottonwood Dr
Jackrabbit Dr
S 4th St
W Mineo
Ave
Dubois Dr
N 5th St
Farmer Dr
Magnolia Cir
Singh Rd
Countryside Dr
Nuffer Rd
Manuel A Ortiz Ave
Barbara Worth Dr
7th St N 7th St
Bernardi St
N Dogwood Rd
W Lincoln Ave
E Holton Rd
Holton Rd
E Holt Ave
E Hamilton Ave
E Ross Ave
City St
E Commercial Ave
Third St
W Ross Ave
12th Rd
W el Dorado Ave el Dorado Ave
Sperber Rd
E Brighton Ave
S 1st St
Haskell Dr E Orange Ave
3rd St S 3rd St
2nd St S 2nd St
W Villa Rd W Villa Ave
S Fairfield Dr
Villa Ave
Hoffer Rd
Adams Ave
W Main Rd
W Hamilton Ave
W Horne Rd
Wensley Ave
Pepper Dr
E Olive Ave
Yucca St
Corfman Rd
N First St
Hackleman Rd
Scott Ave
W Barbara Worth Dr
Smoketree Dr
S 10th St
N Dogwood St
S Hope St
Pico Rd
E Grafton Rd
N 3rd St
S 19th St
S 7th St
Park Ave
Lenrey Ave
Vine St
Woodward Ave
W Wake Ave
Joshua Tree St
E Chick Rd W Dannenberg Rd
E Gillett Rd
el Centro Ave
Pitzer Rd
Dannenberg Dr
Treshill Rd
E Main St
E Villa Ave
Farnsworth Ln
E McCabe Rd
W Holt Ave
Bradshaw Dr
N 6th St
Broadway St
W State St
W Pico Ave
W Olive Ave
Co Hwy S80
S Waterman Ave
N 12th St
S 6th St
Cross Rd
S 5th St
Dogwood Rd
S 8th St
Aurora Dr
Ocotillo Dr
Ross Ave Ross Rd W Ross Rd
E Gillett St
N la Brucherie Rd
Lotus Ave Lotus Ln
E Evan Hewes Hwy
W Brighton Ave
E Dealwood Rd
W Euclid Ave
State Rte 86 US Hwy 86
N 8th St
W Evan Hewes Hwy
Cannon Rd
E Ross Rd
E Cruickshank Rd Cruickshank Rd
S Clark Rd
Cooley Rd
S Dogwood Rd
State Hwy 86
W Main St
W McCabe Rd
Nichols Rd
S la Brucherie Rd
Austin Rd
Co Hwy S31
I- 8
Mixed Use
2 Overlay
Medical
Office
Overlay
Mixed Use
2 Overlay
Single-Family
Overlay
Single-Family
Overlay
Zoning Map
RAP | Residential AirportR1 | Single-Family ResidentialR2 | Variable ResidentialR3 | Multiple Family ResidentialCN | Neighborhood CommercialCT | Tourist CommercialCD | Downtown CommercialCO | Office CommercialCG | General CommercialCH | Heavy CommercialML | Light ManufacturingMG | General ManufacturingCC | Civic CenterLU | Limited UseMU1 | Mixed Use 1Mixed Use 2 OverlaySingle Family OverlayMedical Office OverlayCity Boundary 00 0.25 .5 1
Miles
¯
11.b
Packet Pg. 284
Attachment: Waterman Ave Crosswalk Warrant Study Memo (6056 : Establishing Mid-Block Crosswalk on Waterman for Jacaranda Apts Off- City Council of the City of El Centro Meeting: 04/02/24 11:30 AM 1275 Main Street Department: Public Works
El Centro, CA 92243 Category: Resolution
Prepared By: Abraham Campos
SCHEDULED Department Head: Abraham Campos
RESOLUTION (ID # 6317) DOC ID: 6317
Discussion and any Necessary Action Regarding the
Approval of an Agreement Between the City of El Centro and the California Highway Patrol Regard Road Improvements.
CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt Resolution No. 24- , RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF EL CENTRO
APPROVING AN OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL AND THE CITY OF EL CENTRO RELATED TO CERTAIN ROAD IMPROVEMENTS ALONG DANENBERG DRIVE.
FISCAL IMPACT:
No Impact to General Fund.
STRATEGIC PLANNING PROGRAM 2022-2027 RELATION:
Goal #1 Transportation and Mobility, Objective 1, improve Circulation DUE DILIGENCE CHECK FOR CONTRACTORS/CONSULTANTS: DID THE
DEPARTMENT VERIFY CURRENT EL CENTRO BUSINESS LICENSE,
CONTRACTORS LICENSE, REFERENCE CHECKS, INSURANCE, ETC:
NA
BACKGROUND:
California Highway Patrol, CHP, is constructing their new facility located at the NW corner of SR-86 and Danenberg Drive. Partial construction of Danenberg Drive west of SR-86 will be performed by CHP, however the land on the future Danenberg Drive alignment needs to be dedicated to the City of El Centro as City Right of Way.
DISCUSSION:
CHP has requested City to enter into an agreement for the construction of Danenberg Drive along CHP frontage. The terms provide for CHP to construct Danenberg Drive along CHP frontage prior to the road being dedicated to the City of El Centro, and upon completion, the road and its improvements will be accepted by the City of El Centro and the ROW property will be quitclaimed to the City of El Centro for road purposes.
CONCLUSION:
Adopt Resolution No. 24- , RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF EL CENTRO
APPROVING AN OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL AND THE CITY OF EL CENTRO RELATED TO CERTAIN ROAD IMPROVEMENTS ALONG DANENBERG DRIVE.
ATTACHMENTS:
• Agreement FINAL CHP City with exhibits (PDF)
• Resolution 00074496 (PDF)
12 Packet Pg. 285
City of El Centro
Off-Site Improvement Agreement
A23-0197
1 RECORDING REQUESTED BY
AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO
City Clerk
1275 W. Main Street
El Centro, California, 92243
Exempt from Recording Fee
pursuant to Gov’t Code §6103
_____________________________________________SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER’S USE________
OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT
PARTIES AND EFFECTIVE DATE.
1. A. Parties. This off-site improvement agreement (“Agreement”) is entered into as of this _______ day of __________, 2024, between the City of El Centro, a California municipal corporation and charter City (“CITY”) and the California Highway Patrol (“CHP”), a department of the State of California ("STATE"), with an address of 601 North 7th Street, Sacramento, California 95811. CITY and CHP are sometimes individually referred to herein as “Party” and collectively as the “Parties.”
1. B. Effective Date. This Agreement will become effective on the date on which it has been approved by both the City Council and CHP (“the Effective Date”). City shall deliver a fully executed counterpart original of this Agreement to CHP within ten (10) business days from City’s execution of this Agreement.
RECITALS
A. CHP has begun construction of a new facility known as CHP Replacement Facility located at (the “Development") with Assessor Parcel Number 053-740-054 (“CHP Property”); and
B. The Development fronts Danenberg Avenue, a planned four lane arterial City road in the CITY’s Mobility Element; and
C. CITY requested and CHP shall cause STATE to quitclaim a portion of CHP Property to CITY (“ROW Property”) as is more particularly identified in the attached Exhibit A, consisting of one page, in support of CHP and CITY goals to improve the north half of Danenberg Avenue; and
12.a
Packet Pg. 286 Attachment: Agreement FINAL CHP City with exhibits (6317 : CHP conveyance of property) City of El Centro
Off-Site Improvement Agreement
A23-0197
2 D. CHP shall ensure that the road improvements shall be in substantial conformity with the approved Off-Site Improvement Plans (“Plans”) on file at the office of the City Engineer entitled CHP Replacement Facility and by this reference incorporated herein (“Road Improvements”); and
E. CHP and CITY acknowledge and agree that upon completion of the CHP Road Improvement activities, CHP will execute the ROW Property quitclaim deed substantially attached as Exhibit B consisting of one page, and CITY shall provide its certificate of acceptance prior to CHP’s recordation of the quitclaim deed in the Official Records of County of Imperial; and
F. CHP is willing to execute this Agreement as a condition precedent to the recording of ROW Property quitclaim deed.
AGREEMENT
Now, therefore, the Parties agree as follows:
1. RECITALS. The Recitals set out above are true and correct and by this reference incorporated herein.
2. CHP IMPROVEMENTS.
A. CHP shall complete Road Improvements in a good workmanlike manner, in accordance with accepted construction practices and in a manner equal or superior to the requirements of the City Code and rulings made thereunder; and where there is a conflict between the improvement plans the City Code, the stricter requirements shall govern.
B. Such Road Improvements will be completed within _12_ months of the Effective Date of this Agreement.
3. CITY’S ACCEPTANCE OF ROAD IMPROVEMENTS UPON COMPLETION. Upon satisfactory completion of Road Improvements in substantial conformity with the Plans on file at the office of the City Engineer, CITY agrees to accept the Road Improvements as complete, subject to the provisions of this Agreement.
4. NOTICE REGARDING CONSTRUCTION. CHP shall notify the City Engineer 48-hours prior to commencement of construction of the improvements.
5. GUARANTEE AND WARRANTY OF ROAD IMPROVEMENTS. CHP guarantees and warrants that the Road Improvements described in this Agreement upon the ROW Property shall be free from defects in material or workmanship and shall perform satisfactorily for a period of one (1) year from and after the City Engineer accepts the Road Improvements as complete. During that guarantee period, CHP shall correct, repair, or replace, at its expense, any defects in said Road Improvements.
12.a
Packet Pg. 287 Attachment: Agreement FINAL CHP City with exhibits (6317 : CHP conveyance of property) City of El Centro
Off-Site Improvement Agreement
A23-0197
3 6. PLANS WARRANTY. CHP warrants the Plans for the Road Improvements are adequate to accomplish the Road Improvements as promised herein. If at any time before the City Engineer accepts the Road Improvements as complete or during the one-year guarantee period, said Plans prove to be deficient in any respect, CHP at its sole cost and expense shall make whatever changes are necessary to accomplish the Road Improvements as promised.
7. COSTS. CHP shall pay when due all the costs of the Road Improvements identified in this Agreement, including but not limited to inspections of the Road Improvements and relocating existing utilities required thereby.
8. MONUMENTS. CHP shall set and establish survey monuments to the satisfaction of the City Engineer or designee (“City Engineer”) before acceptance of any Road Improvements as complete by the City Engineer as a condition of this approval.
9. ENGINEERING FEES. CHP shall pay to the City a fee of three and fifty-three hundredths of a percent (3.53%) of the estimated construction cost as set out in Resolution No. 19-13 of the City of El Centro, as engineering, plan check and inspections fees.
10. CITY WATER AND SEWER CAPACITY FEES. CHP shall pay to the City water and sewer capacity as set out in City letter GR-21-0267, dated February 2, 2021 in the amount of $280,275.95. Such fees have been paid.
11. DELAY. If the construction of the Road Improvements is delayed without fault of CHP, the time for completion thereof may be extended by the City Engineer for such period of time as the City Engineer may deem reasonable.
12. UTILITY RELOCATION. CHP agrees to identify all existing utilities on the Plans, and pay all costs and expenses for relocation of utilities, whether shown on such Plans or not, and, to the extent authorized by law, defend and hold harmless CITY from any CHP or CHP Contractor claims arising out of failure to show or relocate such utilities.
13. NO WAIVER BY CITY. Inspection of the Road Improvements and/or materials, or approval of Road Improvements and/or materials or statement by any officer, agent or employee of the city indicating the Road Improvements or any part thereof complies with the requirements of this Agreement, or acceptance of the words or any part of said Road Improvements and/or materials, or payments thereof, or any combination or all of these acts, shall not relieve the CHP of their obligation to fulfill this Agreement as prescribed, nor shall the CITY thereby be stopped from bringing any action for damages arising from the failure to comply with any of the terms and conditions hereof.
14. INDEMNITY AND HOLD HARMLESS. Notwithstanding the limits of any insurance and within the term and scope of Road Improvements subject to this Agreement, CHP will defend, hold harmless and indemnify the City, its officers, agents and employees (the “Indemnitees”) from and against the City any and all claims, liabilities, causes of action, administrative claims or actions, and costs (including but not limited to expert costs and attorney fees) as defined in this Section arising from the acts or omissions of CHP, its
12.a
Packet Pg. 288 Attachment: Agreement FINAL CHP City with exhibits (6317 : CHP conveyance of property) City of El Centro
Off-Site Improvement Agreement
A23-0197
4 officers, agents, employees or contractors to act, including but not limited to personal injury, death, property damage, or any combination of these occurring during the performance of the this Agreement and to the extent authorized by law, except to the extent caused by the sole negligence or misconduct of the Indemnitees.
It is mutually understood that CHP will bear the full responsibility for losses incurred by destruction or damage to all improvements, from any cause whatsoever, and shall bear full responsibility for costs incurred or reasonably necessary, until such Road Improvements are accepted by the CITY or other appropriate public agency.
15. NOTICE AND REPORTS.
A. Any notice and reports under this Agreement shall be in writing and may be given by personal delivery or by mailing by certified mail, addressed as follows:
CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL CITY OF EL CENTRO
_______________ City Manager
601 North 7th Street 1275 W. Main Street
Sacramento, CA 95811 El Centro, CA 92243
B. Notice shall be deemed to have been delivered only upon personal service on the Party or seventy-two (72) hours after deposit in the United States mail. first class, postage pre-paid, or upon documented delivery by private carrier.
C. The addressees and addresses for purposes of this paragraph may be changed to any other addressee and address by giving written notice of such change. Unless and until written notice of change of addressee and/or address is delivered in the manner provided in this paragraph, the addressee and address set forth in this Agreement shall continue in effect for all purposes hereunder.
16. ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This Agreement contains the entire Agreement between CHP and CITY relating to the transactions contemplated hereby and supersedes all prior or contemporaneous agreements, understandings, provisions, negotiations, representations, or statements, either written or oral.
17. WAIVER. No waiver of any of the covenants or conditions of this Agreement shall be construed to be a continuing waiver of that term or condition or a waiver of any other term or condition of this Agreement.
18. CHOICE OF LAW. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of California.
This Agreement is made and entered into in Imperial County, California. Any action brought by either party with respect to this Agreement shall be brought in a court of competent jurisdiction within said County.
19. AMENDMENTS. This Agreement may be amended only by mutual written consent of the parties hereto at any time during the term hereof.
12.a
Packet Pg. 289 Attachment: Agreement FINAL CHP City with exhibits (6317 : CHP conveyance of property) City of El Centro
Off-Site Improvement Agreement
A23-0197
5 20. COUNTERPARTS. This Agreement, as well as any amendments hereto, may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which when executed shall be an original, and all of which together shall constitute one and the same Agreement. No counterparts shall be effective until all Parties have executed a counterpart thereof.
21. ATTORNEY’S FEES. In the event of the bringing of an action or suit by a Party against another Party by reason of any breach of any of the covenants contained in this Agreement or any other dispute between the Parties concerning this Agreement, then, in that event and to the extent authorized by law, the prevailing party in such action or dispute, whether by final judgment or out of court settlement shall be entitled to have and recover of and from the other Party all costs and expenses of suit or claim, including actual attorneys’ fees. Any judgment or order entered in any final judgment shall contain a specific provision providing for the recovery of all costs and expenses of suit or claim, including actual attorneys’ fees (collectively, the “Costs”) incurred in enforcing, perfecting and executing such judgment.
For the purposes of this Section, Costs shall include, without limitation, attorneys’ and experts’ fees, costs and expenses incurred in the following: (i) post judgment motions, (ii) contempt proceedings, (iii) garnishment, levy, and debtor and third-party examination; (iv) discovery; and (v) bankruptcy litigation. This Section shall survive any expiration or termination of this Agreement.
WHEREFORE, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the day and in the year first above written.
CITY OF EL CENTRO CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL
By b By _______________________ b
Cedric Ceseña, City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
________________________
Elizabeth Martyn, City Attorney
12.a
Packet Pg. 290 Attachment: Agreement FINAL CHP City with exhibits (6317 : CHP conveyance of property) City of El Centro
Off-Site Improvement Agreement
A23-0197
6 ************************************************************************************* JURAT
A notary public or other officer completing this
certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate
is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or
validity of that document.
State of California
County of
Subscribed and sworn to (or affirmed) before me on this day of , 20 , by , proved to me on the
basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) who appeared before me. (Seal) Signature _________________________
12.a
Packet Pg. 291 Attachment: Agreement FINAL CHP City with exhibits (6317 : CHP conveyance of property) Exhibit A
That p〇両On Of the parcel described in lnstrument No, 2018-13364, Records of lmperial Counfy, CaIifornia, lying in Tract 88, Township 16 South (T16S), Range 14 East (R14E), San Bemardino Base and Meridian (SBB&M), City of EI Centro, imperial County, Califomia, described as fo=ows:
Beginning at the Southeast co「ner of said parceI;
thence S 89O59’04’’W aIong the South line of said pa「ceI fo「 a distance of 50.01 feet to the True Point of Beginning on the west 「ight-Oトway iine of South 4th St「eet (aka SR-86); thence continuing S 89O59’04” W along the South line of said pa「cel for a distance of 694.84 feet to the Southwest come「 of said parceI;
thence N OOOOO’38” W aiong the west Iine ofsaid parceI fo「 a distance of 51.00 feet to a point; thence N 89O59’04” E for a distance of 223,37 feet to the begiming of a 969.36’radius tangent Curve, COnCaVe tO the south; thence easte「Iy, along said curve th「ough a centraI angle of O5OOO’00’’a distance of 84.59 feet to a point;
thence, tangent tO Iast said curve, S 85OOO’56” E for a distance of 214.56 feet to the beginning of 949.00-foot 「adius tangent curve, COnCaVe tO the north; thence easte「Iy, along said curve th「Ough a cent「ai angle of O5OOO’00’’a distance of 82.82 feet to apojnt;
thence tangent to last said curve, S 89O59,04,, W for a distance of 6.48 feet to a point; thence N 79O59’04” E for a distance of 59.57 feet to a point;
thence N 39025’57’’E fo「 a distance of 37.99 feet to a point on the West 「ight-Oトway iine of South 4th St「eet (aka SR-86);
thence S OIOO7’09” E fo「 a distance of 64.69 feet to the True Point of Beginning.
Said parce=s subject to a= easements and 「ights-Of way of 「ecord.
Said parcel containing 29O57.68 squa「e feet, 0.66 acres mo「e or Iess. 直納周囲
12.a
Packet Pg. 292 Attachment: Agreement FINAL CHP City with exhibits (6317 : CHP conveyance of property) l」 C) 之 "く �等 �卜 �°) �°) �
lI) �○) �く○
ト �くo �°) �卜 �寸
(の 査 ��lI〕 �r) �くo
○ �I」 �」I �しJ �l」 ま �
ま 寸 �裏 寸 �ま 卜、 �°)
三 �○ �⊂〉 �書の �寸 ○
α ・く �の 印 �°) 叩 �しく〕 い �卜 P
l」 �o) �o) �○)
くり �∞ �卜ヽ �いつ �●○○“ ○ (の
之 �之 �之
I」 之 」 �くo �卜、 �∞ �°) �
.」 �_」 �○○」 �_」
l」 C) �t○○● �寸 �○ ○ �卜、 �くo
之 �⊂) �∞ ��いつ �u“)
壬 ∴塑 ⊂) �○ 11〕 �寸 °) �あ �r) N �寸 書““"
(o ��剛 �N
くつ �享 年 �き ま �享 年 �しJ a �l」 $ 寸 �寸 �∞ �寸 �lo
雲 �く⊃ �⊂) �「〕 �○ �u「
(と �o) �o) �⊂) �o) �も ・く しJ 〔D �l{) �しの �⊂) �叩 �P
● o) �● °) �● ⊂〕 �°) �の
謡 �∞ �くつ �∞ �∞ ∽ �之 �之 �(力
山 之 コ �コ �N �lつ �寸 �1{)
」 �_」 �葛」 �_」
開聞開田開山闇山間
12.a
Packet Pg. 293 Attachment: Agreement FINAL CHP City with exhibits (6317 : CHP conveyance of property) 03/2024/cdz/A23-0197/Reso/OffSiteAgreementCHP
RESOLUTION NO. 24 -
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
EL CENTRO APPROVING AN OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENT
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY
PATROL AND THE CITY OF EL CENTRO RELATED TO
CERTAIN ROAD IMPROVEMENTS ALONG DANENBERG
DRIVE
WHEREAS, the California Highway Patrol (“CHP”), a department of the State of California (“State”), has begun construction of a new facility known as CHP Replacement Facility located at (the “Development") with Assessor Parcel Number 053-740-054 (“CHP Property”) in the City of El Centro (the “City”); and
WHEREAS, the Development fronts Danenberg Avenue, a planned four lane arterial City road in the City’s Mobility Element; and
WHEREAS, City requested and CHP shall cause State to quitclaim a portion of CHP Property to City in support of CHP and City goals to improve the north half of Danenberg Avenue; and
WHEREAS, it is necessary for the City Council of the City of El Centro, California (the “City Council”) to approve the off-site improvement Agreement with CHP; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that its approval of said Agreement with CHP as included in Attachment 1 of this resolution is in the best interest of the City.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EL CENTRO, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
1. That the foregoing is true, correct and adopted.
2. That the City Council, does hereby approve the off-site improvement Agreement between the City and CHP.
3. That the City’s City Manager is hereby authorized to sign said Agreement on behalf of the City, a copy which is on file in the Office of the City Clerk.
12.b
Packet Pg. 294 Attachment: Resolution 00074496 (6317 : CHP conveyance of property) 03/2024/cdz/A23-0197/Reso/OffSiteAgreementCHP
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of El Centro, California held on day of , 2024.
CITY OF EL CENTRO
By _____________________
Sylvia Marroquin, Mayor
ATTEST:
By _____________________________
Norma Wyles, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Office of the City Attorney
By________________________________
Elizabeth L. Martyn, City Attorney
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF IMPERIAL ) ss
CITY OF EL CENTRO )
I, Norma Wyles, City Clerk of the City of El Centro, California do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 24- was duly and regularly adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of El Centro, California, held on the day of , 2024, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAINED:
By__________________________
Norma Wyles, City Clerk
12.b
Packet Pg. 295 Attachment: Resolution 00074496 (6317 : CHP conveyance of property) City Council of the City of El Centro Meeting: 04/02/24 11:30 AM 1275 Main Street Department: City Manager's Office
El Centro, CA 92243 Category: Support
Prepared By: Cynthia De Zilwa
SCHEDULED Department Head: Cedric Cesena
ACTION ITEM (ID # 6322) DOC ID: 6322
Letter of Support SB 1309 - Lithium Battery Production
Council
CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION:
Ratify letter of support requested by Senator Steve Padilla's Office.
BACKGROUND:
SB 1309 - Lithium Battery Production Council, aimed at addressing critical infrastructure needs in Imperial County’s Lithium Valley. This area holds significant economic growth potential due to its lithium reserves. Imperial County, home to one of the world’s most substantial lithium reserves, is strategically positioned to meet over one-third of the global lithium demand. This is essential for powering the future of electric vehicles and renewable energy. Despite its potential, the region faces considerable infrastructure challenges. SB 1309 seeks to address these barriers directly, facilitating a path toward economic prosperity and sustainability in the Region.
DISCUSSION:
SB 1309 proposes a strategic approach to secure California’s leadership in the lithium battery manufacturing arena. It directs the California Energy Commission (CEC); in consultation with the Governor’s Office of Business and Economic Development, the California Workforce Development Board, and other state agencies, to establish a Lithium Battery Production Council. This council will carry out an economic analysis focusing on workforce development, infrastructure improvements, sewage and wastewater treatment, and housing needs essential for supporting and expanding the lithium battery production sector.
In 2023, a new report estimated that there was more lithium than previously estimated, enough to support over 375 million batteries for electric vehicles, more than the total number of vehicles currently on U.S. roads.
As California seeks to power the future by producing lithium in a more sustainable and environmentally safer way than nearly anywhere else in the world, it is critical the state has a comprehensive strategy that secures California’s global leadership in lithium battery manufacturing by preparing the region to meet the demands of sustaining a global industry.
CONCLUSION:
Ratify the submitted letter of support.
ATTACHMENTS:
• SB 1309 - Lithium Battery Council - Fact Sheet (PDF)
• Letter of Support final (PDF)
13 Packet Pg. 296
SB 1309 – Lithium Battery Production Council
Imperial County’s Lithium Valley presents an enormous economic opportunity California. The Salton Sea has one of the largest reserves of lithium in the world, which could fulfill over one-third of the global demand for lithium. With the world demand for lithium expected to grow as much as tenfold in the next decade, the development of a domestic supply of lithium around the Salton Sea has the potential to unleash billions in economic opportunity, however the surrounding area lacks critical infrastructure to support the emerging industry.
In 2023, a new report by Lawrence Berkeley National Lab estimated that there was more lithium than previously estimated, enough to support over 375 million batteries for electric vehicles – more than the total number of vehicles currently on U.S. roads.1 Yet the region surrounding the state’s vast lithium deposits has critical infrastructure gaps including a lack of bridges and roads and lack of communication and transportation infrastructure. As California seeks to power the future by producing lithium in a more sustainable and environmentally safer way than nearly anywhere else in the world, it is critical the state has a comprehensive strategy that secures California’s global leadership in lithium battery manufacturing by preparing the region to meet the demands of sustaining a global industry.
SB 1309 would direct the California Energy Commission (CEC), in consultation with other state agencies, including the Governor’s Office of Business and Economic Development (Go-Biz) and the California Workforce Development Board, to establish a Lithium Battery Production Council to conduct an economic analysis on workforce development needs, infrastructure needs, sewage and wastewater treatment, and housing needs for lithium battery production.
Staff Contact
Name: Alexis Castro
Title: Legislative Director
Email: [email protected]
Capitol Office: (916) 651 – 4018
Support
1 California, State of. “New Report Highlights the Promise of Lithium Valley.” California Governor, November 29, 2023. https://www.gov.ca.gov/2023/11/28/new-report-highlights-the-promise-of-lithium-valley/.
13.a
Packet Pg. 297 Attachment: SB 1309 - Lithium Battery Council - Fact Sheet (6322 : Ratify Letter of Support - SB 1309 (Padilla): Lithium Battery Production
13.b
Packet Pg. 298 Attachment: Letter of Support final (6322 : Ratify Letter of Support - SB 1309 (Padilla): Lithium Battery Production Council)
13.b
Packet Pg. 299 Attachment: Letter of Support final (6322 : Ratify Letter of Support - SB 1309 (Padilla): Lithium Battery Production Council) City Council of the City of El Centro Meeting: 04/02/24 11:30 AM 1275 Main Street Department: City Clerk's Office
El Centro, CA 92243 Category: Boards & Commissions
Prepared By: Norma Wyles
SCHEDULED Department Head: Norma Wyles
ACTION ITEM (ID # 6319) DOC ID: 6319
Discussion and any necessary action regarding appointment to the Library & Community Services Board.
CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION:
Mayor's Recommendation: Appointment to the Library & Community Services Board for one (1) un-scheduled non-voting member with term ending on June 30, 2026 ATTACHMENTS:
• Memo - Library & Community Services Board 4-2-24 (PDF) • Application - Matthew Cowie _Redacted (PDF)
14 Packet Pg. 300
M E M O R A N D U M
TO: Sylvia Marroquin, Mayor & City Council
FROM: Norma Wyles, City Clerk
RE: Vacancy on the Boards and Commission
DATE: April 2, 2024
LIBRARY AND COMMUNITY SERVICES BOARD:
There is one (1) un-scheduled non-voting member term ending June 30, 2026.
The following individual would like to be considered for appointment:
1) Matthew Cowie
14.a
Packet Pg. 301 Attachment: Memo - Library & Community Services Board 4-2-24 (6319 : Appointment to the Library & Community Services Board) CONFIDENTIAL 14.b
Packet Pg. 302 Attachment: Application - Matthew Cowie (6319 : Appointment to the Library & Community Services Board) CONFIDENTIAL 14.b
Packet Pg. 303 Attachment: Application - Matthew Cowie (6319 : Appointment to the Library & Community Services Board)
14.c
Packet Pg. 304 Attachment: Application - Matthew Cowie _Redacted (6319 : Appointment to the Library & Community Services Board)
14.c
Packet Pg. 305 Attachment: Application - Matthew Cowie _Redacted (6319 : Appointment to the Library & Community Services Board) Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency Meeting: 04/02/24 11:30 AM 1275 Main Street Department: Community Services
El Centro, CA 92243 Category: Resolution
Prepared By: Stacy Mendoza
REVIEWED Department Head: Adriana Nava
ACTION ITEM (ID # 6323) DOC ID: 6323
Discussion and Related Action Regarding Submittal of a
Grant Application for Funding Under the HOME Investment Partnerships Program for the Palo Fierro Housing Project CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt Resolution No. SA 24- , A RESOLUTION OF THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO
THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF EL CENTRO APPROVING THE
SUBMITTAL OF AN APPLICATION FOR FUNDING TO THE CALIFORNIA STATE
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT UNDER THE HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIPS PROGRAM; AND, IF SELECTED,
AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT, ANY AMENDMENTS
THERETO, AND OF ANY RELATED DOCUMENTS NECESSARY TO PARTICIPATE IN THE HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIPS PROGRAM.
FISCAL IMPACT:
No fiscal impact to the General Fund.
STRATEGIC PLANNING PROGRAM 2013-2018 RELATION:
Goal No. 4 - Business Development and City Beautification Objective No. 2 - Expand Housing Opportunities
DUE DILIGENCE CHECK FOR CONTRACTORS/CONSULTANTS: DID THE
DEPARTMENT VERIFY CURRENT EL CENTRO BUSINESS LICENSE,
CONTRACTORS LICENSE, REFERENCE CHECKS, INSURANCE, ETC:
The El Centro Successor Agency owned a 5.91-acre property immediately east of First Responders Park. Under the adopted Long Range Property Management Plan, the property was set aside for affordable housing and in 2020, it had an appraised value of $1.18 Million. In 2020, various affordable housing developers were interested in purchasing the property for the purpose of submitting grant applications to the State.
A Request for Proposals (RFP) and notices of availability were prepared by Staff to maintain a transparent and competitive process. The RFP was released on September 23, 2020, for a period of 30 days. Three (3) proposals were received as follows:
Chelsea Investment, Richman Group, and Homegrown Wealth. A reviewing committee was assembled to review the proposals and the two highest firms were selected for interviews. After considering both the proposal submitted and interview scores, the selected developer was Chelsea Investment Corporation.
BACKGROUND:
The Successor Agency of the City of El Centro previously owned a 5.91-acre property at the northeast corner of Waterman and Lincoln Avenues directly across the street from First Responders Park. The property was previously one parcel, but was subsequently subdivided and is now two parcels. The northern parcel is identified by 15 Packet Pg. 306
Action Item (ID # 6323) Meeting of April 2, 2024
APN 064-470-110 and the southern parcel is APN 064-470-011.
Phase I of the multi-family development (northern parcel) is currently under construction and is known as Jacaranda Gardens. Phase I consists of 96 units, (24) are onebedroom, (48) will be two-bedroom, and (24) will be three-bedroom. The project also included a manager’s unit that is not income restricted. Phase I is anticipated to be completed by the end of 2024.
On January 19, 2024, the State of California Department of Housing and Community Development released a Notice of Funding Availability for the HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME). Agency staff was approached by Chelsea to request that the Agency apply for funding through the HOME Program. Housing reports prepared for the City indicate the need for more affordable housing in El Centro. As such, Staff recommended that Chelsea propose the Phase II project to the Successor Agency Board for consideration.
Phase II of the multi-family development is known as Palo Fierro (Ironwood) and consists of a 72-unit new construction project. The project would be situated on the remaining 2.45 acres. The unit mix will be comprised of (16) one-bedroom, (32) twobedroom, and (24) three-bedroom units. Attached is a Brief Project Description and Site Plan of the project proposed for consideration. The second phase includes six in total low-rise buildings: three (3), two-story and two (2) three-story walk-up buildings with 90 parking spaces, as well as a community building; elevators are not included in the twostory design. The construction is type-V, wood-frame and designated as a large-family building. Site amenities include a tot-lot, computer room, community building, gated security, bicycle parking, and patio/barbecue area.
The estimated project cost to develop the Palo Fierro housing project is $39.4 million.
The proposed funding sources include HOME funds and 9% tax credits. The application is due to HCD on April 9, 2024 with award announcement expected to be made in October 2024. A resolution approving the submittal of the grant application is attached hereto for consideration.
CONCLUSION:
City staff is recommending the Successor Agency Adopt Resolution No. SA 24- ,
RESOLUTION OF THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY OF THE CITY OF EL CENTRO APPROVING THE SUBMITTAL OF AN
APPLICATION FOR FUNDING TO THE CALIFORNIA STATE DEPARTMENT OF
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT UNDER THE HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIPS PROGRAM; AND, IF SELECTED, AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION
OF AN AGREEMENT, ANY AMENDMENTS THERETO, AND OF ANY RELATED
DOCUMENTS NECESSARY TO PARTICIPATE IN THE HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIPS PROGRAM in order to meet the grant submittal deadline of April 9, 2024.
ATTACHMENTS:
• Resolution for HOME Grant Application (DOCX)
• Project Description (PDF)
• Site Plan and Elevations (PDF)
15 Packet Pg. 307
03/2024/cdz/A24-0059/SAReso/HOMEProgram
FundingApplicationPaloFierroApts
RESOLUTION NO. SA 24 - _______
A RESOLUTION OF THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF EL CENTRO
APPROVING THE SUBMITTAL OF AN APPLICATION FOR
FUNDING TO THE CALIFORNIA STATE DEPARTMENT OF
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT UNDER THE
HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIPS PROGRAM; AND, IF
SELECTED, AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AN
AGREEMENT, ANY AMENDMENTS THERETO, AND OF ANY
RELATED DOCUMENTS NECESSARY TO PARTICIPATE IN
THE HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIPS PROGRAM
WHEREAS, The California Department of Housing and Community Development (the “Department”) is authorized to allocate HOME Investment Partnerships Program (“HOME”) funds made available from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”). HOME funds are to be used for the purposes set forth in Title II of the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing ACT of 1990, in federal implementing regulations set forth in Title 24 of Code of Federal Regulations, part 92, and in Title 25 of the California Code of Regulations commencing with section 8200; and
WHEREAS, on January 19, 2024, the Department issued a Notice of Funding Availability announcing the availability of funds under the HOME program (the “NOFA”); and
WHEREAS, in response to the HOME NOFA, the Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency of the City of El Centro, a municipal corporation (the “Applicant”), wishes to apply to the Department for, and receive an allocation of, HOME funds.
IT IS NOW THEREFORE RESOLVED THAT:
1. In response to the above-referenced HOME NOFA, the Applicant shall submit an application to the Department to participate in the HOME program and for an allocation of funds not to exceed Twelve Million Dollars ($12,000,000.00), for the following activities and/or programs:
Construction of a 72-unit affordable multi-family housing development to be located at Waterman Ave and Lincoln Avenue in El Centro, CA.
2. If the application for funding is approved, then the Applicant hereby agrees to use the HOME funds for eligible activities in the manner presented in its application as approved by the Department in accordance with the statues and regulations cited above. The Applicant will also execute a Standard Agreement, any
15.a
Packet Pg. 308 Attachment: Resolution for HOME Grant Application (6323 : HOME Grant Application Resolution for Palo Fierro) 03/2024/cdz/A24-0059/SAReso/HOMEProgram
FundingApplicationPaloFierroApts
amendments thereto, any and all other documents or instruments necessary or required by the Department or HUD for participation in the HOME program (collectively, the required documents).
3. The Applicant authorizes the Executive Director or their designee(s) to execute, in the name of the Applicant, the HOME Standard Agreement.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Successor Agency to the El Centro Redevelopment Agency held on the ____ day of __________ 2024.
SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE
EL CENTRO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
By: ___________________________
Sylvia Marroquin, Chairperson
ATTEST:
By: ___________________________
Norma Wyles, Agency Secretary
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Office of the City Attorney
By: ____________________________
Elizabeth Martyn, Agency Counsel
15.a
Packet Pg. 309 Attachment: Resolution for HOME Grant Application (6323 : HOME Grant Application Resolution for Palo Fierro) 03/2024/cdz/A24-0059/SAReso/HOMEProgram
FundingApplicationPaloFierroApts
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
COUNTY OF IMPERIAL) ss
CITY OF EL CENTRO )
I, Norma Wyles, Agency Secretary of the Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. SA 24-_____ was duly adopted at a regular meeting of the Successor Agency to the El Centro Redevelopment Agency held on the _____ day of _______________, 2024, by the following vote.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAINED:
By: ____________ __
Norma Wyles, Agency Secretary
15.a
Packet Pg. 310 Attachment: Resolution for HOME Grant Application (6323 : HOME Grant Application Resolution for Palo Fierro) Palo Fierro, El Centro: Project Summary
Palo Fierro (“Project”) is a proposed 72-unit new construction affordable housing project designated for families in the City of El Centro.
Currently zoned for Multiple-Family
Residential (R3), the Project site area
is 2.45 acres. The Project consists of
72 units, with one allocated as a
manager’s unit. The unit mix will be
comprised of (16) one-bedroom/onebath units, (32) two-bedroom/onebath units, and (24) threebedroom/two-bath units. Onebedroom units are 590 square feet; two-bedroom units are 757 square feet; and three-bedroom units are 937 square feet.
Rental criteria for this project will target households with incomes between 30-60% of Area Median Income (AMI). (11) of the one-bedroom units will be designated for 60% AMI; and (5) one-bedroom units for 30% AMI. (19) of the two-bedroom units will be designated for 60% AMI; and (12) of the two-bedroom units for 30% AMI. (15) of the three-bedroom units will be designated for 60% AMI and (9) of the three-bedroom units will be designated for 30% AMI.
The project will include one two-bedroom unit, designated for the manager. The Project site was acquired in a public RFQ and RFP, prepared by the Successor Agency to the El Centro Redevelopment Agency.
On March 8, 2023, Chelsea Investment Corporation, and the Successor Agency to the El Centro Redevelopment Agency entered a Disposition, Development and Loan Agreement (DDA) to develop the site. The first phase of the project, Jacaranda Gardens, started construction on May 1, 2023 and will be completed by the end of 2024.
The second phase includes six in total low-rise buildings: three (3), two-story and two (2), three-story walk-up buildings with 90 parking spaces, as well as a community building; elevators are not included in the two-story design. The construction is type-V, wood-frame
15.b
Packet Pg. 311 Attachment: Project Description (6323 : HOME Grant Application Resolution for Palo Fierro) and designated as a large-family building. Site amenities include a tot-lot, computer room, community building, gated security, bicycle parking, and patio/barbeque area. (18) of the tenant parking spaces will be uncovered, and (72) of the tenant parking spaces will be covered- (11) of which are designated for handicap accessible. There will be no garages or enclosed parking spaces. All buildings included in the project are to be built on concreteslab permanent foundations, and will meet all applicable federal, state, and local requirements pertaining to rental housing, including minimum square footage, and safe and sanitary living conditions. The gross residential square feet of the project's buildings is 56,152 square feet, while there is 0 square feet for commercial area.
Additional funding sources for this project include 8 Project Based Vouchers from the Imperial Valley Housing Authority. Nearby amenities include the following: public transit (Bus Routes #2, 3, 4 at Bradshaw Rd/Imperial Ave); full-scale grocery (Cardenas Market); hospital with Medi-Cal and Medicare (All Valley Urgent Care); public schools (Martin Luther King Elementary School); childcare provider (Harleem Family Child Care); pharmacy (CVS Pharmacy); public park (First Responders Park), and Public Library (El Centro Library).
15.b
Packet Pg. 312 Attachment: Project Description (6323 : HOME Grant Application Resolution for Palo Fierro)
PROJECT SUMMARY
Revision Date: 3/25/2024
PALO FIERRO
1625 N Waterman, El Centro, CA 92243
El Centro
Imperial County
AMI Studio 1BR 2BR 3BR 4BR Totals
Development Costs: LIHTC Tax Credit Rate 9.00% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% Land (including existing improvements) $13,373/unit 962,857 10 Yr Federal Tax Credits 25,000,000 Net SF 500 590 757 937 1,250 Direct Construction Costs (inc Contingency) $404,250/unit 29,106,000 State Tax Credit Total 0 Development Impact Fees $22,665/unit 1,631,854 Federal Tax Credit Price $ 0.8800 100% 0 0 0 0 0 0 A&E $16,231/unit 1,168,625 State Tax Credit Price $ 0.8800 80% 0 0 0 0 0 0 Financing Fees and Interest $39,249/unit 2,825,942 Other Tax Credit Price $ 0.8800 70% 0 0 0 0 0 0 Developer Fee $34,722/unit 2,500,000 DDA/QCT Boost Y 60% 0 11 19 15 0 45 Other Soft Costs $16,787/unit 1,208,637 50% 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Development Costs $547,277/unit 39,403,914 Opr. Exp./Unit/Year 4,955 40% 0 0 0 0 0 0 Replacement Reserves/Unit/Year 500 30% 0 5 12 9 0 26
Vacancy Rate 5.00% Mgr. 0 0 1 0 0 1
Sources: Totals 0 16 32 24 0 72
Federal LIHTC Equity $305,525/unit 21,997,800 DCR 1.15
State LIHTC / Solar / Other Tax Credit Equity $1,505/unit 108,335 Perm Loan Amort 35 Permanent Loans $55,000/unit 3,960,000
Priority Deferred Developer Fee $5,346/unit 384,923 Interest Rate - Permanent Loan 7.50% Tax Credit Allocation August-25 Acquisition Value Loan $13,234/unit 952,857 Interest Rate - Construction Loan 7.85% Construction Begin - Initial Closing February-26 Subordinate Deferred Developer Fee $0/unit 0 Construction Complete May-27 Private Placement Junior Bond $0/unit 0 TIEBREAKER 60.74% Lease Up Complete August-27 Soft Local $0/unit 0 Total Construction Loan 22,519,117 Conversion/Stabilizatiion November-27 Soft State $166,667/unit 12,000,000
Soft Loan Interest $0/unit 0 Tax- Exempt Bonds - Construction 0 8609 May-28 Other $0/unit 0 Tax- Exempt Bonds - Construction/Perm 0 Estimated 1st Year Credit Delivery 1,458,188 Total Sources $547,277/unit 39,403,914 50% Test 54.06% Estimated 2nd Year Credit Delivery 2,499,750 Prevailing Wage: Federal Estimated 3rd Year Credit Delivery 2,499,750 *Preliminary Projections, Subject to Revision*
PROJECT TIMING AND CREDIT DELIVERY
DEVELOPMENT COSTS & SOURCES DEAL STRUCTURE AND ASSUMPTIONS PROJECT UNIT & INCOME MIX
15.b
Packet Pg. 313 Attachment: Project Description (6323 : HOME Grant Application Resolution for Palo Fierro) Construction Period Construction Stabilization Conversion 8609 Total Source of Real Personal Site Amort Amort Const Non Pre-Dev Close Quarter 1 Quarter 2 Quarter 3 Quarter 4 Quarter 5 Quarter 6 Quarter 7 Quarter 8 Quarter 9 Quarter 10 Quarter 11 Quarter 12 Subtotal 6 months Information Property Property Imp 30 yrs 15 yrs Deductible Deductible
10.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 15.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% SOURCES OF FUNDS interest rate
1 Federal LIHTC Equity 0 2,199,780 - - - - - - - - - - - - 2,199,780 5,499,450 14,148,570 150,000 21,997,800 2 State LIHTC Equity 0 per unit - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 3 Solar Equity - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 108,335 - 108,335 4 Other Equity - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
5 Construction Loan 867,820 2,563,784 2,961,844 3,131,642 3,195,373 5,072,612 4,726,042 - - - - - - - 22,519,117 (5,399,690) (17,119,427) - - 54.06% 50% TEST 6 Perm Loan (Tranche A) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 3,960,000 - 3,960,000 7 Perm Loan (Tranche B) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 8 Priority Deferred Developer Fee 1.00% - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 384,923 - 384,923 9 Private Placement Junior Bond 8.50% - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - C Bond sizing tab 10 Acquisition Value Loan 3.00% 952,857 - - - - - - - - - - 952,857 - - - 952,857 #DIV/0! 11 Subordinate Deferred Developer Fee 0.00% - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Sized based on DDF 12 CalHFA MIP 3.00% - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 13 Local Funds: City loan 3.00% - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 14 Local Funds: 3.00% - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 15 State Funds: MHP 3.00% - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 16 State Funds: AHSC 3.00% - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 17 State Funds: State HOME 3.00% - - 4,200,000 4,200,000 2,400,000 - - - - - - 10,800,000 1,200,000 - - 12,000,000 18 State Funds: IIG 0.00% - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 19 Soft Loan Interest - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 20 Gap Funding needed - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 21 Basis Adjuster - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
22 Timing Adjuster - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
23 Total Sources of Funds 867,820 5,716,421 2,961,844 7,331,642 7,395,373 7,472,612 4,726,042 - - - - - - - 36,471,754 1,299,760 1,482,400 150,000 39,403,914 24 0
25 0
26 USES OF FUNDS 0
27 ACQUISITION 0
28 Land Cost $0 ground lease value 0 952,857 - - - - - - - - - - - - 952,857 952,857 - - - - - - 952,857 0 29 Building Cost 0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0 30 Broker Fees 0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0 31 Site Improvement Purchase 0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0 32 Offiste Improvement Purchase 0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0 33 Other Land Related Expenses / Option Pmnt 0 10,000 - - - - - - - - - - - - 10,000 10,000 - - - - - - 10,000 0 34 Other Closing Costs 0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0 35 Total Land / Acquitisiton - 962,857 - - - - - - - - - - - - 962,857 - - - 962,857 36 0
37 RELOCATION 0
38 Relocation Admin And Temp Relocation 0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0 39 Permanent Relocation Expense 0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0 40 Total Relocation - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0 41 Initial 0
42 NEW CONSTRUCTION 0
43 Demolition $ - - - - 0
43 Design Assistance $ 450,000 0 450,000 - - - - - - - - - - - - 450,000 450,000 405,563 11,688 32,749 - - - - 0 44 Off-site Improvements $ 250,000 - 25,000 62,500 62,500 62,500 37,500 - - - - - - - 250,000 250,000 - - 250,000 - - - - 0 45 Site Work $ 1,080,000 - 108,000 270,000 270,000 270,000 162,000 - - - - - - - 1,080,000 1,080,000 - - 1,080,000 - - - - 0 46 Solar $ 360,000 - 36,000 90,000 90,000 90,000 54,000 - - - - - - - 360,000 360,000 - - 360,000 - - - - 0 47 Parking Garage - - - - - - - - - 0
48 Vertical $ 20,936,923 0 - 2,093,692 5,234,231 5,234,231 5,234,231 3,140,538 - - - - - - - 20,936,923 20,936,923 20,216,923 720,000 - - - - - 0 49 Commercial incl. fees $ - 0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0 50 GC Contingency 5% 22,500 113,135 282,837 282,837 282,837 169,702 - - - - - - - 1,153,846 1,153,846 1,067,709 - 86,137 - - - - 0 51 General Requirements 4% 18,900 95,033 237,583 237,583 237,583 142,550 - - - - - - - 969,231 969,231 900,321 - 68,910 - - - - 0 52 Contractor Preconstruction Services 3% 756,000 756,000 756,000 704,318 - 51,682 - - - - 0 53 Contractor Fees 7% 34,398 172,960 432,401 432,401 432,401 259,440 - - - - - - - 1,764,000 1,764,000 1,643,408 - 120,592 - - - - 0 54 Design Contingency 0% - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0 55 Escalation 0% - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0 56 Total New Construction $385,000/unit - 1,281,798 2,643,820 6,609,551 6,609,551 6,609,551 3,965,730 - - - - - - - 27,720,000 - - - 27,720,000 57 0
58 ARCHITECTURAL/SURVEY/ENGINEERING 0
59 Other Architectural 33,000 2,000 31,000 77,500 77,500 77,500 46,500 - - - - - - - 345,000 345,000 345,000 - - - - - - 0 60 Survey/Engineering 319,126 - 50,450 126,125 126,125 126,125 75,675 - - - - - - - 823,625 823,625 763,686 - 59,939.29 - - - - 0 61 Other: - - - - - - - - - 0
62 Total Architectural 352,126 2,000 81,450 203,625 203,625 203,625 122,175 - - - - - - - 1,168,625 - - - 1,168,625 63 0
64 CONTINGENCY COSTS 0
65 Hard Cost Contingency 5% 64,090 132,191 330,478 330,478 330,478 198,287 - - - - - - - 1,386,000 1,386,000 1,386,000 - - - - - - 0 66 Soft Cost Contingency 3% 113,194 84,690 5,413 11,406 13,262 15,512 16,370 - - - - - - - 259,847 259,847 259,847 - - - - - - 0 67 Total Contingency 113,194 148,779 137,604 341,884 343,740 345,990 214,656 - - - - - - - 1,645,847 - - - 1,645,847 68 0
PROJECTED SOURCES AND USES OF FUNDS
PALO FIERRO
3/25/2024
15.b
Packet Pg. 314 Attachment: Project Description (6323 : HOME Grant Application Resolution for Palo Fierro) Construction Period Construction Stabilization Conversion 8609 Total Source of Real Personal Site Amort Amort Const Non Pre-Dev Close Quarter 1 Quarter 2 Quarter 3 Quarter 4 Quarter 5 Quarter 6 Quarter 7 Quarter 8 Quarter 9 Quarter 10 Quarter 11 Quarter 12 Subtotal 6 months Information Property Property Imp 30 yrs 15 yrs Deductible Deductible
10.0% 25.0% 25.0% 25.0% 15.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
PROJECTED SOURCES AND USES OF FUNDS
PALO FIERRO
3/25/2024
69 CONSTRUCTION PERIOD EXPENSES 0
70 Construction Loan Interest 0 - 86,721 145,958 207,833 282,822 380,105 - - - - - - - 1,103,439 707,260 0 1,810,699 384,922.550760 1,103,439 - - - - 707,260 - 0 71 Private Placement Junior Bond Interest 0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 915,077 - - - - - - - 0 72 Soft Loan Interest 0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0 73 Predevelopment Loan Interest 2,000 34,741 36,741 36,741 36,741 - - - - - - 0 74 Origination/Application Fee 1% 0 225,191 225,191 - 225,191 225,191 - - - - - - 0 75 Subordinate/Soft Debt Origination Fee 0 - - - - - - - - - - - 0 76 Lender Reports and Inspections 25,000 - 2,250 5,625 5,625 5,625 3,375 - - - - - - - 47,500 - 47,500 47,500 - - - - - - 0 77 Title/Recording/Taxes 0 25,000 1,500 3,750 3,750 3,750 2,250 - - - - - - - 40,000 - 40,000 40,000 - - - - - - 0 78 Insurance During Construction 0 500,000 - - - - - - - - - - - - 500,000 - 500,000 500,000 - - - - - - 0 79 Construction Mgmt and Monitoring 0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0 80 Owner Requirements 0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0 81 Other: - - - - - - - 0
82 Total Construction Period Expense 27,000 784,932 90,471 155,333 217,208 292,197 385,730 - - - - - - - 1,952,871 707,260 - - 2,660,132 83 0
84 PERMANENT FINANCING EXPENSES 0
85 Loan Origination Fees 0.75% 0 29,700 - - - - - - - - - - - - 29,700 - - 29,700 - - - 29,700 - - - 0 86 Title/Recording/Taxes 0 - - - 5,000 - 5,000 - - - 5,000 - - - 0 87 Insurance 0 - - - - - - - - - - - - 0
88 Other: Bond/Issuer/FA fees 0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0 89 Other: LIHTC fees 202,000 - - - - - - - - - - - - 202,000 - (70,890) - 131,110 - - - - - - 131,110 0 90 Total Permanent Financing 202,000 29,700 - - - - - - - - - - - - 231,700 - (65,890) - 165,810 91 0
92 LEGAL FEES 0
93 Lender Legal 0 45,000 - - - - - - - - - - - 45,000 - 15,000 - 60,000 60,000 - - - - - - 0 94 Sponsor Legal 20,000 155,000 175,000 - - - 175,000 - - - 175,000 - - - 0 95 Total Legal Fees 20,000 200,000 - - - - - - - - - - - - 220,000 - 15,000 - 235,000 96 0
97 CAPITALIZED RESERVES 0
98 Operating Reserve 3 months - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 183,290 - 183,290 - - - - - - 183,290 0 99 Transition Reserve - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0 100 Other Reserve - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0 101 Total Reserves - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 183,290 - 183,290 102 0
103 REPORTS & STUDIES 0
104 Market Study 10,000 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 10,000 - - 10,000 10,000 - - - - - - 0 105 Appraisal 10,000 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 10,000 - - 10,000 10,000 - - - - - - 0 106 Environmental 22,500 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 22,500 - - 22,500 22,500 - - - - - - 0 107 Preconstruction Studies 13,000 7,500 - - - - - - - - - - - - 20,500 - - 20,500 20,500 - - - - - - 0 108 Other: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0 109 Total Reports & Studies 55,500 7,500 - - - - - - - - - - - - 63,000 - - - 63,000 110 0
111 OTHER 0
112 Local Permit Fees $4,965/unit 73,000 284,500 - - - - - - - - - - - - 357,500 357,500 357,500 - - - - - - 0 113 Local Development Impact Fees $17,699/unit 0 1,274,354 - - - - - - - - - - - - 1,274,354 - 1,274,354 1,274,354 - - - - - - 0 114 Accounting/Reimbursable/Cost Certification 25,000 15,000 1,000 2,500 2,500 2,500 1,500 - - - - - - - 50,000 27,500 77,500 - 77,500 0 115 Financial Consulting/App Prep/Review (SA) 0 100,000 - - - - - - - - - - - - 100,000 100,000 100,000 - - - - - - 0 116 Entitlement Services and CM (SA) 0 100,000 7,500 18,750 18,750 18,750 11,250 - - - - - - - 175,000 175,000 - - - - - - 175,000 0 117 Tenant File Review 0 - - - - - - - - - - 0
118 GP Service Fee 0 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 - - - - - - 0 119 Marketing & Lease Up 0 - 65,000 65,000 - - - - - 65,000 - 0 120 Prevailing Wage / Labor Compliance 0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0 121 FF&E 0 - 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 - - - - - - 0
122 Other: 0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0 123 Total Other Costs 98,000 1,798,854 8,500 21,250 21,250 21,250 37,750 - - - - - - - 2,006,854 92,500 - - 2,099,354 124 0
125 DEVELOPER COSTS 0
126 Developer Fee 500,000 - - - - - - - - - - - 500,000 500,000 1,350,000 150,000 2,500,000 2,249,120 65,989 184,891 - - - - 0 127 Other - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0 128 Total Developer Costs - 500,000 - - - - - - - - - - - - 500,000 500,000 1,350,000 150,000 2,500,000 129
130
131 Total Uses of Funds 867,820 5,716,421 2,961,844 7,331,642 7,395,373 7,472,612 4,726,042 - - - - - - - 36,471,754 1,299,760 1,482,400 150,000 39,403,914 33,799,618 797,678 2,294,901 209,700 - 772,260 1,529,757 132 Net Source & Use - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 133 Distributions - -
134 Balance of Funds - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
$39,403,914 39,403,914
Basis Sheet Depreciable Basis (Terms) Method # Years Depr Basis Annual Depr 0 Real Property 100.0% S/L 30.00 33,799,618 1,126,654
Depreciation Sch Real Property 0.0% S/L 40.00 - -
0 Personal Property 100.0% DDB 5.00 797,678
Personal Property 0.0% S/L 12.00 - -
Site Improvements 100.0% DDB 15.00 2,294,901
Site Improvements 0.0% S/L 20.00 - -
15.b
Packet Pg. 315 Attachment: Project Description (6323 : HOME Grant Application Resolution for Palo Fierro)
PALO FIERRO
Estimate of LIHTC Basis Calculation
0% 100%
ACTUAL OR EST. ACQ NC/REHAB
DESCRIPTION OF COSTS OF COSTS ELIGIBLE BASIS ELIGIBLE BASIS
ACQUISITION
Land Cost $ 952,857
Building Cost $ - $ -
Broker Fees $ -
Site Improvement Purchase $ - $ -
Offiste Improvement Purchase $ - $ -
Other Land Related Expenses / Option Pmnt $ 10,000
Other Closing Costs $ -
TOTAL LAND/AQUISITION COSTS $ 962,857 $ - $ -
RELOCATION
Relocation Admin And Temp Relocation $ -
Permanent Relocation Expense $ -
TOTAL RELOCATION COSTS $ -
NEW CONSTRUCTION
Demolition $ -
Design Assistance $ 450,000 $ 450,000
Off-site Improvements $ 250,000 $ 250,000
Site Work $ 1,080,000 $ 1,080,000
Solar $ 360,000 $ 360,000
Parking Garage $ - $ -
Vertical $ 20,936,923 $ 20,936,923
Commercial incl. fees $ - $ -
GC Contingency $ 1,153,846 $ 1,153,846
General Requirements $ 969,231 $ 969,231
Contractor Preconstruction Services $ 756,000 $ 756,000 Contractor Fees $ 1,764,000 $ 1,764,000
Design Contingency $ - $ -
Escalation $ - $ -
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION $ 27,720,000 $ - $ 27,720,000
ARCHITECTURAL FEES
Other Architectural $ 345,000 $ 345,000
Survey/Engineering $ 823,625 $ 823,625
Other: $ - $ -
TOTAL ARCHITECTURAL COSTS $ 1,168,625 $
- $ 1,168,625
CONTINGENCY COSTS
Hard Cost Contingency $ 1,386,000 $ 1,386,000
Soft Cost Contingency $ 259,847 $ 259,847
TOTAL CONTINGENCY COSTS $ 1,645,847 $ - $ 1,645,847
CONSTRUCTION PERIOD EXPENSES
Construction Loan Interest $ 1,810,699 $ 1,103,439
Private Placement Junior Bond Interest $ - $ -
Soft Loan Interest $ - $ -
Predevelopment Loan Interest $ 36,741 $ 36,741
Origination/Application Fee $ 225,191 $ 168,893
Subordinate/Soft Debt Origination Fee $ - $ -
Lender Reports and Inspections $ 47,500 $ 47,500
Title/Recording/Taxes $ 40,000 $ 30,000
Insurance During Construction $ 500,000 $ 375,000
Construction Mgmt and Monitoring $ - $ -
Owner Requirements $ - $ -
Other: $ - $ -
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION PERIOD EXPENSE $ 2,660,132 $ - $ 1,761,573
15.b
Packet Pg. 316 Attachment: Project Description (6323 : HOME Grant Application Resolution for Palo Fierro)
PALO FIERRO
Estimate of LIHTC Basis Calculation
PERMANENT FINANCING EXPENSES
Loan Origination Fees $ 29,700
Title/Recording/Taxes $ 5,000
Insurance $ -
Other: Bond/Issuer/FA fees $ -
Other: LIHTC fees $ 131,110
TOTAL PERMANENT FINANCING COSTS $ 165,810 $ - $ -
LEGAL FEES
Lender Legal $ 60,000 $ 33,750
Sponsor Legal $ 175,000 $ 57,750
TOTAL LEGAL $ 235,000 $ - $ 91,500
CAPITALIZED RESERVES
Operating Reserve $ 183,290
Transition Reserve $ -
Other Reserve $ -
TOTAL RESERVE COSTS $ 183,290
REPORTS & STUDIES
Market Study $ 10,000 $ 10,000
Appraisal $ 10,000 $ 10,000
Environmental $ 22,500 $ 22,500
Preconstruction Studies $ 20,500 $ 20,500
Other: $ - $ -
TOTAL REPORTS & STUDIES $ 63,000 $ - $ 63,000
OTHER EXPENSES
Local Permit Fees $ 357,500 $ 357,500
Local Development Impact Fees $ 1,274,354 $ 1,274,354
Accounting/Reimbursable/Cost Certification $ 77,500 $ 77,500 Financial Consulting/App Prep/Review (SA) $ 100,000 $ 100,000 Entitlement Services and CM (SA) $ 175,000 $ 175,000
Tenant File Review $ - $ -
GP Service Fee $ 25,000
Marketing & Lease Up $ 65,000
Prevailing Wage / Labor Compliance $ - $ -
FF&E $ 25,000 $ 25,000
Other: $ - $ -
TOTAL OTHER COSTS $ 2,099,354 $ - $ 2,009,354
DEVELOPER COSTS
Developer Fee Limit - Per TCAC Application $ 2,500,000 $ - $ 2,500,000 Developer Fee Calculation $ 5,168,984.85 $
- $ 5,168,985
Developer Fee $ 2,500,000 $ - $ 2,500,000
TOTAL DEVELOPER FEE $ 2,500,000 $ - $ 2,500,000
TOTAL RESIDENTIAL COSTS $ 39,403,914 $ - $ 36,959,899
REDUCE BY TOTAL COMMERCIAL COSTS $ - $ -
TOTAL RESIDENTIAL PROJECT $ 39,403,914 $ - $ 36,959,899 Adjustment for Excess Basis $ -
Additional Amount Voluntarily Excluded From Basis $ - $ 15,592,378 Requested Undadjusted Eligible Basis $ - $ 21,367,521
130% FACTOR? Tract #: 112.02Y $ 27,777,778
Total Adjusted Qualified Basis $ - $ 27,777,778
TX CREDITS @ % LI Eligible@ Tx Credit Rt 100.00% 4.00% 9.00% TX CREDITS @ % LI Eligible $ - $ 2,500,000
TX CREDITS OVER TEN YEARS $ - $ 25,000,000
TX CREDIT EQUITY INVESTMENT $ 0.8800 99.99% $ 21,997,800 State Tax Credits 30.00% $ - $ -
State Tax Credit Equity $ 0.8800 100.00% $ -
Solar Credits 30.00% $ 410,400
Solar Equity $ 0.8800 99.99% $ 108,335
15.b
Packet Pg. 317 Attachment: Project Description (6323 : HOME Grant Application Resolution for Palo Fierro) PALO FIERRO Revision Date: 3/25/2024
Detailed Operating Budget and Income Analysis
TCAC Min 2022
12/1/2022 IVHA
Square Total Gross Rent Utility Monthly Annual RA Contract Annual Annual Rent: Restriction %AMI Units Feet/Unit Sq. Ft. Rents Adjustment Allowance Net Rent Rent Rent Units Overhang Overhang / TCAC 1BR/1BA LIHTC 60% 11 590 6,490 $ 928 $ - $ 32.96 $ 895 $ 118,145 $ 904 - $ - $ - 1BR/1BA LIHTC 50% 0 590 0 $ 773 $ - $ 32.96 $ 740 $ - $ 904 - $ - $ - 1BR/1BA LIHTC 40% 0 590 0 $ 619 $ - $ 32.96 $ 586 $ - $ 904 - $ - $ - 1BR/1BA LIHTC 30% 5 590 2,950 $ 464 $ - $ 32.96 $ 431 $ 25,862 $ 904 2.00 $ 11,351 $ 7,631 1BR/1BA MGR Mgr. 0 590 0 $ - $ - $ 32.96 $ - $ -
2BR/1BA LIHTC 60% 19 757 14,383 $ 1,113 $ - $ 37.26 $ 1,076 $ 245,269 $ 1,155 - $ - $ - 2BR/1BA LIHTC 50% 0 757 0 $ 928 $ - $ 37.26 $ 891 $ - $ 1,155 - $ - $ - 2BR/1BA LIHTC 40% 0 757 0 $ 742 $ - $ 37.26 $ 705 $ - $ 1,155 - $ - $ - 2BR/1BA LIHTC 30% 12 757 9,084 $ 557 $ - $ 37.26 $ 520 $ 74,843 $ 1,155 3.00 $ 22,869 $ 16,209 2BR/1BA MGR Mgr. 1 757 757 $ - $ - $ 37.26 $ - $ -
3BR/2BA LIHTC 60% 15 937 14,055 $ 1,287 $ - $ 41.63 $ 1,245 $ 224,167 $ 1,606 - $ - $ - 3BR/2BA LIHTC 50% 0 937 0 $ 1,073 $ - $ 41.63 $ 1,031 $ - $ 1,606 - $ - $ - 3BR/2BA LIHTC 40% 0 937 0 $ 858 $ - $ 41.63 $ 816 $ - $ 1,606 - $ - $ - 3BR/2BA LIHTC 30% 9 937 8,433 $ 644 $ - $ 41.63 $ 602 $ 65,056 $ 1,606 3.00 $ 36,131 $ 28,427 3BR/2BA MGR Mgr. 0 937 0 $ - $ - $ 41.63 $ - $ -
Total Rents 72 56,152 753,342 RA Total 8 70,351 52,267
Community Room/Office 2,500 % Loss to Efficiency 15% 8,798 Construction Square Feet 58,652
default 40% AMI
(use 30% AMI for
SN)
2023
Imperial County
$41,250
Year
MSA
4 Person 50% AMI
Expenses Source
UA source
Other
15.b
Packet Pg. 318 Attachment: Project Description (6323 : HOME Grant Application Resolution for Palo Fierro) PALO FIERRO Revision Date: 3/25/2024
Detailed Operating Budget and Income Analysis
Income from Operations PUPM
Total Rents 753,342
Laundry $ 10.00 8,640
Other Income (App. Fees, Late, etc.) $ 10.00 8,640
Sub-Total $ 20.00 770,622
Rental Assistance 70,351
Less: Vacancies @ 5% 42,049
Commercial Income $ - PSF RENT 0 Commercial SF 0
Less: Vacancies @ 50% 0
Total Income 798,924
Operating Expenses PUPA MANUAL INPUT
Admin $ 500 36,000
Management Fee $ 600 43,200
Utilities $ 1,000 72,000
Payroll $ 1,350 97,200
Repair & Maintenance $ 850 61,200
Insurance $ 620 44,640
Taxes (HOA, CFD) $ 35 2,520
Additional expense $ - 0
Total Expenses $ 4,955 4700 min for TCAC IE LF no elev w/out taxes 356,760 Commercial Expenses $ - psf 0
Net Operating Income 442,164
Reserves $500.00/unit 36,000
Services $278/unit 20,000
Other Annual Cost HOME Loan fee 17,304
Issuer and Monitoring Fees 0.000% 0 minimum 0 per unit monitoring fee 0 Soft Loan Payments 0.000% 0
Net Income Available for Debt Service 368,860
DSC TEST 1.15000
N/A
Tranche B
0 7.50%
35 35
1.15 29
348
48,112
0 Loan Type:
Loan Sizing
Notes
Loan Amount
Interest
Term
Amortization
Max Loan Amount 0
Debt Service Coverage
Monthly Payment
Annual Payment
Cash Flow After D/S
1.15 26,700
320,400
48,460
7.50%
17 35
Private
Tranche A
3,960,000
15.b
Packet Pg. 319 Attachment: Project Description (6323 : HOME Grant Application Resolution for Palo Fierro) B
- "
_
_,
a a a
====
====
f---------L--�
JACARANDA
. GARDENS
JACARANDA
GARDENS
WA TE RMAN A VE NUE
Palo Fierro
SCHEMATIC ELEVATION
CHELSEA INVESTMENT CORPORATION
c:::i�
CHELSEA
INVl!STMl'NT CCl'IFCIF'IATION
THE McKINLEY ASSOC., INC.
ARCHITECTURE & PLANNING
JUNE 02, 2021
B BB
15.b
Packet Pg. 320 Attachment: Project Description (6323 : HOME Grant Application Resolution for Palo Fierro)
15.b
Packet Pg. 321 Attachment: Project Description (6323 : HOME Grant Application Resolution for Palo Fierro)
15.b
Packet Pg. 322 Attachment: Project Description (6323 : HOME Grant Application Resolution for Palo Fierro)
15.b
Packet Pg. 323 Attachment: Project Description (6323 : HOME Grant Application Resolution for Palo Fierro)
15.b
Packet Pg. 324 Attachment: Project Description (6323 : HOME Grant Application Resolution for Palo Fierro)
15.b
Packet Pg. 325 Attachment: Project Description (6323 : HOME Grant Application Resolution for Palo Fierro)
15.b
Packet Pg. 326 Attachment: Project Description (6323 : HOME Grant Application Resolution for Palo Fierro)
15.c
Packet Pg. 327 Attachment: Site Plan and Elevations (6323 : HOME Grant Application Resolution for Palo Fierro)
15.c
Packet Pg. 328 Attachment: Site Plan and Elevations (6323 : HOME Grant Application Resolution for Palo Fierro)
15.c
Packet Pg. 329 Attachment: Site Plan and Elevations (6323 : HOME Grant Application Resolution for Palo Fierro)
15.c
Packet Pg. 330 Attachment: Site Plan and Elevations (6323 : HOME Grant Application Resolution for Palo Fierro)
15.c
Packet Pg. 331 Attachment: Site Plan and Elevations (6323 : HOME Grant Application Resolution for Palo Fierro)
15.c
Packet Pg. 332 Attachment: Site Plan and Elevations (6323 : HOME Grant Application Resolution for Palo Fierro) City Council of the City of El Centro Meeting: 04/02/24 11:30 AM 1275 Main Street Department: City Clerk's Office
El Centro, CA 92243 Category: Alcoholic Beverage License Prepared By: Norma Valenzuela
SCHEDULED Department Head: Norma Wyles
INFORMATION ITEM (ID # 6318) DOC ID: 6318
Received and referred to Community Development
Department, Application for Alcoholic Beverage License2600 Thomas DR. STE #2 El Centro, CA 92243-7507 ATTACHMENTS:
• Application for Alcoholic Beverage License MaLupe's Restaurant, Inc. (PDF) 16 Packet Pg. 333
16.a
Packet Pg. 334 Attachment: Application for Alcoholic Beverage License MaLupe's Restaurant, Inc. (6318 : Application for Alcoholic Beverage License
16.a
Packet Pg. 335 Attachment: Application for Alcoholic Beverage License MaLupe's Restaurant, Inc. (6318 : Application for Alcoholic Beverage License City Council of the City of El Centro Meeting: 04/02/24 11:30 AM 1275 Main Street Department: City Clerk's Office
El Centro, CA 92243 Category: Alcoholic Beverage License Prepared By: Norma Valenzuela
SCHEDULED Department Head: Norma Wyles
INFORMATION ITEM (ID # 6325) DOC ID: 6325
Received and referred to Community Development
Department, Application for Alcoholic Beverage LicenseURSA Hospitality LLC URSA 612 & 614 W Main St El Centro, CA 92243-2920
ATTACHMENTS:
• APPLICATION FOR ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE LICENSE URSA HOPITALITY LLC (PDF) 17 Packet Pg. 336
17.a
Packet Pg. 337 Attachment: APPLICATION FOR ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE LICENSE URSA HOPITALITY LLC (6325 : Application for Alcoholic Beverage License
17.a
Packet Pg. 338 Attachment: APPLICATION FOR ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE LICENSE URSA HOPITALITY LLC (6325 : Application for Alcoholic Beverage License