INTEGRATED REGIONALINFRASTRUCTURE STRATEGY (IRIS)

TECHNICAL APPENDICES

An Element of the RCP

July, 2004

BOARD OF DIRECTORS

The 18 cities and county government are SANDAG serving as the forum for regional decision-making. The Association builds consensus, makes

strategic plans, obtains and allocates resources, and provides information on a broad range of topics pertinent to the region’s quality of life.

CHAIR: Hon. Mickey Cafagna VICE CHAIR: Hon. Mary Sessom

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: Gary L. Gallegos

CITY OF CARLSBADHon. Ramona Finnila, Mayor Pro Tem (A) Hon. Bud Lewis, Mayor (A) Hon. Matt Hall, Councilmember

CITY OF CHULA VISTAHon. Steve Padilla, Mayor (A) Hon. Patty Davis, Councilmember (A) Hon. Jerry Rindone, Councilmember

CITY OF CORONADOHon. Phil Monroe, Mayor Pro Tem (A) Hon. Frank Tierney, Councilmember

CITY OF DEL MARHon. Crystal Crawford, Councilmember (A) Hon. Richard Earnest, Mayor(A) Hon. David Druker, Councilmember

CITY OF EL CAJONHon. Mark Lewis, Mayor (A) Hon. Gary Kendrick, Mayor Pro Tem

CITY OF ENCINITASHon. Christy Guerin, Councilmember (A) Hon. Maggie Houlihan, Mayor

CITY OF ESCONDIDOHon. Lori Holt Pfeiler, Mayor (A) Hon. Ed Gallo, Councilmember (A) Hon. Ron Newman, Councilmember

CITY OF IMPERIAL BEACHHon. Patricia McCoy, Mayor Pro Tem (A) Hon. Diane Rose, Mayor (A) Hon. Mayda Winter, Councilmember

CITY OF LA MESAHon. Barry Jantz, Councilmember(A) Hon. David Allan, Councilmember (A) Hon. Ernie Ewin, Vice Mayor

CITY OF LEMON GROVEHon. Mary Sessom, Mayor (A) Hon. Jill Greer, Mayor Pro Tem(A) Hon. Jerry Jones, Councilmember

CITY OF NATIONAL CITYHon. Ron Morrison, Councilmember (A) Hon. Frank Parra, Deputy Mayor

CITY OF OCEANSIDEHon. Jack Feller, Councilmember (A) Hon. Terry Johnson, Mayor

CITY OF POWAYHon. Mickey Cafagna, Mayor (A) Hon. Don Higginson, Deputy Mayor (A) Hon. Robert Emery, Councilmember

CITY OF SAN DIEGOHon. Dick Murphy, Mayor Hon. Jim Madaffer, Councilmember (A) Hon. Scott Peters, Councilmember

CITY OF SAN MARCOSHon. Corky Smith, Mayor (A) Hon. Pia Harris-Ebert, Councilmember

CITY OF SANTEEHon. Hal Ryan, Councilmember (A) Hon. Randy Voepel, Mayor (A) Hon. Jack Dale, Councilmember

CITY OF SOLANA BEACHHon Joe Kellejian, Mayor (A) Hon. David Powell, Councilmember

CITY OF VISTAHon. Morris Vance, Mayor (A) Hon. Judy Ritter, Councilmember (A) Hon. Bob Campbell, Councilmember

COUNTY OF SAN DIEGOHon. Dianne Jacob, Chairwoman (A) Hon. Greg Cox, Supervisor

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION(Advisory Member) Jeff Morales, Director (A) Pedro Orso-Delgado, District 11 Director

METROPOLITAN TRANSIT SYSTEM (Advisory Member) Leon Williams, Chairman (A) Hon. Jerry Rindone, Vice Chairman(A) Hon. Bob Emery, Board Member

NORTH SAN DIEGO COUNTY TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT BOARD (Advisory Member) Hon. Judy Ritter, Chair (A) Hon. Tom Golich, Board Member (A) Hon. Ed Gallo, Board Member

IMPERIAL COUNTY(Advisory Member) Hon. Victor Carrillo, Supervisor (A) Hon. David Ouzan, Mayor

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE(Advisory Member) CAPT Christopher Schanze, USN, CEC Commander, Southwest Division Naval Facilities Engineering Command (A) CAPT Richard Gamble, USN, CEC

SAN DIEGO UNIFIED PORT DISTRICT(Advisory Member) Jess Van Deventer, Commissioner (A) Michael Bixler, Commissioner (A) Peter Q. Davis, Commissioner

SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY (Advisory Member) Hon. Bud Lewis, Director(A) Bernie Rhinerson, Director

BAJA CALIFORNIA/MEXICO(Advisory Member) Hon. Luis Cabrera Cuaron Consul General of Mexico

As of July 1, 2004

iii

ABSTRACT

TITLE: Integrated Regional Infrastructure Strategy (IRIS) andTechnical Appendices (An element of the RegionalComprehensive Plan)

AUTHOR: San Diego Association of Governments

DATE: July, 2004

SOURCE OF COPIES: San Diego Association of Governments

401 B Street, Suite 800 San Diego, CA 92101 (619) 699-1900

NUMBER OF PAGES: 348

ABSTRACT: The Integrated Regional Infrastructure Strategy (IRIS) is akey element of the Regional Comprehensive Plan (RCP), thelong term planning framework for the San Diego region.

The IRIS provides a forward looking investment andfinancing strategy that will help the San Diego region meetits collective infrastructure needs. The IRIS emphasizescollaboration, relying on incentives and competition toachieve our urban form and design goals.

One of the goals of the RCP is to create an urban form thatchannels much of the region’s future growth into existingurban (incorporated) communities where infrastructurefacilities and services are already in place. Channelinggrowth in these areas will help preserve and protect the lifestyle and sensitive environment of our rural(unincorporated) areas. The IRIS provides a strategy foraccomplishing this goal by helping to enable sustainable,smart growth development.

The Integrated Regional Infrastructure Strategy (IRIS) element is located in two places in the RCP: Chapter 7 andthe RCP technical appendices.

iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The Integrated Regional Infrastructure Strategy (IRIS) was prepared with the cooperation and assistance of numerous individuals and agencies throughout the region. Staff from the planning, facility planning, and utility departments of the region’s jurisdictions were integral in assisting with the data collection. In addition, staff from each of the eight regional infrastructure providers reviewed drafts of the work and provided guidance, information and assistance.

More specifically, we would like to thank the following agencies for their direct participation in the IRIS:

Transportation: San Diego County Regional Airport Authority San Diego Unified Port District

Water: Olivenhain Municipal Water District San Diego County Water Authority Sweetwater Authority Vallecitos Water District Vista Irrigation District

Wastewater: City of San Diego Metropolitan Wastewater Department

Storm Water: County of San Diego – Department of Public Works

Solid Waste: County of San Diego - Department of Public Works City of San Diego, Environmental Services Department

Energy: San Diego Gas and Electric San Diego Regional Energy Office Utility Consumers’ Acton Network (UCAN)

Education: Grossmont-Cuyamaca Community College District San Diego County Office of Education San Diego Miramar College Southwestern Community College District University of California, San Diego – Government and Community Relations

v

Parks and Open Space: City of Carlsbad– Parks and Recreation Department City of Encinitas – Parks and Recreation Department City of Lemon Grove – Parks and Recreation Department City of Poway – Development Services City of San Diego– Parks and Recreation Department City of San Diego – MSCP Program City of Santee – Development Services County of San Diego

General: San Diego Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO)

Consultant: Jun Onaka, Onaka Planning and Economics Steve Sachs

SANDAG STAFF: Gary Gallegos Tom Larwin Eric Pahlke Marney Cox Bob Leiter Carolina Gregor Matthew Eary Sue Carnevale Janet Fairbanks Melyssa Guerry Mike Hix John Hofmockel Rob Rundle Shelby Tucker Nan Valerio Rosalind Lates Patrick Carter Michael Soto Heidi Voltz Pam Albers Laura Mays Tom Neel Joy De Korte Lori Greenberg

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................................3

PURPOSE OF TECHNICAL APPENDICES .......................................................................................4 EIGHT INFRASTRUCTURE AREAS ANALYZED .............................................................................5

Infrastructure Criteria...............................................................................................................5 IRIS Infrastructure Areas...........................................................................................................5

A.1. TRANSPORTATION.................................................................................................................9

HIGHWAYS, ARTERIALS AND TRANSIT.......................................................................................9 I. Introduction/Description of Infrastructure System.......................................................9 II. Responsibilities and Controlling Legislation...............................................................10 III. Operations and Maintenance (FY 2003)......................................................................12 IV. Capital Improvement Programs ...................................................................................13 V. Projected Long-Term Need...........................................................................................14 VI. Relationship of Facility Planning to Local General Plans and Land Use ...................16 VII. Public Policy/Financing Issues and Strategies ..............................................................17

AVIATION....................................................................................................................................20 I. Introduction/Description of Infrastructure System......................................................20 II. Responsibilities and Controlling Legislation................................................................20 III. Operations and Maintenance (FY 2003) ......................................................................21 IV. Capital Improvement Programs....................................................................................22 V. Projected Long-Term Need ...........................................................................................22 VI. Public Policy/Financing Issues and Strategies...............................................................23

MARITIME PORT.........................................................................................................................24 I. Introduction/Description of Infrastructure System......................................................24 II. Responsibilities and Controlling Legislation................................................................24 III. Operations and Maintenance (FY 2003) ......................................................................25 IV. Capital Improvement Programs....................................................................................26 V. Projected Long-Term Need ...........................................................................................26 VI. Public Policy/Financing Issues and Strategies...............................................................27

PORTS OF ENTRY WITH MEXICO...............................................................................................28 I. Introduction/Description of Infrastructure System......................................................28 II. Responsibilities and Controlling Legislation................................................................29 III. Operations and Maintenance (FY 2003) ......................................................................30 IV. Capital Improvement Programs....................................................................................30 V. Projected Long-Term Need ...........................................................................................31 VI. Public Policy/Financing Issues and Strategies...............................................................33

vii

A.2. WATER SUPPLY AND DELIVERY SYSTEM ...........................................................................85

I. Introduction/Description of Infrastructure System......................................................85 II. Responsibilities and Controlling Legislation................................................................85 III. Operations and Maintenance (FY 2003) ......................................................................87 IV. Capital Improvement Programs....................................................................................88 V. Projected Long-Term Need ...........................................................................................89 VI. Relationship of Facility Planning to Local General Plans and Land Use ....................90 VII. Public Policy/Financing Issues and Strategies...............................................................90

A.3. WASTEWATER (SEWAGE COLLECTION, TREATMENT AND DISCHARGE SYSTEM) ........141

I. Introduction/Description of Infrastructure System....................................................141 II. Responsibilities and Controlling Legislation..............................................................146 III. Operations and Maintenance (FY 2003) ....................................................................142 IV. Capital Improvement Programs..................................................................................143 V. Projected Long-Term Need .........................................................................................146 VI. Relationship of Facility Planning to Local General Plans and Land Use ..................146 VII. Public Policy/Financing Issues and Strategies.............................................................147

A.4. STORM WATER MANAGEMENT .......................................................................................181

I. Introduction/Description of Infrastructure System....................................................181 II. Responsibilities and Controlling Legislation..............................................................182 III. Operations and Maintenance (FY 2003) ....................................................................185 IV. Capital Improvement Programs..................................................................................186 V. Projected Long-Term Need .........................................................................................187 VI. Relationship of Facility Planning to Local General Plans and Land Use ..................187 VII. Public Policy/Financing Issues and Strategies.............................................................188

A.5. SOLID WASTE COLLECTION, RECYCLING AND DISPOSAL ...............................................209

I. Introduction/Description of Infrastructure System....................................................209 II. Responsibilities and Controlling Legislation..............................................................210 III. Operations and Maintenance (FY 2003) ....................................................................211 IV. Capital Improvement Programs..................................................................................212 V. Projected Long-Term Need .........................................................................................213 VI. Public Policy/Financing Issues and Strategies.............................................................214

A.6. ENERGY SUPPLY AND DELIVERY SYSTEM .......................................................................229

I. Introduction/Description of Infrastructure System....................................................229 II. Responsibilities and Controlling Legislation..............................................................230 III. Operations and Maintenance (FY 2003) ....................................................................233 IV. Capital Improvement Programs..................................................................................234 V. Projected Long-Term Need .........................................................................................235 VI. Public Policy/Financing Issues and Strategies.............................................................237

viii

A.7. EDUCATION........................................................................................................................253

K-12 EDUCATION .....................................................................................................................253 I. Introduction/Description of Infrastructure System....................................................253 II. Responsibilities and Controlling Legislation..............................................................254 III. Operations and Maintenance (FY 2003) ....................................................................257 IV. Capital Improvement Programs..................................................................................257 V. Projected Long-Term Need .........................................................................................259 VI. Relationship of Facility Planning to Local General Plan and Land Use....................260 VII. Public Policy/Financing Issues and Strategies.............................................................260

COMMUNITY COLLEGES..........................................................................................................262I. Introduction/Description of Community College System .........................................262 II. Responsibilities and Controlling Legislation..............................................................263 III. Operations and Maintenance (FY 2003) ....................................................................264 IV. Capital Improvement Programs..................................................................................265 V. Projected Long-Term Need .........................................................................................266 VI. Relationship of Facility Planning to Local General Plan and Land Use....................267 VII. Public Policy/Financing Issues and Strategies.............................................................268

PUBLIC UNIVERSITIES (UC AND CSU) ......................................................................................269 I. Introduction/Description of Higher Education System .............................................269 II. Responsibilities and Controlling Legislation..............................................................270 III. Operations and Maintenance (FY 2003) ....................................................................271 IV. Capital Improvement Programs..................................................................................272 V. Projected Long-Term Need .........................................................................................273 VI. Relationship of Facility Planning to Local General Plan and Land Use....................274 VII. Public Policy/Financing Issues and Strategies.............................................................274

A.8. PARKS AND OPEN SPACE ..................................................................................................305

PARK AND RECREATION FACILITIES .......................................................................................305 I. Introduction/Description of Infrastructure System....................................................305 II. Responsibilities and Controlling Legislation..............................................................306 III. Operations and Maintenance (FY 2003) ....................................................................306 IV. Capital Improvement Programs..................................................................................307 V. Projected Long-Term Need .........................................................................................307 VI. Relationship of Facility Planning to Local General Plan and Land Use....................309 VII. Public Policy/Financing Issues and Strategies.............................................................309

SHORELINE PRESERVATION.....................................................................................................310 I. Introduction/Description of Infrastructure System....................................................310 II. Responsibilities and Controlling Legislation..............................................................310 III. Operations and Maintenance (FY 2003) ....................................................................311 IV. Projected Long-Term Need/Capital Improvement Programs....................................311 V. Public Policy/Financing Issues and Strategies.............................................................312

HABITAT CONSERVATION .......................................................................................................312 I. Introduction/Description of Conservation Programs ................................................312 II. Responsibilities and Controlling Legislation..............................................................314 III. Operations and Maintenance (FY 2003) ....................................................................314 IV. Capital Improvement Programs..................................................................................315

ix

V. Projected Long-Term Need .........................................................................................315 VI. Public Policy/Financing Issues and Strategies.............................................................316

A.9 APPENDIX REFERENCES.....................................................................................................343

I. General .........................................................................................................................343 II. Transportation .............................................................................................................344 III. Water Supply and Delivery System.............................................................................345 IV. Wastewater (Sewage Collection, Treatment and Discharge System) ......................345 V. Storm Water Management .........................................................................................346 VI. Solid Waste Collection, Recycling and Disposal.........................................................346 VII. Energy Supply and Delivery System ...........................................................................346 VIII. Education .....................................................................................................................347IX. Parks and Open Space .................................................................................................348

x

LIST OF EXHIBITS

A.1 TRANSPORTATION.................................................................................................................9

Exhibit 1 Existing Regionally Significant Arterial Network.........................................35

Exhibit 2 Existing Regional Transit Service...................................................................36

Exhibit 3 Streets and Transit Operations and Maintenance Revenues and Expenditures, FY 2003....................................................................................37

Exhibit 4 Transportation Operations and Maintenance, FY 2003 ..............................38

Exhibit 5 Summary of Capital Improvement Programs, Highway and Streets, FY 2003 to 2007 ................................................................................40

Exhibit 6 Transit and Highways Capital Projects..........................................................41

Exhibit 7 Subregional Transportation Infrastructure ..................................................60

Exhibit 8 Community Infrastructure Planning Areas...................................................61

Exhibit 9 Vehicle Miles Traveled and Population Projected Growth, 2003 – 2030 .....................................................................................................64

Exhibit 10 Summary of Capital Improvement Programs, Projected Categories FY 2003 to 2030 ...........................................................................65

Exhibit 11 2030 Mobility Network ..................................................................................66

Exhibit 12 2030 Regionally Significant Arterial Network..............................................67

Exhibit 13 Mobility 2030: Regional Transportation Plan Revenues and Expenditures, FY 2002 – 2030........................................................................68

Exhibit 14 Airport and Maritime Port Facilities .............................................................69

Exhibit 15 San Diego International Airport and San Diego Unified Port District: Operations and Maintenance Revenues and Expenditures, FY 2002 – 2003........................................................................70

Exhibit 16 San Diego International Airport and San Diego Unified Port District Operations and Maintenance Revenues and Expenditures, FY 2003....................................................................................71

Exhibit 17 San Diego International Airport Capital Projects ........................................72

Exhibit 18 Total Annual Enplanements and Population Projected Growth 2003 – 2030 ....................................................................................................74

Exhibit 19 Summary of Capital Improvement Programs, San Diego Unified Port District FY 2003 to 2007 .........................................................................75

Exhibit 20 San Diego Unified Port District Capital Projects ..........................................76

xi

Exhibit 21 Total Annual Maritime Cargo Tonnage and Population Projected Growth, 2003 – 2030 .....................................................................78

Exhibit 22 San Diego Region/Baja California Ports of Entry .........................................79

Exhibit 23 Ports of Entry Capital Projects .......................................................................80

Exhibit 24 Total Annual Passenger Car Equivalents (Border Crossings) and Population Projected Growth 2003 – 2030...................................................81

A.2 WATER SUPPLY AND DELIVERY SYSTEM ...........................................................................85

Exhibit 1 Water Service Districts ...................................................................................93

Exhibit 2 Water Service Districts in San Diego County ................................................94

Exhibit 3 Local Water Agencies in San Diego County .................................................95

Exhibit 4 San Diego County Water Authority Operations and Maintenance Revenues and Expenditures, FY 2002 – 2003 ........................96

Exhibit 5 Water Agencies’ Operations and Maintenance, FY 2003............................97

Exhibit 6 Water Infrastructure Distribution of Subregional CIP Expenditures, FY 2003....................................................................................98

Exhibit 7 Community Infrastructure Planning Areas...................................................99

Exhibit 8 Summary of Capital Improvement Programs Water Supply and Distribution, FY 2003 to 2007......................................................................102

Exhibit 9 Water Capital Projects .................................................................................103

Exhibit 10 Regional Population Outpaces Growth in Water Demand Projected Growth, 2003 – 2030 ...................................................................137

A.2 WASTEWATER (SEWAGE COLLECTION, TREATMENT AND DISCHARGE SYSTEM .........141

Exhibit 1 Wastewater Service Districts........................................................................149

Exhibit 2 Wastewater Agencies in San Diego County ...............................................150

Exhibit 3 Wastewater Treatment Plan Capacities......................................................151

Exhibit 4 Wastewater Treatment Capacity and Flow in San Diego County, 2002.................................................................................................152

Exhibit 5 City of San Diego Metropolitan Wastewater Department Operations and Maintenance Revenues and Expenditures, FY 2003..........................................................................................................154

Exhibit 6 Wastewater Agencies Excluding Metropolitan Wastewater Operations and Maintenance Revenues and Expenditures, FY 2003..........................................................................................................155

Exhibit 7 Wastewater Operations and Maintenance Revenues and Expenditures in San Diego County, FY 2003 ..............................................156

Exhibit 8 Wastewater Infrastructure Distribution of Subregional CIP Expenditures, FY 2003..................................................................................157

Exhibit 9 Community Infrastructure Planning Areas.................................................158

Exhibit 10 Summary of Capital Improvement Programs, Wastewater Collection and Treatment, FY 2003 to FY 2007..........................................161

xii

Exhibit 11 Wastewater Capital Projects, FY 2003 and Later .......................................162

Exhibit 12 Growth in Population and Wastewater Flow, 2003 – 2030 ......................177

A.4 Storm Water Management...............................................................................................181

Exhibit 1 San Diego Regional Watersheds .................................................................191

Exhibit 2 Jurisdictions and Agency Responsible for Storm Water Planning ............192

Exhibit 3 Major Watersheds in the San Diego Region ..............................................193

Exhibit 4 Storm Water Management Programs Operations and Maintenance Revenues and Expenditures, San Diego Region, FY 2002 – FY 2003.........................................................................................194

Exhibit 5 Storm Water Management Programs Operations and Maintenance Revenues and Expenditures, San Diego Region .................195

Exhibit 6 Storm Water Management Infrastructure Distribution of Subregional CIP Expenditures, FY 2003 ......................................................196

Exhibit 7 Community Infrastructure Planning Areas.................................................197

Exhibit 8 Summary of Capital Improvement Programs, Storm Water Management, FY 2003 to FY 2007..............................................................200

Exhibit 9 Storm Water Capital Projects ......................................................................201

A.5 Solid Waste Collection ......................................................................................................209

Exhibit 1 Solid Waste Landfills ....................................................................................216

Exhibit 2 Existing Landfills in San Diego County .......................................................217

Exhibit 3 Landfill Disposal Tonnages in San Diego County, 2001.............................218

Exhibit 4 Disposal Tonnage and Location, 1997 and 2001........................................219

Exhibit 5 Solid Waste Haulers in San Diego County ..................................................220

Exhibit 6 City of San Diego’s Environmental Services Operations and Maintenance Revenues and Expenditures, FY 2003 – 2003 .....................221

Exhibit 7 Solid Waste Operation and Maintenance Expenditures in San Diego County, FY 2003 ................................................................................222

Exhibit 8 Solid Waste Capital Projects ........................................................................223

Exhibit 9 Projected Annual Rate of Disposal in San Diego County ..........................224

Exhibit 10 Physical Landfill Capacity Projection in San Diego County .......................225

Exhibit 11 SANDAG Estimate of Solid Waste Generation and Population Projected Growth 2003 – 2030 ....................................................................226

A.6 Energy Supply and Delivery System .................................................................................229

Exhibit 1 SDG&E Service Area......................................................................................240

Exhibit 2 SDG&E Service Area and Simplified Transmission Topology.....................241

Exhibit 3 Energy Infrastructure Distribution of Subregional CIP Expenditures, FY 2003..................................................................................242

Exhibit 4 Community Infrastructure Planning Areas.................................................243

xiii

Exhibit 5 Summary of Capital Improvement Programs Energy Supply and Distribution, FY 2003 – 2007........................................................................246

Exhibit 6 San Diego Gas and Electric Subregional Electricity CIP Expenditures, ...............................................................................................247

Exhibit 7 SDG&E GAS CIP Expenditures ......................................................................248

Exhibit 8 Energy Demand Outpaces Projected Population Growth from 2003 – 2030 ...................................................................................................249

A.7 Energy Supply and Delivery System .................................................................................253

Exhibit 1 K – 12 School Districts ..................................................................................276

Exhibit 2 K – 12 School Districts and Enrollment Figures, San Diego Region, 2001 – 2002 .....................................................................................277

Exhibit 3 Higher Education..........................................................................................278

Exhibit 4 K – 12 School Districts in San Diego County Operating Budgets..............279

Exhibit 5 Summary of K – 12 School Districts Operating Budgets, FY 2003.............280

Exhibit 6 Summary of K – 12 School Deferred Maintenance, Budgets FY 2001...........................................................................................281

Exhibit 7 Institutions of Public Higher Education in San Diego County Operating Budgets, FY 2002 – 2003............................................................282

Exhibit 8 Summary of Operating Budgets of Public Higher Education Institutions, FY 2003.....................................................................................283

Exhibit 9 Education Infrastructure Distribution of Subregional (K – 12) CIP Expenditures FY 2003 ............................................................................284

Exhibit 10 Community Infrastructure Planning Areas.................................................285

Exhibit 11 Summary of Capital Improvement Programs K – 12 and Higher Education, FY 2003 – 2007...........................................................................288

Exhibit 12 K – 12 Schools Capital Projects ....................................................................289

Exhibit 13 Regional Population Outpaces Growth in K – 12 School-Age Population, Projected Growth 2003 – 2030................................................299

Exhibit 14 Annual Community College Enrollment Population and Projected Growth 2003 – 2030 ....................................................................300

Exhibit 15 Annual UC and CSU Enrollment and Population, Projected Growth 2003 – 2030 .....................................................................................301

A.8 Parks and Open Space.......................................................................................................305

Exhibit 1 Regional Parks and Open Space..................................................................317

Exhibit 2 Local Jurisdictions Park and Recreation Departments Operations and Maintenance Revenues and Expenditures, FY 2002 – 2003..............................................................................................318

Exhibit 3 Local Jurisdictions in San Diego Region Parks and Recreation Operations and Maintenance, FY 2003 ......................................................319

Exhibit 4 Park and Open Space Infrastructure Distribution of Subregional CIP Expenditures FY 2003 ............................................................................320

xiv

Exhibit 5 Community Infrastructure Planning Area ..................................................321

Exhibit 6 Summary of Capital Improvement Programs Park and Recreation, FY 2003 to FY 2007...................................................................324

Exhibit 7 Parks and Open Space Capital Projects, FY 2003 and Later ......................325

Exhibit 8 Long-Term Need for Local Parks Exceeds Projected Growth in Population, 2003 – 2030 ..............................................................................335

Exhibit 9 Habitat Conservation Planning Areas.........................................................336

Exhibit 10 Conservation Status, Goals, and Costs by Jurisdiction...............................337

Exhibit 11 Habitat Conservation Status, Goals and Estimated Implementation Costs ..................................................................................338

IRIS TECHNICAL APPENDICES INTRODUCTION

3

IRIS TECHNICAL APPENDICES INTRODUCTION

In the next 30 years, San Diego County is expected to add more than one million people, bringing the total population to just less than four million. Where will these people live? Where will they work? Will they have clean air to breathe, clean water to drink? Will their highways be choked with traffic, or will they find other, smarter ways to commute? The truth is, no one knows the answers to these questions. But we are developing a plan to help us achieve our goal of creating a balance between population growth and sustainable development.

The Regional Comprehensive Plan (RCP) is our long-term blueprint for the San Diego region. It defines and builds consensus for an overall vision, creating a framework in which local and regional decisions can be made over time that will foster a healthy environment and thriving economy. The goal is to help us maintain what we have and obtain what we need.

The San Diego region’s quality of life, as expressed in the core values of the RCP, is largely impacted by the level of service provided by its infrastructure. The RCP is based on the premise that we must plan for our future differently than we have our past, striving to create an urban form comprised of sustainable and balanced communities with a high quality of life.

Local jurisdictions, acting together as SANDAG, have endorsed an urban form that channels much of the region’s future growth into existing urban (primarily incorporated) communities, preserving and protecting the lifestyle and sensitive environment of our rural (primarily unincorporated) areas. For example, over time, an increasing proportion of our growth will likely occur as redevelopment and urban infill.

As the San Diego region continues to change, we must regularly assess the ability of our infrastructure to handle change and to maintain our quality of life at acceptable levels. To adequately prepare for this change steps need to be taken to help ensure that infrastructure is in place prior to or concurrent with the land use decisions that implement the urban form and design goals identified in the RCP.

Today, however, most infrastructure planning is done without a framework that would coordinate long term visionary planning with short term capital expenditures. Integration of long range planning with current expenditures should be the standard practice. In fact, a number of recent studies and reports have cited this as being a fundamental necessity for addressing the State’s infrastructure needs.1 One of the objectives of IRIS is to put the most important pieces of the infrastructure puzzle on the table at one time, substantially improving the region’s opportunity to

1 Dowall, David and Whittington, Jan. “Making Room for the Future: California’s Infrastructure.” Public Policy Institute of California, 2003. “California’s Five Year Infrastructure Report, 2002”. Prepared for Governor Gray Davis by the California Department of Finance.

4

address needs in a comprehensive, not piecemeal, fashion. This is why the IRIS is a key component of the RCP.

PURPOSE OF TECHNICAL APPENDICES

The technical appendices are companion and support documents for the IRIS. The appendices represent an inventory and evaluation of the eight infrastructure areas selected to be analyzed; representing the first of a four step process designed to determine if the capital improvement programs and plans of the eight infrastructure areas analyzed currently support the urban form and design goals envisioned in the RCP. The information contained in the appendices provided the basis for proposing the process identified in the IRIS that will better align our RCP goals and objectives with our infrastructure investments.

Each appendix section is the result of a major data gathering and research effort. The process began by identifying the areas to be studied (see discussion below). Next, data gathering and literature reviews on each of the topics led to the development of current conditions and existing systems information.

To complete the current conditions, background research, and develop the capital improvement database, staff collected capital improvement programs, budgets, industry reports, and master plans (when available) for all of the IRIS infrastructure areas.2 Capital improvement program (CIP) data was collected from these documents and incorporated into a Geographic Systems Information (GIS) format suitable for mapping purposes. This enabled staff to display the location of the CIP expenditures across the region.

SANDAG staff worked closely with the region’s infrastructure providers to ensure that the IRIS Appendices accurately depict the region’s infrastructure systems and conditions. As the RCP is updated over time, the IRIS Appendices will also be revised to reflect current information and incorporate discussions of significant contemporary issues.

Each section addresses the following: who is responsible for the infrastructure; who are the key decision-makers; how is it financed; and, what types of capital and operating budgets are available. Next, the appendices identify how infrastructure needs are being met and planned currently, referring to existing programmed expenditures and strategic plans. As a starting point, the IRIS defines need in terms of available resources, using existing capital improvement programs as a reasonable estimate of infrastructure need determined in an environment of limited public resources.

2 Data collection for the IRIS was made possible with the assistance of multiple agencies and organizations in the region. Any reporting errors are the responsibility of SANDAG staff. The data are based on adopted Fiscal Year (FY) 2003 budgets and capital improvement programs and do not include updates or amendments to this information.

5

Each Appendix includes the following sections:

I. Introduction/Description of Infrastructure System II. Responsibilities and Controlling Legislation III. Operations and Maintenance (FY 2003) IV. Capital Improvement Programs V. Projected Long-Term Need VI. Relationship of Facility Planning to Local General Plans and Land Use VII. Public Policy/ Financing Issues and Strategies

EIGHT INFRASTRUCTURE AREAS ANALYZED

For the purposes of developing the IRIS, a set of criteria was identified to assist with selecting which infrastructure would be included. Based on direction from the Regional Planning Committee and the SANDAG Board of Directors, in order for infrastructure to be included in the report it must meet all of the criteria listed below. It was not possible to include the region’s entire infrastructure system at this time, future updates or expansions of the RCP and IRIS may include additional areas.

Infrastructure Criteria

• Must be a public facility or regulated monopoly • Must be a publicly shared system, network, or resource used by or benefiting a majority of the

region on a regular and consistent basis • Must provide for equal opportunity for all residents and businesses to benefit • Must be run, regulated, or overseen by state or local elected officials or their appointed

representatives • Must insure that the level of service available and the price of the service to be about the same

for all comparable users • Must play an integral part in maintaining the quality of every day life for the average resident • Must include Ports of Entry with Mexico due to the unique location of the San Diego region

IRIS Infrastructure Areas

The list below shows the 8 infrastructure areas evaluated in the IRIS.

• Transportation (incl. Regional Airport, Maritime Port, Transit, Highways, and international Ports of Entry)

• Water Supply and Delivery System • Wastewater (Sewage Collection, Treatment and Discharge System) • Storm Water Management • Solid Waste Collection, Recycling and Disposal • Energy Supply and Delivery System • Education (incl. K-12, Community Colleges and Universities) • Parks and Open Space (incl. Parks & Recreation, Shoreline Preservation, and Habitat Preservation)

IRIS TECHICAL APPENDIX [A.1] TRANSPORTATION

9

IRIS TECHICAL APPENDIX [A.1] TRANSPORTATION

Investment in transportation supports the Regional Comprehensive Plan in numerous ways and provides the incentive structure necessary to implement the smart growth urban form and design called for in the RCP. Transportation investment supports the RCP by providing the region with improved mobility and accessibility and access to national and global markets.

This appendix includes an overview of four different modes of transportation. The first section focuses on public transit systems and streets and roads (including highways, freeways, arterials, and local streets and roads). The next two sections provide an overview of the region’s commercial airport and maritime port. The final section describes the international ports of entry with Mexico.

For purposes of the IRIS, major freeways and transit facilities, the maritime port, the international airport, and the international Ports of Entry are all considered “regional” infrastructure. Local streets and roads (including arterials) and local transit centers are “sub-regional” infrastructure.1

Regional infrastructure supports the overall growth of the region, increasing mobility for a broad range of communities. For example, major roadways, major transit systems and large regional ports serve the needs of the entire region, and are considered regional projects. Local streets and roads and local transit facilities and services need to be closely linked to the communities they serve, and should be consistent with the urban form and smart growth design objectives of the RCP. Because of this close link to urban design and to the objectives of smart growth, they are considered subregional projects.

HIGHWAYS, ARTERIALS AND TRANSIT

I. Introduction / Description of Infrastructure System

How people and goods move between an origin and a destination is directly related to the available transportation networks and potential modes of travel. Even with increased electronic interactions, physical movement will continue and the use of the automobile will remain the dominant form of travel in the foreseeable future. However, the ability to shorten, eliminate or transfer any of those trips to modes other than a solo automobile trip is a key objective for an overburdened transportation system. The Regional Transportation Plan, MOBILITY 2030, strives to move the San Diego region toward improved mobility and travel choices.

1 For purposes of organization and data reporting, the IRIS categorizes projects as either subregional or

regional. It is possible that some projects, transit in particular, could be classified as one or the other. These classifications will be clarified as the next round of RTIP funding allocations begins.

10

We cannot fix our persistent transportation problems by focusing solely on transportation solutions. MOBILITY 2030 also recognizes that growth and change will continue in the region over the next several decades, and all local jurisdictions can make positive contributions toward preparing for that change. Transportation infrastructure and services must be coordinated with land use planning if we are to avoid increased traffic congestion, reduced mobility and a deteriorating quality of life.

Different levels of government and agencies are responsible for the funding, planning, construction and operation of the transportation infrastructure. While circulation plans are designed to meet the projected transportation needs of each local jurisdiction, regional facilities may fall short due to lack of funding to serve land use patterns and intensities. And on many occasions the timing of a regional transportation project may not coincide with land use decisions made at the local level. It is the intent of the Regional Comprehensive Plan to improve the coordination and relationship between transportation and land use planning.

As shown in Exhibit 1, there are approximately 600 miles of state highways in the County of San Diego. Approximately 300 miles are freeways and expressways, and the remaining 300 miles are conventional highways, such as State Route 78 between Escondido and Ramona.

The region’s current public transit service consists of five fixed-route bus services, demand-response and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) complementary paratransit services, Coaster express rail service between Oceanside and downtown San Diego, and the San Diego Trolley. Together, these operators provide 40 million miles of transit service to more than 90 million passengers each year. Amtrak’s Pacific Surfliner intercity passenger rail service carries two million passengers annually and connects San Diego to Los Angeles and to points nationwide (Exhibit 2).

For the purposes of this section, freeways, highways, arterials, and local streets and roads are all collectively referred to as “Streets and Roads.” Buses, commuter rail, light rail, and other forms of public transportation are collectively referred to as “Transit.”

II. Responsibilities and Controlling Legislation

The California Department of Transportation, or Caltrans, is responsible for constructing and maintaining the freeway system and the network of designated non-freeway state routes. The freeway system consists of all the federal interstate routes (e.g., Interstate 5) and those state highways which have full access control (e.g., State Route 52). Interchanges, the connecting points between the state and local transportation network, are the responsibility of the Caltrans. The remaining urban and rural state highways are two-, four-, or six-lane facilities with limited access control. Planning for freeways and state highways is conducted by SANDAG and coordinated with Caltrans’ own analysis of transportation corridor needs.

The local network of arterials, major streets and collectors is under the jurisdiction of the individual cities and the county. Each agency adopts a circulation element in their general plan to meet forecasted long-range needs. The local jurisdictions build and maintain these roads, with many improvements provided by adjacent development or through development impact fees. Some of the local facilities are considered important for regional and subregional movements, and are therefore included in SANDAG’s Regionally Significant Transportation Network. These streets and highways are discussed further in the Long-Term Needs section below.

11

Transit

Until the passage of Senate Bill 1703, transit planning and implementation was the responsibility of the two major transit agencies in San Diego County: the Metropolitan Transit Development Board (MTDB) and the North County Transit District (NCTD). Federal and state dollars for transit planning and projects passed through SANDAG but were controlled by the transit agencies. The bill consolidated transit planning, programming, project development, and construction with SANDAG’s other transportation planning functions as the federally-designated Metropolitan Planning Organization and Regional Transportation Planning Agency (RTPA) for the San Diego region. Day-to-day transit operations for buses and light rail (San Diego Trolley) have remained under the transit agencies.

In addition to the San Diego Trolley, there are other rail services in San Diego County. The coastal rail corridor is shared by commuter and intercity passenger and freight rail services. Metrolink runs north from Oceanside, Coaster trains run south to Center City San Diego, and Amtrak’s Pacific Surfliner service is the second busiest intercity rail corridor in the country. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad carries freight on the coastal corridor but shares the predominantly single-track capacity with all the passenger services. The rights-of-way for the coastal rail line are actually owned by NCTD and MTDB. With all these individual but unique services, the Los Angeles-San Diego-San Luis Obispo (LOSSAN) Rail Corridor Agency coordinates planning and programming on the coastal rail line. SANDAG, MTDB and NCTD are voting members of LOSSAN along with regional transportation and planning agencies in Orange, Los Angeles, Ventura, Santa Barbara, and San Luis Obispo Counties. LOSSAN sets the priorities for improvements in the corridor that will increase the capacity of the rail line and the reliability of the service.

In the southern portion of the county, freight service is offered between San Diego and Tijuana on the San Diego & Arizona Eastern Railway. The entire line continues east from Tijuana to Tecate, where it reenters California and meets up with the Union Pacific in the Imperial Valley. The segment east of Tecate is presently closed, but work is underway to repair the line. MTDB owns the portions of the line in the United States, and has an agreement with the San Diego Imperial Valley Railroad to run freight between San Diego and Tijuana. The Carrizo Gorge Railway has agreements to operate freight east of Tijuana in both Mexico and the United States, and hopes to begin freight service if and when they can reopen the line.

Freight shipped by rail is small compared to the amount of freight that moves by truck. And truck traffic through the county has grown since the passage of NAFTA. As a user of the transportation system, the trucking industry is not a responsible agency for building infrastructure. But weight fees and fuel taxes paid by the industry do contribute to overall revenues in the STIP. And the topic of goods movement at the border, Port of San Diego and San Diego International Airport is discussed in those individual IRIS sections.

Potentially another rail service may come to the San Diego region. The High-Speed Rail Authority was created by the state in 1996 to develop a plan for the construction, operation and financing of a statewide, intercity high-speed passenger rail system. Two corridors would connect San Diego to the rest of the state: shared-use on the coastal corridor, and a new separate rail line on the Inland Corridor (along I-15).

12

III. Operations and Maintenance (FY 2003)

Street and Highways

The 18 local jurisdictions and the County of San Diego collectively spent $164 million for operations and maintenance (O&M) of local streets and highways in FY 2001, the most recent year local data is available.2 Of this, local jurisdictions spent $127.7 million and the County spent the remaining $36.3 million. The majority of expenditures (approximately $110.2 million) were dedicated to street maintenance; general and administrative costs (including engineering) account for $51.6 million of the total costs.3 Lastly, O&M capital costs spent by local jurisdictions and the County total $2.2 million.4

Revenues for operations are obtained mainly from federal and state funds assigned to local street and highway projects. These Federal and State revenues total $110.7 million. Local funds of $53.3 million were the second largest category, but contributed approximately 50 percent of the federal and state revenue amounts. State/federal funds are derived from a combination of revenues related to the RTIP (i.e. Caltrans, Gas Tax, State Transportation Improvement Program Funds, Surface Transportation Funds, Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Funds). The O&M expenditure and revenue charts for the Cities and County are included as Exhibit 3, the data table is provided in Exhibit 4.

Transit

The Metropolitan Transit Development Board (MTDB) and North County Transit District (NCTD) collectively spent $222 million for operation and maintenance of public transit infrastructure for FY 2003. MTDB spent $162 million and NCTD spent $60 million. Over 70 percent of regional expenditures were concentrated in contracts and services (approximately $162 million) while general and administrative costs totaled $49 million. The remaining $15 million was spent on street maintenance.

Revenues for operations are pooled mainly from transfers from other agencies.5 Total revenues for MTDB and NCTD total $222.6 million. State/federal funding represents the largest source of revenue ($154 million), and is obtained primarily through a combination of sources, including the following examples: Congestion Mitigation; Air Quality; Federal Transit Administration; Transportation Congestion Relief Program; State Transit Assistance; Transportation Development Act, and TransNet. General taxes and income from operations supply the remaining $68.3 million. Revenue and expenditure information for transit is included in Exhibits 3 and 4.

2 California State Controller, “Financial Transaction Concerning Streets and Roads of Cities and Counties of

California, Annual Report 2000-2001 Fiscal Year,” June 2003 3 Street maintenance includes projects such as over-laying and sealing, patching, streets and traffic signals and

other street purpose maintenance. 4 “Capital costs” included in the operations and maintenance budget refer to purchases of equipment and

other items with relatively long operational life cycles. They differ from the “capital projects” discussed later under the capital improvement program sections.

5 Other agency sources include transfers from state sources such as Caltrans, Traffic Congestion Relief Program, STA and federal sources such as the Federal Transportation Act and Federal Highway Act.

13

IV. Capital Improvement Programs

Regional facilities serve region-wide transportation demands and capacity needs (e.g. interstate freeways and fixed rail transit). Highway capital improvements are included in the Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP). The RTIP is a $4.4 billion five-year program of major highway, transit arterial and non-motorized projects funded by federal, state, TransNet local sales tax and other local sources. The current RTIP covers the period from FY 2003 to FY 2007.6 Local cities have also adopted their own transportation capital improvement programs (CIPs). These are carried out independently from the RTIP and focus on the cities’ circulation needs.

Regional

Over the next five years (FY 2003 to FY 2007), the cost of all regional projects totals $1.6 billion. $789.2 million will be spent on regional projects in FY 2003 alone.7 The projects will be constructed by the state (Caltrans) and local jurisdictions. A summary of all CIP projects included in the RTIP is provided in Exhibit 5, project details are included as Exhibit 6.

Within regional projects, 40 percent of planned expenditures are for the construction of new facilities and for upgrades to existing facilities, ten percent for technology projects, and nine percent for mandated and other improvement projects (See Exhibit 5). 8 A significant amount of expenditures are dedicated to the mitigation of impacts, however, these costs have not been broken out. They are accounted for because mitigation expenditures are included as part of the total project cost. In general, approximately five percent of the total project cost is dedicated to mitigation for all types of impacts (noise, congestion, environmental, etc.). Recent calculations by SANDAG indicate that approximately $400-$450 million of the total project expenditures included in the 2030 RTP is allocated for habitat mitigation.9 Capital improvement street/highway projects are typically funded by a combination of TransNet allocations, Gas Taxes, and funds from other state and federal sources.

Sub-regional

Sub-regional projects (such as arterials, streets, and transit) serve local transportation needs and are designed to benefit local communities. $2 billion of the expenditures between FY 2003 and FY 2007

6 SANDAG, Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP), 2002. 7 The $1.6 billion regional total is a subset of the total RTIP amount of $4.4 billion. The amounts differ because

the $1.6 billion only reflects expenditures on regional projects (it excludes subregional) and because it does not include expenditures that occur before or after FY 2003 to FY 2007 (see next footnote for more detail).

8 “New” projects refer to installation of new street light signals, streets, freeways, and other projects; “upgrades” refer to street improvements, replacement of old street signals, or other improvements to existing infrastructure. “Technology” projects improve overall productivity, such as system or control technologies. “Mandated” projects are undertaken to satisfy federal or state requirements on safety, environmental mitigation, or other issues. Green projects (which may also be mandated) refer to actions to mitigate impacts to or improve the natural environment. Environmental or “green” projects are typically included in the total project cost and because of data limitations were not specified for this analysis.

9 Habitat mitigation includes acquisition, restoration, and endowment for all projects in the 2030 RTP.

14

is budgeted by the RTIP for all subregional projects and $705.3 million for FY 2003.10 Local jurisdictions, through their CIPs, plan to spend $908 million over the five-year period and $138 million during FY 2003. Sub-regional projects, primarily local roads and street signals, will be carried out by local jurisdictions.11 A summary of all CIP projects included in the RTIP is provided in Exhibit 5, project details are included as Exhibit 6. The distribution of FY 2003 expenditures by community planning areas for all sub-regional projects is mapped in Exhibit 7.12 A list of the planning areas is included as Exhibit 8.

Among sub-regional projects, 51 percent of expenditures are allocated for upgrades, 41 percent are for the construction of new facilities, and eight percent for technology and other improvement projects.13

For more information on the projects included in the RTP and RTIP, please refer to the Mobility 2030 plan itself, the Transportation Chapter of the RCP, and Part V of this section “Projected Long Term Need.”

V. Projected Long-Term Need

The system improvements planned in MOBILITY 2030 aim to serve the needs of the traveling public and reverse the trend of growing congestion. Vehicle miles traveled in the region in 2003 was 7.845 million and is expected to grow 43 percent by 2030, faster than the growth in population (Exhibit 9)14. Daily transit passenger miles grow even faster, from 1.7 million passenger miles to 5.2 million.15

MOBILITY 2030 intends to provide a much higher level of transit service, because travel during the peak periods would worsen tremendously without the improvements included in the Plan. The amount of traffic traveling in congestion would go from 29 percent today to 45 percent in the future, and MOBILITY 2030 lowers that figure to 25 percent.

As detailed below in the Section VII “Public Policy/ Financing Issues and Strategies,” MOBILITY 2030 is based on revenues totaling $42 billion through the year 2030. Planned expenditures would go 37 percent for transit purposes, 18 percent for Managed/High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lane improvements, 20 percent for highway purposes, 23 percent for local streets and roads, and two percent for other categories (see Exhibit 10). Included in this breakdown is a higher percentage across the board to support our aging regional system. The ongoing costs to maintain our existing

10 Summed together, sub-regional and regional expenditures for FY 2003 to FY 2007 total $3.7 billion of the

$4.4 billion identified by the RTIP. The total of $3.7 billion focuses on the “window” of FY 2003 to FY 2007. The difference ($4.4-$3.7) occurs because the RTIP expenditures include unfinished projects (those committed to before FY 2003) and future expenditures (post-FY 2007).

11 Regional and sub-regional CIP expenditures in FY 2003 total $789 million, declining to $187 million in FY 2007. This decline likely reflects incomplete planning for future years, rather than a reduction in capital investment. Cost estimates for final engineering design and environmental reviews are generally completed for near-term projects, but are likely to be incomplete for projects scheduled for later years.

12 Sub-regional data combine RTIP and local CIP data. However, to avoid double counting, duplication has been removed.

13 “New” projects refer to installation of new street light signals, streets, freeways, and other projects; “upgrades” refer to street improvements, replacement of old street signals, or other improvements to existing infrastructure. Environmental or “green” projects are included in the total project cost and because of data limitations were not detailed for this analysis.

14 2003 Figures are projections based upon VMT in 2000. 15 SANDAG Transportation Forecasts, 2003.

15

infrastructure require a significant share of our future transportation funds. Nearly $17 billion, or 40 percent of the total $42 billion expenditures, are committed to operating, managing, maintaining, and rehabilitating the region’s highway, transit, and local street and road networks.

A combination of federal, state, and local funds will be used to complete and expand both the existing arterial and highway system. MOBILITY 2030’s priorities are completing missing links in the regional highway system and developing a Managed/HOV lane network that will serve multiple modes. Completing the missing freeway links will total approximately $3.6 billion.

Streets and Roads

As shown in Exhibits 11 and 12, the vision in MOBILITY 2030 is for a flexible highway system in which the same lanes used by transit also are utilized by carpools, vanpools, and fee-paying patrons (similar to FasTrak where fees fund transit services in the I-15 corridor). MOBILITY 2030 includes an extensive network of Managed/HOV lanes which are critical to many of the Plan’s regional transit services. These lanes operate at free flow speeds, provide a quicker ride to high occupancy vehicles, and several of them also serve solo drivers who want to pay a fee to save time. Highway and regional arterial improvements in the Plan are integrated and coordinated to support as well as complement the expanded transit system.

At the local level, cities and the county are responsible for their circulation element streets, from local roads serving neighborhoods to major facilities carrying thousands of vehicles a day. MOBILITY 2030 assumes $4.4 billion to fund new facility construction, and another $4.7 billion in operations, maintenance, and rehabilitation. Another $500 million would go toward arterials that are important for regional travel.16

Transit

MOBILITY 2030 envisions a regional transit system that is competitive with other mode choices and therefore is expected to be the first choice for many of our trips. The Regional Transit Vision (RTV) call for a network of fast, flexible, reliable, safe, and convenient transit services that connect our homes to the region’s major employment centers and major destinations. MOBILITY 2030 takes the first step in implementing the RTV by putting into service 17 of the Vision’s 38 routes. Using many of the new Managed/HOV lanes, routes would operate at higher speeds than current transit services, and there would be priority treatments on highway and arterials in order to make transit more competitive with the automobile.

The added Managed/HOV lanes are a major component of a new transit vision for the region. MOBILITY 2030 provides a robust network of over 200 miles of Managed/HOV lanes. The Managed/HOV lanes on the interstates will provide movable barriers, multiple access points to regular highway lanes, and direct access ramps for buses, high occupancy vehicles, and potential FasTrak costumers. A high frequency rapid bus system would operate in these lanes, offering a premium level of service to transit users. The Managed/HOV lanes and connectors total $7.4 billion.

16 This is short of the estimated $700 million needed to complete all the widening and traffic signal work

planned for the regional arterials.

16

MOBILITY 2030 includes $8.5 billion for major new transit facilities. Sixty percent of total transit capital funding is dedicated to high-end regional services, such as bus rapid transit facilities in major travel corridors. The remaining 40 percent of transit capital improvements is invested in existing and planned rail systems, such as the Coaster and the Trolley. To support all these capital improvements, MOBILITY 2030 budgets nearly $7.5 billion in operating and maintenance costs, bringing total transit systems development and operations costs to just under $16 billion. Exhibit 10 provides a summary breakdown for the $42 billion of estimated expenditures in all the project categories.

VI. Relationship of Facility Planning To Local General Plans and Land Use

Investment in transportation infrastructure is closely tied to new development or redevelopment and patterns of land use. This is particularly true with local arterials and streets. If a jurisdiction’s general plan anticipates growth in residential or non-residential development, local transportation facilities are provided and normally required at the same time. This allows access to and from the development. But construction of the planned regional transportation network serving the area, as well as all of the local connections to the freeway and highway system, may be on a different schedule and not a prerequisite of development.

Some jurisdictions limit the amount of local development until important local facilities are available. Thresholds are established for large planning areas which cap the number of dwelling units or occupied square footage, pending completion of identified roads. Some jurisdictions take this policy one level higher, tying development to the provision of needed regional transportation facilities. But few jurisdictions require local financing to contribute to the hefty price tag of a key regional facility.

While the lack of a regional transportation facility may hold up new development, in some cases portions of the regional network may precede adjacent development. This is quite different than the normal planning process for other types of infrastructure. History has shown that once new or improved transportation improvements are imminent, adjacent development and implementation of other necessary infrastructure follow. Building on this existing dynamic, growth and the infrastructure required will follow or accompany the planned development of regional transportation infrastructure.

Implementation of the goals of the RCP and smart growth can utilize the demonstrated leading role that transportation infrastructure can play. Giving a higher priority to regional transportation infrastructure which serves areas targeted for infill or smart growth can influence local land use decisions. Transportation decisions therefore can lead the way by encouraging development in designated smart growth opportunity areas and discouraging sprawl into non-urbanized areas. Local land use plans and regional transportation plans can adjust to reflect the philosophy and goals of the RCP.

17

VII. Public Policy / Financing Issues and Strategies

Financing Issues and Strategies

In MOBILITY 2030, the capital, operating, maintenance, and rehabilitation costs of the region’s transportation systems through 2030 are compared against forecasts of available revenues. Revenues come from three basic levels: federal, state and local sources, and are drawn primarily from gasoline and sales taxes. What follows is a general description of the Reasonably Expected Revenues in MOBILITY 2030, providing $42 billion for regional transportation infrastructure. Approximately $12 billion come from future sources including an extension of the TransNet ½percent transportation local sales tax through 2030, higher levels of state and federal discretionary funds, and increases in state and federal gas taxes based on historical trends. Of the total estimated revenues, 19 percent is provided through the TransNet extension, 29 percent comes from all other local revenue sources combined, 33 percent for state sources, and 20 percent from federal revenues. An overview of Mobility 2030 revenues and expenditures is included as Exhibit 13.

Federal Funding

At the Federal funding level, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) works closely with the States to build and improve the highway system through the use of Federal Highway User Taxes (see Exhibit 13). With a federal gasoline tax of 18.4 cents per gallon, revenue is then distributed to the States to be used for a variety of transportation-related programs. The San Diego region is expected to receive a total of $8.5 billion in federal funding. Federal programs such as the Surface Transportation Plan (STP) provide flexible funding that may be used by States and localities for projects on any Federal-aid highway, including the National Highway System, bridge projects on any public road, transit capital projects, and public bus terminals and facilities. While MOBILITY 2030 budgets $810 million in STP funds, a larger influx of $3.5 billion comes from increased gas taxes, demonstration funds and miscellaneous revenues.

For transit systems, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) provides discretionary and formula funding for capital projects, such as the Mission Valley East light rail project, the new Sprinter rail project in North County, and bus acquisitions. MOBILITY 2030 identifies $3.4 billion from FTA. In addition to the flexible STP funds mentioned above, Congestion Mitigation Air Quality (CMAQ) funds are also flexible. The program is jointly administered by the FTA and FHWA, providing funds that may be used to reduce emissions, such as Transportation Demand Management (TDM) activities and a wide range of capital projects. While projects such as managed lanes for bus rapid transit are eligible for CMAQ funds, they cannot be used for roadway improvements that provide increased capacity for single-occupant vehicles. MOBILITY 2030 identifies $9 billion in CMAQ funds.

State Funding

Caltrans is the primary sponsor for most highway projects in the San Diego region, and the major program is the State Transportation Improvement Plan (STIP). The STIP and other state programs program are financed in part by the state gasoline tax of 18 cents/gallon and the state sales tax of

18

six cents/gallon. The California Transportation Commission (CTC) is responsible for the programming and allocating of funds for the construction of highway, passenger rail and transit improvements throughout California. The STIP is a multi-year program of state and federally funded transportation projects developed locally and approved by the CTC. State-nominated projects receive 25 percent of new STIP funds and the other 75 percent is left to the discretion of the regional transportation planning agencies like SANDAG. The STIP is assumed to bring $3.8 billion to the San Diego region by 2030.

State Highway Operations, Maintenance, and Rehabilitation Funds come off the top of the State Highway Account before any funding for new construction is allocated. A related program is the State Highway Operations and Protection Program (SHOPP), funding the rehabilitation and reconstruction of all state highways and bridges. These two programs are expected to account for $4.4 billion in Mobility 2030. In a shorter timeframe, the Traffic Congestion Relief Program (TCRP) earmarks a portion of gas tax revenue directly towards the region’s highway and road infrastructure through FY 2008. TCRP fund expectations have been lowered to $1.4 billion, reflecting the current state budget crisis.17

The State Transit Assistance (STA) Program provides state operating and capital support for the region’s transit operators through a formula program. The amount varies annually based on gasoline sales tax receipts, and is expected to provide just under $.5 billion in MOBILITY 2030. When adding in additional revenues from increased gas taxes or equivalent revenue increases (such as Proposition 42), the total state funding assumed for transportation in MOBILITY 2030 is $13.7 billion.

Local Funding

At the local funding level, the 18 cities and the County of San Diego are the sponsors for agency projects, including arterial and local street improvements. These local projects are funded through local gas tax subventions and the TransNet half-cent sales tax. Gas tax subventions are expected to provide about $2.1 billion of the $42 billion assumed in the Reasonably Expected Revenue Plan in MOBILITY 2030. The present TransNet sales tax continues through 2008, and is split 1/3 for local streets and roads, 1/3 for highways, and 1/3 for transit. With a proposed 30-year extension through 2038, TransNet would add approximately $7.9 billion by 2030 and a total of $9.5 billion by 2038. Local agency general funds and other miscellaneous revenues contribute another $4.1 billion, and just under a billion would come from toll road funding on routes SR125 and SR241.

The Transportation Development Act (TDA) provides local transit funding through a ¼ percent sales tax. These funds are eligible for transit operating or capital purposes, but are not eligible for use on non-transit related highway or local street and road projects. With an expected $3.8 billion in TDA funds through 2030, the total local revenues budgeted for in MOBILITY 2030 equals $19.7 billion.

17 SANDAG assumes that, despite the current budget climate, the funds will eventually be replaced and the $42

billion plan will not be affected.

19

Public Policy

The existing structure for transportation planning and implementation begins with MOBILITY 2030, the Regional Transportation Plan. It contains a 2010 scenario of phased highway, arterial, and transit projects. This list is used to develop the five-year funding program, the Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP). The process used to evaluate and prioritize projects is based on 47 separate criteria related primarily to transportation-related objectives.

Very few of the present transportation project evaluation criteria are land use related. The majority of the evaluation criteria rely on quantitative data, and the prioritization process results in projects that receive funding and move toward construction. With limited resources, some projects with perceived or real need do not fare as well as others and fall short of the funding cutoff in each funding cycle of an updated RTIP.

A new regional approach to transportation planning and project implementation is underway. First, all regional transportation planning, funding allocation, project development, and construction, especially in the public transit arena, are now the responsibility of SANDAG as a new consolidated regional agency. SB 1703 has put under one roof all of the responsibilities and roles of SANDAG, and the many of the transit functions of both the San Diego Metropolitan and North County Transit Development Boards. The new law enables mayors, council members, and county supervisors in this region to streamline transportation decision-making.

Second, with the advent of the RCP, transportation funding priorities can more strongly reflect the goal of attracting Smart Growth development commitments along transit corridors and around transit stations. The funding prioritization process would be revised to direct resources to areas that strive to implement the goals of the RCP. Transportation project evaluation criteria can incorporate more related land use planning, raising the priority of projects serving existing or new development in identified Smart Growth Opportunity Areas. The project evaluation criteria can help decide which of the Smart Growth Opportunity Areas offer the most effective transportation-land use plans to accomplish the urban form and design goals identified in the RCP. Smart Growth Opportunity Areas receiving high priority would receive regional funding, providing incentives for corridor transportation projects that serve commitments for Smart Growth development. These proposals are more fully developed in the Overall Policy and Planning Framework chapter.

The new priority-setting process is designed to accomplish the urban form and design goals in the RCP by encouraging infill and discouraging infrastructure extensions that support sprawl. And the introduction of new or improved transportation infrastructure can induce development and lead to the provision of other urban infrastructure systems. As local jurisdictions plan and commit to smart growth land uses in Smart Growth Opportunity Areas, transportation improvements can then be concentrated in urban areas instead of the non-urbanized areas. Infill and redevelopment means less need for all types of infrastructure in non-urbanized areas, and providers can direct their resources into these Smart Growth Opportunity Areas.

Once the funding of transportation facilities is linked to land use plans, this will influence where development occurs and lead the way to the provision of other necessary infrastructure: water, sewer, schools, etc. That is, local land use plans influence and direct the capital improvement plans of most other infrastructure providers. Thus, influencing the characteristics and phasing of land use

20

plans with transportation funding also provides a direct link to the other infrastructure providers; a key tenant upon which the philosophy and goals of the IRIS and the RCP are based.

AVIATION

I. Introduction / Description of Infrastructure System

Airports play an essential role in the economic vitality of a large metropolitan area. They provide billions of dollars each year in economic activity and millions of dollars each year in taxes and other revenues to local governments. They also support the growth of the regional economy by moving people, goods, and services that originate in, or are transported through the region.

First opened in 1928, the main commercial air service airport for the San Diego region is Lindbergh Field, or San Diego International Airport (SDIA). Other airports which play a supporting commercial role are McClellan-Palomar Airport in Carlsbad, serving a small number of commuter flights, and Tijuana International Airport, providing connections to Mexico and international destinations for residents and businesses.

San Diego International Airport is located on San Diego harbor and adjacent to downtown San Diego. For several years now, SDIA has been the busiest single-runway airport in the United States. Despite the downturn in the travel industry since 9/11, San Diego’s air traffic has not declined nearly as much as other airports around the country. While total passenger demand dropped four percent from 2000 to 2001, most of the country fell off in double digits. After a smaller drop of 1.7 percent between 2001 and 2002, boardings at SDIA are back up 2 percent in the first half of 2003 over the same period in 2002. In total, SDIA served 14.9 million passengers in 2002, and handled over 206,000 takeoffs and landings.

In addition to passengers, SDIA handles a growing volume of air cargo, trending upward over time. While studies have shown that demand exists for additional freight handling in the region, SDIA handled 165,000 tons in 2002, an increase of more than 12 percent from the previous year. Even with these increases, some locally-generated air freight is trucked to more distant airports in Los Angeles and Ontario for transport to final destinations.

The existing air passenger and air cargo at SDIA was estimated to have a $4.5 billion impact on the regional economy, including $2.0 billion from visitors who arrive by air.18 This is equivalent to roughly four percent of the region’s economic output, and it’s estimated that one out of every 15 jobs in the region depends directly or indirectly on the airport.

II. Responsibilities and Controlling Legislation

In October 2001, Assembly Bill 93, followed later by Senate Bill 1896, created the San Diego County Regional Airport Authority (the Authority). In December 2001, first an interim and then a

18 SourcePoint, “San Diego Airport Economic Impact of Master Plan Implementation” 1998.

21

permanent Authority became responsible for regional airport planning and the Comprehensive Land Use Plans for all of the County’s airports. The Comprehensive Land Use Plans, or CLUPs, are designed to control incompatible development around airports and encourage compatible uses. The Authority’s new responsibilities also included the day-to-day operations and capital improvements of San Diego International Airport, which previously was under the control of the Port District. The Authority is guided by a nine member Board, appointed by elected officials and representing geographical areas of the County. A map of the airport and maritime port facilities is included as Exhibit 14.

The primary reason for the creation of a new Airport Authority is the general acknowledgment that future air passenger and air cargo demand for the region exceeds the maximum expansion potential of SDIA. As a result, the legislation which created the Authority requires that either November 2004 or November 2006, the Authority must put before County voters a ballot proposition with recommendations regarding a long-term solution for meeting the region’s commercial air-service capacity needs. As discussed below in the Region’s Long-Term Needs, the Authority is conducting an Airport Systems Planning and Site Selection program to analyze and evaluate the region’s opportunities, costs and benefits of trying to meet projected air passenger and air cargo needs.

III. Operations and Maintenance (FY 2003)

Operating expenditures at the San Diego International Airport (SDIA) were approximately $101 million in FY 2003. The Operations and Maintenance (O&M) category represents the largest expenditure category ($96.1 million). Of the remaining funds, $11 million are dedicated towards contracts and capital costs.19 The airport also covers debt service of about $5.6 million. These expenditures are shown in Exhibit 4.

Revenues for operations and maintenance are obtained through a combination of airline and non-airline sources. Airline revenues are generated through landing fees, building rentals, passenger facility charges (PFCs), loading bridge fees and others.20 Non-airline revenues are part of a revenue pool which includes concessions, parking and ground rentals.21 Total SDIA operating revenues for FY 2003 are $124.7 million. The distribution of revenue sources for the SDIA is reported in Exhibit 4. When combined, operations and maintenance revenues for the maritime and airport totaled 215.5 million in FY 2002-2003. O&M Expenditures were $190.6 million (see Exhibit 15).

19 “Capital costs” included in the operations and maintenance budget refer to purchases of equipment and

other items with relatively long operational life cycles. They differ from the “capital projects” discussed later under the capital improvement program sections, which are similar but typically reflect large scale projects or major facility construction (such as new buildings and ticket counters or upgrades to terminals).

20 The Passenger Facility Charge (PFC) Program authorizes the collection of PFC fees up to a maximum of $4.50 for every enplaned passenger at commercial airports controlled by public agencies. The fees are then used by the airports to fund FAA-approved projects that enhance safety, security, or capacity; reduce noise; or increase air carrier competition.

21 San Diego County Regional Airport Authority, FY 2004 Adopted Budget

22

IV. Capital Improvement Programs

The Airport Authority has an adopted multi-year capital improvement program (CIP) for SDIA. As summarized in Exhibit 16 planned improvements for airport operations and facilities total $258 million over the next five years (FY 2003 to FY 2007). Within the airport capital improvement projects, 71 percent of planned expenditures are for upgrades to existing facilities, 14 percent for the construction of new facilities, and the remaining 15 percent are for technology and other improvement projects.22 Detailed project listings are shown in Exhibit 17.23

Capital improvement projects for the SDIA are funded by a combination of Government Aviation Reserve Boards (GARB), state and federal grants and fees gathered through operational rates and charges which include landing fees, Passenger Facility Charges, parking revenues and airport concessions.

V. Projected Long-Term Need

The current Airport Master Plan (AMP) was initiated in 1996 and completed in 2001. It contains a “two track” approach to meeting the region’s long-range air transportation needs. Track I sets up a program to allow development of specific facilities at SDIA on a five-year incremental basis, thereby minimizing capital costs while analyzing the greater policy issues which affect the region’s economy and quality of life. This would ensure that no critical failures occur to the roadway system, terminal facilities or airfield operations at SDIA. The construction of a second runway would be deferred until the need for, and feasibility of, an alternative airport location is considered.

Consideration of alternative airport locations leads to Track II of the AMP. Concurrent to Track I, it calls for the development of a strategic plan for air service in the San Diego region and an evaluation of potential airport solutions to meet air-service demand for 2030 and beyond. As shown in Exhibit 18, the unconstrained air passenger demand is projected to be between 30 and 35 million in 2030, and demand for air freight is expected to grow to between 540,000 tons and 700,000 tons.

Track II began with an economic analysis of the airport’s contribution to the regional economy, and the opportunity costs of not meeting projected future air service demands. The economic study was completed in January 2001, shortly before the Authority was created. A joint effort between SANDAG and the Port District, the study established that by 2030 the region could forego between $30 billion and $94 billion in potential economic benefits by not meeting the full demand for air transportation services.

The Air Transportation Action Program (ATAP) followed, evaluating potential airport sites and scenarios that could meet demands by either combining or connecting SDIA to other Southern California airports, or replacing SDIA altogether. In October 2003, the ATAP reduced the list of all

22 “New” projects refer to expansion of airport passenger facilities, cargo and other projects; “upgrades” refer

to runway improvements, passenger and cargo, or other improvements to existing infrastructure. “Technology” projects improve overall productivity, such as system or control technologies.

23 Regional and sub-regional CIP expenditures in FY 2003 total $52 million, declining to no planned allocations (i.e. no allocated expenditures) by 2007. However, this decline likely reflects incomplete planning for future years, rather than a reduction in capital investment. Final engineering design and environmental reviews are generally completed for near-term projects, but are likely to be incomplete for projects scheduled for later years.

23

possible airport sites and scenarios to those that could work for the San Diego region.24 The final phase of the evaluation will compare those remaining scenarios and offer a solution to the voters of San Diego County in November of 2006.

Whether or not the regional airport stays at Lindbergh or is relocated elsewhere, ground access will continue to be a critical issue. Recently, the Central I-5 Corridor Study recommended direct freeway ramps between Interstate 5 and Pacific Highway as a means to improve airport access at SDIA. These improvements were adopted into MOBILITY 2030 RTP, pending the region’s decision on the future location of the regional airport. If the Airport Authority does recommend relocating the airport, ground access for highway, transit and rail and possibly other intermodal solutions will be a key issue in the analysis and incorporated into future RTP updates.

VI. Public Policy / Financing Issues and Strategies

SDIA is funded using dedicated aviation revenues, user charges, federal and local dollars. In the past, SDIA was a subsidiary of the Port of San Diego. Airport operations and improvements could be financed both by aviation-generated revenue and from the Port of San Diego’s primary operations in real estate and maritime. As per Federal Aviation Administration regulations, all of the revenues generated by the airport must be used for airport-related expenses. With SDIA now under the control of the new San Diego County Regional Airport Authority, the airport will now receive its revenue exclusively from user charges, landing and concession fees, ground rentals and aviation related federal and state grants.

Though revenue is generated internally, SDIA does work closely with the federal government on securing grants to help pay for major capital improvement projects. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) offers different types of grants to airport operators each year for airport planning, development, noise reduction, capacity, and other projects through its Airport Capital Improvement Program (ACIP). The ACIP is a planning tool for identifying critical development and associated capital needs for the National Airspace System. It also serves as the basis for the distribution of grant funds under the Airport Improvement Program.

Specific federal airport funding programs such as the Airport Improvement Program provide grants to public agencies—and in some cases, to private owners and entities—for the planning and development of public-use airports. Eligible projects include improvements related to enhancing airport safety, capacity, security, and environmental concerns. In general, sponsors can use AIP funds on most airfield capital improvements or repairs except for terminals, hangars, and non-aviation development. The Passenger Facility Charge (PFC) Program authorizes the collection of PFC fees up to a maximum of $4.50 for every enplaned passenger at commercial airports controlled by public agencies. SDIA charges this fee at $4.50 per enplaned passenger. The fees are then used by the airports to fund FAA-approved projects that enhance safety, security, or capacity; reduce noise; or increase air carrier competition.

24 Sites currently under consideration include: Miramar Marine Corps Air Station (two sites), Camp Pendleton

Marine Corps Base, Naval Air Station North Island, March Air Reserve Base near Riverside, a site in Imperial County, and Expansion of SDIA at Lindbergh.

24

MARITIME PORT

I. Introduction/Description of Infrastructure System

In the realm of both domestic and international trade, San Diego’s seaport holds many competitive advantages due to its proximity to the US-Mexico border, year-round mild climate that is conducive to most types of cargo, and close highway access to markets north and east. As the beginning and ending points for goods passing into and out of the San Diego region, the port’s two cargo terminals and the rail lines currently serving them will continue to play a vital role in the region.

Investment in the maritime port supports the implementation of the Regional Comprehensive Plan (RCP) in three ways; (1) providing access to international markets; (2) overseeing land use and real estate operations along the port districts jurisdiction; and, (3) providing hiking, biking, recreation and other amenities and services related to the visitor industry (such as the cruise ship terminal, harbor tours, and others). For purposes of the IRIS, Maritime Port facilities are considered “regional” infrastructure facilities because they are designed to serve the entire region.

In addition to its real estate and maritime operations, the San Diego Unified Port District (SDUPD) had been the owner and operator of San Diego International Airport (Lindbergh Field) since 1963. As a result of Assembly Bill 93, all airport-related functions were transferred from SDUPD to the new airport authority. Real estate and maritime port-related planning and operations are now the primary functions of SDUPD.

SDUPD is currently in transition, and is in the process of refining its long term strategies and objectives. As a result, the amount of information in this section is more limited than what is available for some of the other transportation areas, such as streets, roads and transit. Furthermore, the most recent budget for SDUPD represents the port prior to AB 93 taking effect, and includes SDIA figures alongside the maritime information. Therefore, the discussion in this section should be taken as a reflection of a work in progress, one that will continue to change and improve as consensus regarding future direction is reached.

II. Responsibilities and Controlling Legislation

Agencies

Established in 1962 by state law, the San Diego Unified Port District is composed of representatives from the cities of San Diego, Coronado, National City, Chula Vista, and Imperial Beach. The District is governed by a seven-member Board of Port Commissioners. Members are appointed to four-year terms on the Board by the five city councils. The San Diego City Council appoints three commissioners and the other city councils appoint one commissioner each. The Port District’s assumes responsibility over all the public tidelands surrounding San Diego bay, manages the harbor, and until last year, operated Lindbergh Field.

25

SDUPD’s mission is to foster a world class port through excellence in public service by balancing regional economic benefits, recreational opportunities, environmental stewardship and public safety while protecting Tidelands Trust resources on behalf of the citizens of California.

In addition to the cruise ship terminal at B Street, SDUPD’s Maritime Division is responsible for operating the two maritime cargo terminals at 10th Avenue downtown and at 24th Street in National City. While the majority of goods are shipped out of port terminals by truck, the Port also has contracts with both the Burlington North Santa Fe and the San Diego & Arizona Eastern Railroads to assist with freight rail transport of goods to markets both north and east. The Port’s recreational responsibilities include oversight of 16 public parks with ten miles of scenic bike and walking paths. The Environmental Services Department is responsible for a number of significant environmental initiatives dedicated to enhancing the environmental quality of San Diego Bay. A map of the airport and maritime port facilities is included as Exhibit 14.

Legislation

Under state law, the San Diego Unified Port District is authorized to levy property taxes within its five member cities. From 1963 to 1970, the Port District required a small tax levy in order to repay debts incurred for improvements accomplished before the unification. Since then, revenues from the three principal operational areas—harbor, airport, and real estate management—have been sufficient to support District operations, service bonded indebtedness, and allow for capital improvements. No tax levy has been required since 1970, although the Port does charge an equivalent type of fee associated with their leases.25 While the maritime port is an important component of the region’s economic infrastructure, nearly 75 percent of the non-airport revenue comes from the Port District’s Real Estate Operations division. Marine Operations account for less than 20 percent of the Port of San Diego’s revenue. Now that the airport’s functions and revenues have been assigned to the San Diego International Airport Authority, the port is identifying additional options for raising revenue to meet its specific needs.

III. Operations and Maintenance (FY 2003)

As shown in Exhibit 4, operating expenditures for SDUPD were approximately $ 89.3 million in FY 2003. The largest expenditure category for the Port District was contracts and services ($21.2 million) followed by general and administration costs ($14.9 million).

The SDUPD generated $90.8 million in revenues during FY 2003, thus covering its operating expenses. Income from operations accounts for nearly 80 percent of all operating revenues and are obtained primarily from a combination of fees. For example, the maritime division charges a ground rental fee, cruise ship passenger fee, dockage, wharfage and container equipment use fee. Real estate provides parking and ground rental fees.

25 Source: San Diego Unified Port District Final Operating Budget 2002-2003. The equivalent tax is called the

Possessory Interest Tax (PIT). The PIT is assessed on private companies and if applied to a long term lease can be equivalent to a typical property tax on a similar parcel.

26

IV. Capital Improvement Programs

Over the next five years, planned improvements to SDUPD facilities total $179.1 million (see Exhibit 19). Among port facilities improvements, 43 percent of planned expenditures are for upgrades to existing facilities, 29 percent are designated for other improvement projects (including land acquisitions), 21 percent are for the construction of new facilities, and the remaining eight percent for technology and mandated projects.26 That the majority of expenditures are dedicated to upgrading port facilities is consistent with a state-wide trend of port expansions intended to satisfy future growth in maritime commerce. For a detailed listing of major port improvement projects, please refer to Exhibit 20.

Funding for Capital Improvement Projects is a concern for the Port, as most revenues generally come from operating revenues (mainly in the form of ground rentals, such as property lease payments). There are some examples of federal and state grants, but those sources are competitive and uncertain. Funding can be irregular because the grants are typically allocated to meet specific project needs and circumstances. For example, the Port recently obtained a matching funds grant for a major dredging project, and also received security-related grant funding. These matching fund grants are one time sources of revenue designed to pay for a specific project, and do not provide the Port with much flexibility regarding their use.

V. Projected Long-Term Need

The maritime industry is projected to grow, and the economic opportunities it will provide are considerable. California’s ports handle 40 percent of the nation’s containerized cargo. According to the SDUPD, by 2010 the Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles will grow by 50 percent and approach container capacity. Furthermore, by 2020 nationwide freight demands are expected to double and Southern California’s ocean cargo demand should triple.27 This provides an opportunity for the SDUPD to capture some of the additional activity. However, the specific types of facilities the Port will need are still being determined and will largely depend on which type of commodities the Port focuses on for to its long term strategy.

Improved road and freeway access to and from the Port’s cargo terminals is critical for avoiding constraints to growth. However, the port cannot simply build more roads as there are land use and other considerations to take into account when addressing this need. For example, local communities may be impacted by the truck routing and the emissions created from the truck hauling activity surrounding the major cargo terminals. The Port is addressing this issue, and has developed a central I-5 corridor study designed to identify potential solutions. This effort is ongoing and has not been completed at this time.

Plans are currently underway to expand capacity at local facilities in order to take advantage of the increases in cargo and shipping likely to occur as growth in international trade, with pacific-rim

26 “New” projects refer to installation of new operating facilities such as docking facilities, cranes, warehouses and

other projects; “upgrades” refer to port dredging, warehouses, or other improvements to existing infrastructure. “Technology” projects improve overall productivity, such as system or control technologies. “Mandated” projects are undertaken to satisfy federal or state requirements on security, safety and other issues.

27 “Maritime Business Plan Sales Strategy,” September 9, 2003. A PowerPoint presentation provided by the SDUPD.

27

countries in particular, continues to increase. According to the SDUPD, metric tonnage requirements for the San Diego region are projected to grow between three to five percent annually over the next five years. Consistent with broader shipping trends for the southern California region, it is reasonable to assume that a three percent growth rate locally could continue over the 2003 to 2030 time frame. If this growth were to continue, metric tonnage requirements would increase 50 percent (more than 3.15 million tons) over the next thirty years (Exhibit 21).

The SDUPD has already begun planning for the increase in capacity. For example, $60.3 million in funds are programmed over the next 15 years for improvements to the Tenth Avenue Marine Terminal.28 These projects are a direct response to the Port’s container projections indicating that the number of containers will increase from 50,150 in 2000 to more than 143,500 by 2020 (a increase of more than 180%). Using these relatively conservative container estimates, the SDUPD will need to supply over 52 acres of storage capacity to accommodate forecast growth in containers.29 Furthermore, if the congestion and capacity constraints at Ports to the north occur as anticipated, the SDUPD’s investments in capacity will help enable it to capitalize on the opportunities from shippers looking for another, nearby unloading point along the Southern California coastline.

VI. Public Policy / Financing Issues and Strategies

The SDUPD has officially adopted a strategic plan intended to guide the future development of the port. However, the plan focuses more on the short term, and is not a comprehensive long range planning effort similar to that found in other infrastructure areas, such as MOBILITY 2030 or the County Water Authority’s Long Range Facility Master Plan.

The SDUPD has adopted a strategic plan outlining future growth from 2002 – 2006. Known as the Port Compass Strategic Plan, it outlines strategic initiatives of each respective port division in order to reprioritize and refocus the Ports resources on projects, programs and issues most important to the fulfillment of the Port’s vision. The Port’s Strategic Plan identifies the highest-priority goals through a strategic planning process that included input from Port cities, tenants, and other stakeholders.30 Compass outlines the Port’s course for the future by prioritizing initiatives into four “strategic activity areas (SAA):” Environmental, Maritime, Real Estate, and Recreation.

The COMPASS provides a guiding framework under which a specialized and integrated annual business plan for each SAA will be developed. This process ensures internal consistency and focuses all aspects of the Port’s operations and planning on a common set of goals. However, the strategic framework is still being developed, and currently focuses on a relatively short window of time. Despite the short time frame of the plan, there are examples of long term initiatives included. For example, the real estate division includes an initiative to develop a land use plan for 300 acres of Port-owned Chula Vista bayside property.

28 Maritime Master Plan, SDUPD 2003. 29 Ibid. The Maritime Services estimates reported here are more conservative than the Booz Allen projections

also included in the master plan. Booz Allen project 329,000 containers in 2020, an increase of more than 210,000 containers above the 2000 amount (117,000).

30 Port Compass Strategic Plan 2002-2006

28

Overall, SDUPD’s master plan process will have to address maritime cargo growth and, as a result, appropriate facility expansions. This approach is consistent with current planning efforts taking place at other California ports. The Port of Long Beach and Los Angeles are currently updating their master plans and are both involved in expansion projects anticipating significant growth in shipping demand. The Port of Los Angeles, for example, recently completed the first phase of construction on Pier 400. Once completed, this new complex will span 484 acres and have an annual throughput of 2.4 million truck equivalent units (TEU).31

The projects at Los Angeles/Long Beach increase the overall capacity of those ports, but also reduce capacity for certain types of commodities. For example, expanding container storage can reduce covered warehouse storage capacity. This reduction creates niche market opportunities for SDUPD. In addition to containerized cargo, SDUPD also processes a wide variety of commodities, including: steel, produce, fertilizer, lumber, autos, and more. Some of these commodities, such as rolled coil steel, have special storage requirements like covered warehouse storage. SDUPD has quite a bit of covered warehouse storage and will be able to capitalize on this change of direction up north. Reduced truck traffic on I-5 is an added benefit to this approach, as the steel is currently trucked down from Los Angeles.

As the SDUPD continues to refine its planning approach and work out the transition from airport operations to the sole focus on maritime and other related activities, it will likely begin to develop a longer term planning strategy more consistent with what is found in planning departments that have longer, more established processes in place.

PORTS OF ENTRY WITH MEXICO

I. Introduction / Description of Infrastructure System

The San Diego region contains three ports of entry with Mexico at San Ysidro, Otay Mesa, and Tecate (see Exhibit 22). While the San Ysidro port of entry (POE) is the largest point of crossing for passengers into the United States from Mexico, Otay Mesa is the main commercial point of entry in the region serving 2/3 of the State of California’s exports to Mexico. Together they represent the busiest ground border crossings in the world. The ports of entry must meet a number of diverse goals, such as international security, agricultural monitoring, and immigration and customs documentation.

The San Diego-Tijuana metropolitan area constituted more than four million people in 2000 and is the largest metropolitan area along the U.S.-Mexico border. Forecasts indicate that the combined population of San Diego and Tijuana will surpass seven million people by 2020.

Efficient transportation and goods movement in the border region are critically important to Mexico and the United States. Since NAFTA’s implementation in 1994, border-wide commercial traffic has risen 170 percent, increasing the pressure on existing commercial ports of entry along the U.S.-Mexico border. Furthermore, it is estimated that over one million trucks crossed north from Baja California to California in 2002.

31 The Port of Los Angeles, http://www.portoflosangeles.org. The TEU is a standard reporting unit for cargo

representing a 20 foot storage container.

29

In 2002, the region’s three ports of entry comprised 18 percent of the total incoming truck crossings along the U.S.-Mexico border. They also accounted for 24 percent of all incoming personal vehicle crossings, 53 percent of all incoming bus crossings, and 20 percent of all incoming pedestrian crossings.32 Rail figures were less significant, contributing four percent of total incoming rail crossings along the border in 2002.

Locally, San Diego and Tijuana constitute the thirteenth-largest urban area of the three NAFTA countries and the largest metropolitan area along the U.S.-Mexico border population. In 2000, the County of San Diego had a gross regional product (GRP) of approximately $110 billion, and the GRP of the Municipality of Tijuana was approximately $25 billion.33 Together, the combined economy would rank 30th in the world. Given the importance of border transportation infrastructure to the local and national economy, collaborative planning is imperative.

II. Responsibilities and Controlling Legislation

Agencies

Oversight of the U.S.-Mexico border is primarily the responsibility of the federal governments of the United States and Mexico. In the U.S., several dozen public agencies are involved at all levels of government from the Federal Highway Administration to the City of San Diego. Historically, a diverse range of agencies coordinated border-related activities. While the construction and maintenance of actual border stations is the responsibility of the General Services Administration (GSA), these stations are staffed by the Federal Inspection Services (FIS) partly composed of U.S. Customs and the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). Today, these agencies have been reorganized and are now under the control of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) through its Directorate of Border & Transportation Security (BTS).

The infrastructure around the ports of entry, such as the roads and highways, is primarily the responsibility of state and local agencies. At the state and local levels, several public entities are involved in the planning and implementation process of the areas around the region’s ports of entry. While the State of California’s Department of Transportation (Caltrans) is responsible for constructing and maintaining the highway infrastructure on the U.S. side of the border, local entities such as SANDAG, MTDB, and a few of the local jurisdictions plan and implement transportation-related projects around the ports of entry as well.

At the regional level, the SANDAG Borders Committee provides oversight for planning activities that impact the borders of the San Diego region. The Borders Committee also oversees SANDAG’s Committee on Binational Regional Opportunities (COBRO). Composed of representatives of several public and private entities both in the U.S. and Mexico, COBRO serves as a working group to the Borders Committee to facilitate a better understanding of the binational border-related issues and needs of the California-Baja California region. COBRO reviews transportation, energy, and other infrastructure programs, addresses issues affecting both sides of the border, and makes

32 Bureau of Transportation Statistics Note: All BTS figures are for incoming traffic, outgoing statistics are not presently available. 33 Presentation (on May 6, 2003) to COBRO by the City Manager of the City of Tijuana

30

recommendations for actions by appropriate agencies. COBRO is the region’s only government-sponsored public advisory committee addressing the binational community.

Legislation

The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), signed by the US, Canada, and Mexico in 1994, effectively created a free trade zone of three countries. As a result, border crossings have increased dramatically due to the high volume of trade. NAFTA has resulted in the need for highway expansions leading to and from the border, and truck safety and cargo search enforcement facilities which must be located on or near the border stations.

The federal Homeland Security Act, enacted after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, is another significant piece of legislation resulting in the creation of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). One of DHS’ primary missions is to strengthen the border. As a result, the 22 separate federal agencies that previously operated the diverse range of border functions have been consolidated under the new department. DHS’s first priority will be to prevent the entry of terrorists and the instruments of terrorism while simultaneously ensuring the efficient flow of lawful traffic and commerce. BTS will manage and coordinate port of entry activities and lead efforts to provide greater security through better intelligence, coordinated national efforts, and unprecedented international cooperation against terrorists, the instruments of terrorism, and other international threats.

Pursuant to the Homeland Security Act, the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security is responsible for establishing an automated entry/exit system. The DHS has made the US-VISIT (United States Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology) program one of its top priorities. The US-VISIT will expedite legitimate travelers, while making it more difficult for those intending to do harm to enter the U.S. This new program draws from previous legislation, such as Section 110 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, which mandated an automated entry and exit system, and the Data Management Improvement Act of 2000 (DMIA), which amended Section 110 by setting new deadlines for the implementation of exit controls and establishing a public-private sector task force to report to Congress on the implementation of the exit control system.

III. Operations and Maintenance (FY 2003)

With the operations and maintenance of the ports of entry under the control of the new Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the General Services Administration (GSA), much of the funding for operations comes from the federal government. However, due to security considerations detailed information has not been released to the public. State and local funds are applied to the infrastructure around the ports of entry, such as the roads and highways.

IV. Capital Improvement Programs

The Department of Homeland Security has multi-year POE capital improvement programs (CIPs). Some of these federal POE projects include the San Ysidro/Virginia Avenue Expansion Project, which

31

will increase throughput by expanding the number of inbound lanes. This project is scheduled to be completed by 2010. The Environmental Impact Statement is currently in progress. A second project is the Tecate POE modernization, which is to improve the port and separate passenger vehicles from trucks. This project is schedule to be completed by the end of FY 2005. Similar to operations and maintenance, CIP expenditures are also restricted from public disclosure.

The total estimated CIP expenditure for local projects over the next five years (FY03-FY07), is $260 million.34 Local projects serving the corridors of the region’s international ports of entry are funded by Caltrans and MTDB. For example, MTDB is planning to spend $16.4 million from 2003 to 2007 on a San Ysidro Intermodal Transportation Center. Other border-serving projects include $232 million State Route 905 and the $12 million I-5/I-805 Port of Entry project. SR 905, currently named Otay Mesa Road, will be upgraded to a freeway facility to connect Interstates 805 and 5 to the Otay Mesa Port of Entry.

The supporting corridors and highways servicing the ports of entry are primarily new freeway projects. These projects will provide support for POE demand growth as an increasing amount of patrons will be using the border. Transit, such as the trolley and buses, also service the POE. The IRIS identifies regional projects that will improve access to our ports of entry.

Among these improvements, one-half of the projects are for the construction of new facilities, and upgrades to existing facilities. These projects are typically funded by state and local governments (Caltrans and MTDB).

There are also a number of advanced technology projects already in place, which track the movement of cargo and the entry and exit of individuals. These projects include, SENTRI (Secure Electronic Network for Travelers Rapid Inspection), BRASS (Border Release Advanced Screening and Selectivity), and FAST (Free and Secure Trade). SENTRI is used for individual crossers, whereas BRASS and FAST are used for commercial activity. They all have been very successful and should continue to be supported, promoted and expanded.

The FAST concept is similar to the SENTRI program, which provides a special lane for qualified commercial drivers at several ports of entry along the border, including Otay Mesa. The difference between the two programs is that FAST not only requires companies to detail how they protect their goods from the point of origin to the destination, but also requires background checks for the trucking companies and drivers. The FAST program is operational at some POEs, such as El Paso, Texas and is scheduled to begin operations in 2004 at the San Diego-Mexico border. A summary of POE capital projects is provided in Exhibit 23.

V. Projected Long-Term Need

California’s border with Mexico is still experiencing severe congestion from NAFTA -related goods movement. Table 1 below shows both 2000 and 2020 figures for passenger car equivalents, tons of goods, and value of all goods.35 It is projected that passenger car equivalents will increase from 21.8

34 Transportation projects that directly serve the region’s POE make up the $260 million CIP expenditures.

Projects include: State Route 905 Siempre Viva (Stage 1), State Route 905 New Freeway (Stages 2-4), I-5/I-805 Port of Entry, and the San Ysidro Intermodal Transportation Center.

35 Note: Passenger Car Equivalents = Total Auto Crossings + (Total Truck Crossings * 2)

32

million to 37.6 million in 2020 (an increase of 72.5%). Tons of goods (both trucks and rail) will increase from 2.5 million tons to 4.4 million tons (an increase of 70.8%). The biggest increase is the value of all goods (trucks and rail). It is projected to increase by 308 percent from $11.2 billion to $34.4 billion. Exhibit 24 compares growth in population to growth in passenger car equivalents between 2000 and 2030.

Table 1 Northbound Port of Entry Crossing Data, San Diego County

2000 2020 Passenger Car Equivalents [in Millions] San Ysidro 14.2 Otay Mesa 6.3

Tecate 1.3

TOTAL 21.8 37.61

Tons of Goods (trucks & rail) [in Millions] San Ysidro - - 4 Otay Mesa 2.3

Tecate 0.2

TOTAL 2.5 4.32

Value of all goods (trucks & rail) [in Billions] San Ysidro - - 5 Otay Mesa 10.7

Tecate 0.5

TOTAL 11.2 34.43

Source: Binational Border Transportation Infrastructure Needs Study (BINS), Draft 2003. 1 Based on 72.5 percent projected increase for all land POEs (from San Ysidro to Andrade). 2 Based on 70.8 percent projected increase for all land POEs (from San Ysidro to Andrade). 3 Based on 308 percent projected increase for all land POEs (from San Ysidro to Andrade). 4 Less than 0.01 million tons. 5 Less than 0.01 billion dollars.

The existing Otay Mesa International Port of Entry handles two-thirds of all trade across the California-Baja California border. Based on growth projections, a new POE, the East Otay Mesa POE, is planned to handle future traffic between the San Diego and Tijuana regions by linking and coordinating the transportation infrastructure on both sides of the border.36 Environmental studies are being managed by SANDAG for the proposed new border crossing, which is expected to be open in 2010. The new port, which will be 2 miles east of Otay Mesa, will help to relieve traffic congestion at the two existing entries at San Ysidro and Otay Mesa.

The GSA’s Border Station Long Term Plan is the long range strategy for the construction and reconstruction of the U.S.-Mexico border infrastructure. The Border Station Partnership Council (BSPC) during its January 1999 session approved the development of a rolling plan to support the facilities acquisition needs of the Federal Inspection Service (FIS) agencies occupying land border stations. The BSPC established a working group to develop a process for the justification and prioritization of new construction projects over a five-year period.

36 Global Gateways Development Program, January 2002, page 24.

33

At the regional level, SANDAG is preparing strategies to improve security at the border while still facilitating the movement of goods and people. SANDAG, on behalf of Caltrans, conducted the “Survey and Analysis of Trade and Goods Movement Between California and Baja California” to better understand how the current infrastructure is used by the maquiladora and other industries at the border region. The “Binational Border Transportation Planning & Programming Study” (P&P Study), prepared by Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc., produced an inventory of transportation infrastructure along the U.S.-Mexico border and specified some of the “disconnects” that existed in 1998.37 However, the P&P study stopped short of identifying major transportation corridors and assessing their needs. Consequently, SANDAG was given the opportunity to continue the work completed in the P&P study by developing the “Binational Infrastructure Needs Assessment Study” (BINS), currently nearing completion. SANDAG has partnered with CALTRANS to conduct the BINS project.38 The purpose of the BINS project is to identify major transportation corridors on the border region, develop a quantitative procedure to evaluate the needs of these corridors, and then to identify transportation projects to meet the needs of the corridors as well as their possible funding sources. A report is due in fall 2003. Furthermore, SANDAG along with Caltrans is working on “Enhancing the Binational Economy and Security at the San Diego Region – Baja California International Border” project, which is scheduled to be completed by the next fiscal year.

VI. Public Policy / Financing Issues and Strategies

Currently there are capital improvement projects at the ports of entry, as well as the proposed East Otay Mesa project. These projects will substantially improve border crossings.

According to the multimember San Diego Alliance for Border Efficiency, the mission involving the region’s ports of entry is “to advocate the reduction of border wait times and promote the secure and efficient inspection and movement of people, goods, and services across the San Diego-Baja California region.” The future objectives are to expedite the inspection and movement of border traffic, implement Smart Technology, and consider some of the impacts due to a closer federal scrutiny regarding Entry-Exit Control.

37 Binational Border Transportation Planning & Programming Process. Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc. La

Empresa, S. de R.L., March 20, 1998. 38 Binational Infrastructure Needs Assessment Study (BINS). SANDAG, SourcePoint. Estimated completion date,

November 2003.

34

Transportation Section Exhibits

1. Existing Freeways and Highways—“Regionally Significant Arterial Network 2003” (map)2. Existing Regional Transit Service (map)3. Streets and Transit: Operations and Maintenance Revenues and Expenditures, FY 2003 (pie chart)4. Transportation Operations and Maintenance, FY 2003 (table)5. Summary of Capital Improvement Programs: Highways and Streets, FY 2003 – 2007 (table)6. Transit and Highway Capital Projects (large table)7. Subregional Transportation Infrastructure Capital Improvement Expenditures, FY 2003 ($705

million for transit, highways and streets) 8. Community and Infrastructure Planning Areas (table)9. Vehicle Miles Traveled and Population Projected Growth, 2003-2030 (chart) 10. Summary of Capital Improvement Projected Categories FY 2003 – 2030 (table) 2030 Mobility

Network (map) 11. 2030 Mobility Network (map)12. 2030 Regionally Significant Arterial Network (map) 13. Mobility 2030: Regional Transportation Plan Revenues and Expenditures , FY 2002-2030 (Pie

Chart) 14. Airport and Maritime Port Facilities (map) 15. San Diego International Airport and San Diego Unified Port District: Operations and

Maintenance Revenues and Expenditures, FY 2002-3 (pie chart)16. San Diego International Airport and San Diego Unified Port District Operations and Maintenance

Revenues and Expenditures, FY 2003. 17. San Diego International Airport Capital Projects (table) 18. Total Annual Enplanements and Population Projected Growth, 2003 – 2030 (chart)19. Summary of Capital Improvement Programs: San Diego Unified Port District, FY 2003 to 2007 (table) 20. San Diego Unified Port District Capital Projects (table) 21. Total Annual Maritime Cargo Tonnage and Population Projected Growth, 2003 – 2030 (chart)22. San Diego Region/Baja California Ports of Entry (map) 23. Ports of Entry Capital Projects (table)24. Total Annual Passenger Car Equivalents (Border Crossings) and Population’s Projected Growth

2003 – 2030.

35

36

37

Exhibit 3 Streets and Transit Operations and Maintenance Revenues and Expenditures, FY 2003

O&M Revenues O&M Expenditures

$164.1 Million $164.0 Million

Source: City and county data from California State Controller, Financial Transactions Concerning Streets and Roads of Cities and Counties of California, Annual Report, FY 2000-2001

Street maintenance,

67.2%

Debt Service & Capital Costs,

1.4%

G&A, Unallocated Eng. & Adm., 31.5%

,,

Federal and State Grants,

67.5%

Other Local Revenues,

32.5%,

38

Exhibit 4 Transportation Operations and Maintenance, FY 2003

($ Millions)

Cities and County Percent MTDB NCTD

Local Transit Districts Percent

Operating Revenues (FY 2003) General tax (e.g., property tax, sales tax) $ 0.0 0.0% $ 0.0 $ 26.5 $ 26.5 11.9% Special taxes and assessments 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% Interest, rents 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% Other local funds 53.3 32.5% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% Income from Operations 0.0 0.0% 28.1 13.7 41.8 18.8% Transfers from federal / state 110.7 67.5% 133.4 20.9 154.3 69.3% Transfers from other agencies 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% Total Annual Revenues $ 164.1 100.0% $ 161.5 $ 61.1 $ 222.6 100.0% Operating Expenditures (FY 03) Operations and maintenance $ 0.0 0.0% $ 0.0 $ 0.0 $ 0.0 0.0% G&A, Unallocated Eng. & Adm. 51.6 31.5% 11.3 33.5 44.8 20.2% Contracts & services 0.0 0.0% 133.4 28.7 162.1 73.0% Street maintenance 110.2 67.2% 16.8 1.7 15.0 6.8% Subtotal O&M 161.8 98.6% 161.5 60.5 222.0 100.0%

Capital costs 2.2 1.4% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% Debt service 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% Total Operating Expenditures $ 164.0 100.0% $ 161.5 $ 60.5 $ 222.0 100.0% Revenues Over or (Under) Expenditures $ 101,135.0 $ 19,000.0 $ 582,576.0 Source: City and county data from California State Controller, Financial Transactions Concerning Streets and Roads of Cities and Counties of California, Annual Report, 2000-2001 Fiscal Year. Transit districts, San Diego International Airport, and San Diego Unified Port District data from FY 2003 budgets of respective agencies [1] The airport related revenues of $118,696,500 have been removed from both revenues and expenditures.

39

Exhibit 4 Transportation Operations and Maintenance, FY 2003

($ Millions)

San Diego International

AirportSan Diego Unified

Port District [1] Airport/Ports Percent TOTAL All

Transportation % TOTAL

Operating Revenues (FY 2003) General tax (e.g., property tax, sales tax) $ 0.0 $ 0.0 $ 0.0 0.0% $ 26.5 4.39% Special taxes and assessments 38.6 0.0 38.6 17.9% 38.6 6.42% Interest, rents 49.2 4.7 53.9 25.0% 53.9 8.95% Other local funds 17.4 14.7 32.1 14.9% 85.4 14.18% Income from Operations 19.5 71.4 90.9 42.2% 132.7 22.03% Transfers from federal / state 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 265.1 44.02% Transfers from other agencies 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.00% Total Annual Revenues $ 124.7 $ 90.8 $ 215.5 100.0% $ 602.3 100.00% Operating Expenditures (FY 03) Operations and maintenance $ 96.1 $ 0.0 $ 96.1 50.4% $ 0.0 0.00% G&A, Unallocated Eng. & Adm. 0.0 14.9 14.9 7.8% 111.4 26.48% Contracts & services 6.3 21.2 27.5 14.4% 189.6 45.08% Street maintenance 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 125.2 29.77% Subtotal O&M 102.4 36.1 138.4 72.6% 426.2 101.33%

Capital costs 4.6 53.2 57.8 30.3% 0.0 0.00% Debt service 5.6 $ 0.0 $ 5.6 -2.9% $ 5.6 -1.33%

Total Operating Expenditures $ 101.3 $ 89.3 $ 190.6 100.0% $ 420.5 100.00% Revenues Over or (Under) Expenditures $ 23,356,469.0 $ 1,573,000.0 181,707,673.0 Source: City and county data from California State Controller, Financial Transactions Concerning Streets and Roads of Cities and Counties of California, Annual Report, 2000-2001 Fiscal

Year. Transit districts, San Diego International Airport, and San Diego Unified Port District data from FY 2003 budgets of respective agencies [1] The airport related revenues of $118,696,500 have been removed from both revenues and expenditures.

40

Exhibit 5 Summary of Capital Improvement Programs

Highway and Streets FY 2003 to 2007 ($ Millions)

Percent FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 Total of Total Regional Improvements New $ 397.2 $ 168.1 $ 15.0 $ 11.1 $ 71.4 $ 662.7 40.0% Upgrade 282.6 141.3 84.1 56.9 99.0 663.9 40.1% Technology 43.9 76.5 18.7 19.4 3.7 162.3 9.8% Mandated 53.2 28.9 41.6 11.4 12.4 147.5 8.9% Green [see note] 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% Other 12.4 3.2 3.2 0.0 0.0 18.7 1.1% Total Regional $ 789.2 $ 417.9 $ 162.6 $ 98.8 $ 186.5 $ 1,655.1 100.0% Subregional Improvements New $ 253.6 $ 277.3 $ 201.7 $ 93.7 $ 15.3 $ 841.6 40.8% Upgrade 406.8 247.2 169.7 133.2 95.7 1,052.7 51.0% Technology 14.9 21.9 21.8 4.7 2.7 65.9 3.2% Mandated 2.3 2.3 2.4 2.4 2.5 11.9 0.6% Green [see note] 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0% Other 27.5 16.9 14.8 15.3 15.7 90.2 4.4% Total Subregional $ 705.3 $ 565.6 $ 410.4 $ 249.4 $ 132.0 $ 2,062.6 100.0% Total CIP $ 1,494.5 $ 983.5 $ 573.0 $ 348.2 $ 318.5 $ 3,717.7 Source: City CIP Programs in San Diego County, FY 2002-03 budgets. Note: "New" projects refer to construction of new streets/highways and other infrastructure; "upgrades" refer to renovation, reconstruction, or other improvements to existing facilities. "Technology" projects improve overall productivity, such as system or control technologies. "Mandated" projects are undertaken to satisfy federal or state requirements on safety and other issues. "Green" projects (which may also be mandated) refer to actions to mitigate impacts to or improve the natural environment. Green and environmental mitigation costs are accounted for in the total project costs of other categories, such as New, Mandated, or Upgrade. Due to data limitations, they have not been separated out for this analysis.

Exhibit 6Transit and Highway Capital Projects

ProjectNo.

Agency ID Project Description Project TypeRegional (R) /

Subregional (SR/S)* Total Cost

Costs Prior to FY 2003

FY 2003Costs

FY 2004Costs

FY 2005Costs

FY 2006Costs

FY 2007Costs

Costs After FY 2007

CB01 1 Cannon Road Extension NEW SR 8,736,000 600,000 8,136,000 - - - - - CB03 1 College Boulevard UPGRADE SR 10,800,000 - 10,800,000 - - - - - CB04 1 El Camino Real Improvements UPGRADE SR 6,250,000 - 1,500,000 2,900,000 - - 1,850,000 -

CB05 1 Melrose Drive UPGRADE SR 5,000,000 - 5,000,000 - - - - - CB07 1 Pavement Management

ProgramUPGRADE SR 9,500,000 - 1,500,000 1,700,000 1,900,000 2,100,000 2,300,000 -

CB08 1 Rancho Santa Fe Road UPGRADE SR 38,810,000 - 38,810,000 - - - - - CB09 1 Carlsbad Boulevard Bridge TECHNOLOGY SR 300,000 - 300,000 - - - - - CB10 1 Poinsettia Lane UPGRADE SR 2,500,000 - 2,500,000 - - - - - CB11 1 Camino Vida Roble & Yarrow Dr

Traffic SignalUPGRADE S 125,000 - - - - - - 125,000

CB12 1 Cannon Rd & Avenida Encinas Traffic Signal

UPGRADE S 150,000 - 150,000 - - - - -

CB13 1 Cannon Rd & College Blvd Traffic Signal

UPGRADE S 150,000 - - - - - - 150,000

CB14 1 Carlsbad Village Drive Timing Upgrade

UPGRADE S 12,100 12,100 - - - - - -

CB15 1 El Camino Real/Plaza/Marron/Hosp Wy Traffic Signal

UPGRADE S 1,200,000 - 1,200,000 - - - - -

CB16 1 El Camino Real Corridor Study TECHNOLOGY S 29,000 29,000 - - - - - -

CB17 1 Faraday Ave & Cannon Rd Traffic Signal

UPGRADE S 125,000 125,000 - - - - - -

CB18 1 Faraday Ave & Camino Hills Dr Traffic Signal

UPGRADE S 125,000 - - - - - - 125,000

CB19 1 Faraday Ave & Priestly Dr Traffic Signal

UPGRADE S 150,000 125,000 25,000 - - - - -

CB20 1 Faraday Ave & Rutherford Rd Traffic Signal

UPGRADE S 150,000 - - - - - - 150,000

CB21 1 Monroe St & Hosp. Way Traffic Signal

UPGRADE S 150,000 - - - - - - 150,000

CB22 1 Paseo Del Norte & Car Country Dr Traffic Signal

UPGRADE S 125,000 - - - - - - 125,000

CB23 1 Tamarack Ave & Valley St Traffic Signal

UPGRADE S 125,000 - - - - - - 125,000

CB24 1 Tamarack Ave & Highland Dr Traffic Signal

UPGRADE S 150,000 - - - - - - 150,000

CB25 1 Carlsbad Blvd Widening UPGRADE S 3,830,000 1,830,000 - - - - - 2,000,000

CB26 1 Palomar Airport Rd UPGRADE S 480,000 - - 480,000 - - - -

CB27 1 Carlsbad Village Dr and Chatham Rd Traffic Signal

UPGRADE S 150,000 - - 150,000 - - - -

CB28 1 Carlsbad Village Dr & Avenida de Anita Traffic Signal

UPGRADE S 80,000 - 80,000 - - - - -

CB29 1 Carlsbad Village Drive & Pontiac Traffic Signal

UPGRADE S 158,550 158,550 - - - - - -

CB30 1 College Blvd & El Camino Real Traffic Signal

UPGRADE S 115,000 - - - - - - 115,000

CB31 1 College Blvd & Carlsbad Village Dr Traffic Signal

UPGRADE S 110,000 - - - - - - 110,000

CB32 1 College Blvd and Tamarack Traffic Signal

UPGRADE S 150,000 100,000 50,000 - - - - -

41

Exhibit 6Transit and Highway Capital Projects

ProjectNo.

Agency ID Project Description Project TypeRegional (R) /

Subregional (SR/S)* Total Cost

Costs Prior to FY 2003

FY 2003Costs

FY 2004Costs

FY 2005Costs

FY 2006Costs

FY 2007Costs

Costs After FY 2007

CB33 1 Faraday Ave & Orion St Traffic Signal

UPGRADE S 150,000 - - - - - - 150,000

CB34 1 Palomar Airport Rd & Melrose Dr Traffic Signal

UPGRADE S 250,000 125,000 125,000 - - - - -

CB35 1 Tamarack Ave & Pontiac Dr Traffic Signal

UPGRADE S 125,000 - - - 125,000 - - -

CB36 1 Faraday Ave NEW S 255,610 255,610 - - - - - -

CB37 1 Orion Street UPGRADE S 1,272,908 1,272,908 - - - - - -

CB38 1 Alga Rd & Cazadero Traffic Signal

UPGRADE S 150,000 - - - - - - 150,000

CB39 1 Alga Rd & Xana Wy Traffic Signal

UPGRADE S 150,000 - 150,000 - - - - -

CB40 1 Calle Barcelona & Paseo Avellano Traffic Signal

UPGRADE S 150,000 - - - - - - 150,000

CB41 1 Camino De Los Coches & La Costa Ave Traffic Signal

UPGRADE S 150,000 - - - - - - 150,000

CB42 1 La Costa Ave & Calle Madero Traffic Signal

UPGRADE S 125,000 - - - - - - 125,000

CB43 1 La Costa Ave/Nueva Castilla Traffic Signal

UPGRADE S 125,000 - - - - - - 125,000

CB44 1 Poinsettia Ln & El Fuerte St Traffic Signal

UPGRADE S 150,000 - - - - - - 150,000

CB45 1 Poinsettia Ln & Melrose Dr Traffic Signal

UPGRADE S 244,676 119,676 - - - - - 125,000

CB46 1 Poinsettia Ln & Paseo Escuela Traffic Signal

UPGRADE S 150,000 - - 150,000 - - - -

CB47 1 Rancho Santa Fe Rd & Melrose Dr Traffic Signal

UPGRADE S 150,000 - - - - - - 150,000

CB48 1 Alga Rd Street Lighting UPGRADE S 656,358 656,358 - - - - - -

CB49 1 Alga Rd Medians UPGRADE S 1,100,000 1,100,000 - - - - - -

CB50 1 Aviara Pkwy UPGRADE S 593,000 440,000 153,000 - - - - -

CB51 1 Calle Barcelona & Paseo Aliso Traffic Signal

UPGRADE S 150,000 - 150,000 - - - - -

CB52 1 Carlsbad Blvd & Avenida Encinas Traffic Signal

UPGRADE S 110,000 - - - - - - 110,000

CB53 1 Carlsbad Ave & Cherry Ave Traffic Signal

UPGRADE S 100,000 - - - - - - 100,000

CB54 1 Carlsbad Blvd & Oak Ave Traffic Signal

UPGRADE S 150,000 - - - 150,000 - - -

CB55 1 El Camino Real & Poinsettia Ln Traffic Signal

UPGRADE S 204,250 204,250 - - - - - -

CB56 1 Melrose Dr & La Costa Ave Traffic Signal

UPGRADE S 150,000 - - - - - - 150,000

CB57 1 Poinsettia Ln & Brigantine Rd Traffic Signal

UPGRADE S 31,625 - - - - - - 31,625

CB58 1 Poinsettia Ln & Snapdragon Dr Traffic Signal

UPGRADE S 125,000 - 125,000 - - - - -

CB59 1 Tamarack Ave & Garfield St Traffic Signal

UPGRADE S 150,000 - - - - - - 150,000

CB60 1 Avenida Encinas Widening UPGRADE S 870,000 - - - - - - 870,000

CB61 1 Aviara Pkwy UPGRADE S 1,611,500 507,500 - - - - - 1,104,000

CB62 1 Carlsbad Blvd Median UPGRADE S 1,253,449 16,272 - - - - - 1,237,177

CB63 1 El Camino Real UPGRADE S 2,024,708 642,000 - - 1,382,708 - - -

42

Exhibit 6Transit and Highway Capital Projects

ProjectNo.

Agency ID Project Description Project TypeRegional (R) /

Subregional (SR/S)* Total Cost

Costs Prior to FY 2003

FY 2003Costs

FY 2004Costs

FY 2005Costs

FY 2006Costs

FY 2007Costs

Costs After FY 2007

CB64 1 Carlsbad Blvd & State St Traffic Signal

UPGRADE S 150,000 - - 150,000 - - -

CB65 1 College Blvd & Lake Blvd Traffic Signal

UPGRADE S 100,000 - - - - - - 100,000

CB66 1 Rancho Santa Fe & Questhaven Rd Traffic Signal

UPGRADE S 125,000 125,000 - - - - - -

CB67 1 Traffic Monitoring Program TECHNOLOGY S 1,364,764 664,764 70,000 70,000 70,000 70,000 70,000 350,000

CB68 1 Carlsbad Boulevard Pedestrian Access Study

UPGRADE S 105,000 100,000 - - - - - -

CB69 1 Chestnut Avenue Wall UPGRADE S 100,000 - - - - - -

CB70 1 La Costa Avenue Sidewalks UPGRADE S 150,000 150,000 - - - - - -

CB71 1 Poinsettia Lane UPGRADE S 8,920,070 5,632,070 - - - - - 1,218,000

CB72 1 Poinsettia Lane UPGRADE S 8,278,000 1,550,000 - - - - - 6,728,000

CB73 1 Cannon Road West UPGRADE S 12,354,600 12,094,600 260,000 - - - - -

CB74 1 Cannon Road West Traffic Signal UPGRADE S 7,050,000 4,886,000 - - - - - 2,164,000

CB75 1 Cannon Road Reach 4 UPGRADE S 100,000 100,000 - - - - - -

CB76 1 Cannon Road Widening UPGRADE S 210,725 210,725 - - - - - -

CB77 1 Carlsbad Blvd Retrofit UPGRADE S 1,100,000 1,100,000 - - - - - -

CB78 1 Carlsbad Blvd U-turn UPGRADE S 75,000 75,000 - - - - - -

CB79 1 Carlsbad Village Dr Widening UPGRADE S 1,260,000 - - - - - - 1,260,000

CB80 1 College Blvd UPGRADE S 13,956,000 900,000 1,211,000 - - - - 11,845,000

CB81 1 El Camino Real and Camino Vida Roble

UPGRADE S 400,000 400,000 - - - - - -

CB82 1 El Camino Real and Carlsbad Village Dr

UPGRADE S 320,000 - - - - - - 320,000

CB83 1 El Camino Real and Faraday Ave UPGRADE S 710,000 710,000 - - - - - -

CB84 1 El Camino Real at Avaira Pkwy/Alga Road

UPGRADE S 250,000 - - - - - - 250,000

CB85 1 El Camino Real Medians UPGRADE S 1,850,000 550,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 - - 850,000 CB86 1 El Camino Real Road Widening UPGRADE S 450,000 - - - - - - -

CB87 1 Faraday Ave and Melrose Dr UPGRADE S 14,790,854 790,854 - - 14,000,000 - CB88 1 Faraday Ave Mitigation UPGRADE S 130,000 130,000 - - - - - - CB89 1 I-5 and La Costa Avenue UPGRADE S 1,500,000 - - - - - - 1,500,000CB90 1 Melrose Dr UPGRADE S 480,000 480,000 - - - - - - CB91 1 Ocean St UPGRADE S 170,000 170,000 - - - - - - CB92 1 Olivenhain Road UPGRADE S 15,000 15,000 - - - - - - CB93 1 Palomar Airport Road UPGRADE S 160,000 - - - - - - 160,000 CB94 1 Palomar Airport Road UPGRADE S 280,000 280,000 - - - - - - CB95 1 Palomar Airport Road UPGRADE S 480,000 - 480,000 - - - - - CB96 1 Pavement Management

ProgramUPGRADE S 36,394,501 5,995,749 6,498,752 2,300,000 1,900,000 2,100,000 2,100,000 2,300,000

CB97 1 Poinsettia Lane Financing Program

UPGRADE S 100,000 100,000 - - - - - -

CB98 1 Poinsettia Lane Railroad Bridge UPGRADE S 2,131,358 2,131,358 - - - - - -

CB99 1 Poinsettia Lane UPGRADE S 1,870,000 - - - - - 1,870,000CB100 1 Rancho Sante Fe Rd and

OlivenhainUPGRADE S 4,148,691 2,638,691 1,510,000 - - - - -

CB101 1 Rancho Sante Fe Rd - Phase I UPGRADE S 27,582,900 27,582,900 - - - - - - CB102 1 Rancho Sante Fe Rd - Phase II UPGRADE S 5,821,600 - 5,821,600 - - - -

43

Exhibit 6Transit and Highway Capital Projects

ProjectNo.

Agency ID Project Description Project TypeRegional (R) /

Subregional (SR/S)* Total Cost

Costs Prior to FY 2003

FY 2003Costs

FY 2004Costs

FY 2005Costs

FY 2006Costs

FY 2007Costs

Costs After FY 2007

CB103 1 Sidewalk/Street Construction Prgm

UPGRADE S 7,412,661 1,542,661 470,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 3,800,000

CB104 1 Traffic Impact Fee Study UPGRADE S 70,000 70,000 - - - - - - CB105 1 Palomar Airport Road UPGRADE S 7,200,000 - - - - - - 7,200,000

CHV01 2 I-805 Olympic Pkwy Interchange Improv.

UPGRADE SR 21,400,000 2,200,000 19,200,000 - - - - -

CHV04 2 Olympic Pkwy Improvement UPGRADE SR 72,779,000 66,079,000 6,000,000 700,000 - - - - CHV06 2 Pavement Rehabilitation

ProgramUPGRADE SR 14,900,000 2,300,000 4,200,000 4,200,000 4,200,000 - -

CHV08 2 Willow Street Bridge Project UPGRADE SR 10,939,000 1,500,000 9,439,000 - - - CHV09 2 East H Street/I-805 UPGRADE SR 3,114,000 - - 755,000 2,359,000 - - - CHV11 2 East H Street Widening UPGRADE SR 160,000 - - - 160,000 - - - CHV12 2 Traffic Signal Installation -

Palomar & FirstUPGRADE S 150,000 - - 150,000 - - - -

CHV13 2 3rd Avenue Street Improvements

UPGRADE S 50,000 - - 50,000 - - - -

CHV14 2 Traffic Signal Installation - Hilltop & Oxford

UPGRADE S 228,000 - - 228,000 - - - -

CHV15 2 Oxford St improvements UPGRADE S 90,000 - - 90,000 - - - -

CHV16 2 Traffic Signal Installation - Otay Lakes Rd & Apache Dr

UPGRADE S 187,000 - 187,000 - - - - -

CHV17 2 Traffic Signal Installation - Eastlake Pkwy & Clubhouse Dr

UPGRADE S 190,000 - 190,000 - - - - -

CHV18 2 Traffic Signal Installation - East Palomar & Brandywine

UPGRADE S 190,000 - 190,000 - - - - -

CHV19 2 Traffic Signal Installation - East Palomar & Santa Cora Ave

UPGRADE S 120,000 - 120,000 - - - - -

CHV21 2 Street Improvements UPGRADE S 138,000 - - 138,000 - - - -

CHV22 2 Sidewalk Safety Program UPGRADE S 130,000 - - 130,000 - - - -

CHV23 2 Install Internally Illuminated Street Name Signs

UPGRADE S 77,000 - 25,000 52,000 - - - -

CHV24 2 98 Traffic Signal Upgrade UPGRADE S 8,579 - 8,579 - - - - -

CHV25 2 Purchase 20 170E Traffic Signal Controllers

UPGRADE S 30,000 - 30,000 - - - - -

CHV26 2 FY 00/01 Traffic Signal Detection Replacement Program

UPGRADE S 19,500 - 19,500 - - - - -

CHV27 2 Traffic Signal Detection Replacement Program

UPGRADE S 67,500 - 67,500 - - - - -

CHV29 2 E Street Streetscape Improvements

UPGRADE S 255,181 - 255,181 - - - - -

CHV31 2 Sidewalk Improvements UPGRADE S 23,500 - - 23,500 - - - -

CHV32 2 Sidewalk Rehabilitation - Phase IV

UPGRADE S 150,000 - 150,000 - - - - -

CHV33 2 ADA Curb Ramps UPGRADE S 50,000 - 50,000 - - - - -

CHV34 2 Sidewalk Rehabilitation - Annual Allocation

UPGRADE S 125,000 - - 125,000 - - - -

CHV35 2 Palomar St/I-805 Interchange UPGRADE S 25,000 - 25,000 - - - - -

CHV36 2 Olympic Pkwy/Brandywine to Hunte Parkway

UPGRADE S 100,000 - 100,000 - - - - -

CHV37 2 Traffic Modeling and Allocation UPGRADE S 40,000 - 40,000 - - - - -

44

Exhibit 6Transit and Highway Capital Projects

ProjectNo.

Agency ID Project Description Project TypeRegional (R) /

Subregional (SR/S)* Total Cost

Costs Prior to FY 2003

FY 2003Costs

FY 2004Costs

FY 2005Costs

FY 2006Costs

FY 2007Costs

Costs After FY 2007

CHV38 2 2003 Traffic Monitoring Program

UPGRADE S 85,000 - 85,000 - - - - -

CHV39 2 Sidewalk Safety Program 02/03 UPGRADE S 70,000 - - 70,000 - - - -

CHV40 2 Local Streets Pavement Rehabilitation

UPGRADE S 500,000 - 500,000 - - - - -

COR04 3 Street and Road Maintenance UPGRADE SR 4,059,000 - 755,000 782,000 810,000 840,000 872,000 -

COR05 3 Downtown Streetscape UPGRADE S 770,000 - - - - 770,000 - -

DM01 4 Resurfacing & Drainage Projects UPGRADE SR 1,685,000 - 305,000 319,000 336,000 354,000 371,000 -

DM02 4 Camino Del Mar Streetscape Improvements

UPGRADE S 325,000 - - 325,000 - - - -

DM03 4 Coast Blvd Streetscape & Drainage Improvements

UPGRADE S 448,000 - 378,000 70,000 - - - -

DM04 4 Camino Del Mar Streetscape Improvements

UPGRADE S 550,000 - 550,000 - - - - -

DM05 4 Del Mar Bluff Stabilization MISCELLANEOUS S 9,481,000 4,500,000 4,981,000 - - - - - DM06 4 Pedestrian and Accessibility

ImprovementsUPGRADE S 130,000 - 25,000 105,000 - - - -

DM08 4 Torrey Pines Bridge Seismic Upgrades

UPGRADE S 2,360,000 - 860,000 1,500,000 - - - -

EL01 5 Johnson Avenue UPGRADE SR 575,000 - - - - 575,000 - - EL02 5 Marshal Avenue UPGRADE SR 1,850,000 - - 1,150,000 700,000 - - EL03 5 Overlay Projects UPGRADE SR 6,635,000 - 994,000 1,117,000 1,173,000 1,479,000 1,872,000 - EL04 5 Second Street UPGRADE SR 2,004,000 1,599,000 405,000 - - - - - EL06 5 Traffic Signals UPGRADE SR 1,000,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 - EL10 5 Jamacha Road UPGRADE SR 1,025,000 548,000 477,000 - - - - - EL11 5 East County Bus Maintenance

FacilityNEW S 10,300,000 4,100,000 4,200,000 - 1,000,000 1,000,000 - -

ENC03 6 I-5 @ Manchester UPGRADE SR 2,425,000 - 1,250,000 1,175,000 - - - - ENC05 6 Manchester Avenue

RealignmentUPGRADE SR 2,000,000 - 250,000 1,750,000 - - - -

ENC07 6 Quail Gardens Drive UPGRADE SR 2,700,000 - 2,700,000 - - - - - ENC10 6 Rancho Santa Fe Bicycle

ImprovementUPGRADE SR 1,160,000 - 150,000 1,010,000 - - - -

ENC11 6 Santa Fe Drive UPGRADE SR 600,000 - 600,000 - - - - - ENC14 6 Street Overlay Program UPGRADE SR 6,380,000 - 1,670,000 1,170,000 1,170,000 1,270,000 1,100,000 - ENC17 6 Safe Routes to School Sidewalk

ProgramUPGRADE SR 1,250,000 - 200,000 300,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 -

ENC19 6 Traffic Safety/Calming UPGRADE SR 1,575,000 - 475,000 275,000 275,000 275,000 275,000 - ENC20 6 Coast Highway Beautification UPGRADE SR 3,500,000 - 500,000 2,500,000 - - 500,000 -

ENC21 6 Hall Property UPGRADE SR 5,000,000 - - 500,000 4,500,000 - - - ENC22 6 Leucadia Boulevard

ImprovementUPGRADE SR 1,250,000 - 250,000 1,000,000 - - - -

ENC23 6 Olivenhain Road UPGRADE SR 600,000 - 600,000 - - - - - ENC24 6 Downtown Encinitas Streetscape

ProjectUPGRADE S 5,744,358 4,931,008 813,350 - - - - -

ENC25 6 I-5 Interchange @ Encinitas Blvd UPGRADE S 850,000 - 250,000 600,000 - - - -

ENC26 6 North Coast Highway 101 Streetscape

UPGRADE S 2,100,000 - 100,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000

45

Exhibit 6Transit and Highway Capital Projects

ProjectNo.

Agency ID Project Description Project TypeRegional (R) /

Subregional (SR/S)* Total Cost

Costs Prior to FY 2003

FY 2003Costs

FY 2004Costs

FY 2005Costs

FY 2006Costs

FY 2007Costs

Costs After FY 2007

ENC27 6 Encinitas Blvd/El Camino Real Intersection Improvements

UPGRADE S 1,600,000 - - - - - 800,000 800,000

ENC28 6 Coast Hwy 101 Pavement Overlay

UPGRADE S 455,000 - 455,000 - - - - -

ENC29 6 El Camino Real Medians UPGRADE S 875,000 - - 875,000 - - -

ENC30 6 Traffic Signal Modifications UPGRADE S 750,000 125,000 125,000 125,000 125,000 125,000 125,000 -

ENC31 6 Underground utility districts Nos. 10-15

UPGRADE S 475,000 75,000 100,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 -

ESC01 7 Bear Valley Parkway UPGRADE SR 3,304,000 1,304,000 2,000,000 - - - - - ESC02 7 Bear Valley/East Valley/Valley

CenterUPGRADE SR 9,000,000 2,088,000 6,912,000 - - - - -

ESC03 7 Citracado Parkway UPGRADE SR 1,778,000 922,000 428,000 428,000 - - - - ESC04 7 Citracado Parkway II UPGRADE SR 3,633,000 - 300,000 300,000 3,033,000 - - - ESC05 7 El Norte Parkway UPGRADE SR 3,007,000 1,140,000 1,867,000 - - - - - ESC06 7 El Norte Parkway UPGRADE SR 1,000,000 - 1,000,000 - - - - ESC08 7 Felicita Avenue/Juniper Street UPGRADE SR 2,256,000 1,950,000 306,000 - - - - -

ESC09 7 Ninth Avenue UPGRADE SR 1,400,000 1,000,000 400,000 - - - - - ESC11 7 Street Rehabilitation &

ResurfaceUPGRADE SR 2,800,000 800,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 -

ESC14 7 Lincoln Parkway UPGRADE SR 5,137,000 1,625,000 - - - 3,512,000 - - ESC15 7 Ash Street UPGRADE SR 3,705,000 - - - - - 3,705,000 - ESC16 7 North Broadway UPGRADE S 1,456,811 1,256,811 50,000 150,000 - - - -

ESC17 7 Oak Hill Drive UPGRADE S 596,500 446,500 150,000 - - - - -

ESC18 7 West Valley Parkway UPGRADE S 1,453,214 1,153,124 300,000 - - - - -

ESC19 7 Four Priority Traffic Signals NEW S 591,326 341,326 250,000 - - - - -

IB01 8 SR-75 Landscape UPGRADE SR 150,000 - - 150,000 - - - - IB02 8 Street Maintenance Operations UPGRADE SR 1,354,000 - 260,000 278,000 271,000 266,000 279,000 -

IB03 8 Street Maintenance & Improvement

UPGRADE SR 1,946,000 - 437,000 183,000 408,000 447,000 471,000 -

LAM03 9 Street Maintenance UPGRADE SR 850,000 - 170,000 170,000 170,000 170,000 170,000 - LAM05 9 Traffic Signal Improvements UPGRADE SR 1,000,000 - 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 - LAM07 9 Pedestrian Ramps UPGRADE SR 250,000 - 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 - LAM08 9 Storm Drain Improvements UPGRADE SR 400,000 - 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 - LAM09 9 Curb, Gutter, Sidewalks UPGRADE SR 500,000 - 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 - LAM10 9 Street Resurfacing UPGRADE SR 1,500,000 - 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 - LAM11 9 Street Lights for Overhead

UndergroundingUPGRADE SR 250,000 - 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 -

LAM12 9 Pavement Management TECHNOLOGY SR 125,000 - 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 - LAM13 9 Severin Dr Street Light

ReplacementUPGRADE S 21,740 - 21,740 - - - - -

LAM14 9 Traffic Signal Upgrade (University/La Mesa)

UPGRADE S 178,000 - 178,000 - - - - -

LAM15 9 Traffic Signal Upgrade (University/Yale)

UPGRADE S 95,470 - 95,470 - - - - -

LG01 10 CIP Development & Implementation

TECHNOLOGY SR 300,000 - 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 -

LG02 10 Pavement Management TECHNOLOGY SR 50,000 - 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 - LG03 10 Street Drainage UPGRADE SR 400,000 - 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 - LG04 10 Street Resurfacing UPGRADE SR 2,198,000 - 453,000 385,000 417,000 453,000 490,000 - LG05 10 Street Striping UPGRADE SR 250,000 - 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 - LG06 10 Traffic Signal Upgrades UPGRADE SR 400,000 - - 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 -

46

Exhibit 6Transit and Highway Capital Projects

ProjectNo.

Agency ID Project Description Project TypeRegional (R) /

Subregional (SR/S)* Total Cost

Costs Prior to FY 2003

FY 2003Costs

FY 2004Costs

FY 2005Costs

FY 2006Costs

FY 2007Costs

Costs After FY 2007

NC01 11 Plaza Boulevard Widening UPGRADE SR 3,092,000 800,000 238,000 1,546,000 254,000 254,000 - - NC03 11 Street Resurfacing UPGRADE SR 7,689,000 93,000 1,229,000 1,244,000 1,550,000 1,621,000 1,952,000 - NC04 11 Traffic Signal Install/Upgrade UPGRADE SR 700,000 200,000 125,000 125,000 125,000 125,000 - NC05 11 Highland Avenue Resurfacing UPGRADE SR 330,000 - 330,000 - - - - -

O01 12 North Coast Highway Bridge Painting

MISCELLANEOUS SR 200,000 - 200,000 - - - - -

O02 12 Rancho del Oro Drive Extension NEW SR 6,921,000 2,221,000 4,700,000 - - - - -

O03 12 Rancho del Oro Drive Interchange

UPGRADE SR 10,856,000 3,206,000 1,000,000 100,000 5,550,000 500,000 500,000 -

O04 12 Miscellaneous Street Improvements

UPGRADE SR 6,000,000 - 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 -

O06 12 Melrose Extension NEW SR 600,000 100,000 300,000 200,000 - - - - O08 12 College Blvd Widening UPGRADE SR 900,000 - 900,000 - - - - - O09 12 El Camino Real Bridge Widening UPGRADE SR 300,000 - 200,000 100,000 - - - -

O10 12 Lake Blvd & Skyhaven: Signal UPGRADE S 100,000 - - 100,000 - - - -

O11 12 Hwy 76 & Coast Hwy: Signal Modification

UPGRADE S 120,000 - 120,000 - - - - -

O12 12 Rancho del Oro & Cameo Dr UPGRADE S 120,000 - - 120,000 - - - -

O13 12 Rancho del Oro & Vista del Oro UPGRADE S 120,000 - - - 120,000 - - -

O14 12 Design & Install Signal: Olive & Emerald

UPGRADE S 80,626 - 80,626 - - - - -

SD01 14 Alvarado Canyon Rd Realignment

UPGRADE SR 4,200,000 - 1,200,000 3,000,000 - - - -

SD02 14 Carroll Canyon Rd @ I-15 UPGRADE SR 468,000 78,000 - - 68,000 322,000 - - SD04 14 Division St UPGRADE SR 6,121,000 278,000 - - 1,465,000 4,378,000 - - SD05 14 Euclid Ave Improvements UPGRADE SR 991,000 292,000 195,000 104,000 200,000 200,000 - - SD06 14 Fairmount Ave UPGRADE SR 1,053,000 - 1,053,000 - - - - SD08 14 Mission City Pkwy Bridge NEW SR 10,958,000 3,109,000 900,000 6,949,000 - - - - SD09 14 Sidewalks UPGRADE SR 337,000 - 337,000 - - - - - SD10 14 Ocean Front Walk

ReconstructionUPGRADE SR 1,950,000 - 200,000 1,750,000 - - - -

SD11 14 Regents Rd NEW SR 17,868,000 - - - 250,000 15,385,000 2,233,000 - SD12 14 Euclid Elementary UPGRADE SR 97,000 - 97,000 - - - - - SD13 14 Sunset Cliffs Blvd UPGRADE SR 1,495,000 720,000 629,000 146,000 - - - - SD15 14 Street Lights UPGRADE SR 3,163,000 892,000 1,471,000 300,000 300,000 100,000 100,000 - SD16 14 Traffic Signals UPGRADE SR 10,760,000 - 3,165,000 2,795,000 1,600,000 1,600,000 1,600,000 - SD16A 14 Sorrento Creek Mitigation GREEN SR 103,000 - 37,000 40,000 26,000 - - - SD17 14 Guard Rails UPGRADE SR 1,885,000 - 685,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 - SD17A 14 Tijuana River GREEN SR 1,053,000 953,000 100,000 - - - - - SD18 14 Traffic Control Measures MISCELLANEOUS SR 3,066,000 - 1,266,000 450,000 450,000 450,000 450,000 - SD19 14 Streamview Dr UPGRADE SR 293,000 - - - - - 293,000 - SD20 14 Traffic Master Control & Station TECHNOLOGY SR 352,000 - - 172,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 -

SD21 14 Earthquake Restrainers - Bridges UPGRADE SR 150,000 - 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 -

SD22 14 Underground Utilities UPGRADE SR 4,620,000 - 1,316,000 826,000 826,000 826,000 826,000 - SD23 14 Storm Drains UPGRADE SR 4,955,000 50,000 1,901,000 1,204,000 600,000 600,000 600,000 - SD24 14 Coastal Erosion UPGRADE SR 1,391,000 - 191,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 - SD29 14 43rd/Logan/National Ave UPGRADE SR 4,520,000 - 734,000 3,786,000 - - - - SD31 14 Carmel Valley Rd UPGRADE SR 4,712,000 1,637,000 1,761,000 1,314,000 - - - -

47

Exhibit 6Transit and Highway Capital Projects

ProjectNo.

Agency ID Project Description Project TypeRegional (R) /

Subregional (SR/S)* Total Cost

Costs Prior to FY 2003

FY 2003Costs

FY 2004Costs

FY 2005Costs

FY 2006Costs

FY 2007Costs

Costs After FY 2007

SD32 14 Carroll Canyon Rd UPGRADE SR 11,792,000 3,130,000 - 8,662,000 - - - - SD34 14 El Camino Real UPGRADE SR 14,223,000 1,586,000 320,000 - 12,317,000 - - - SD35 14 Federal Blvd UPGRADE SR 352,000 - 352,000 - - - - - SD38 14 Georgia St Bridge/University Ave UPGRADE SR 2,916,000 475,000 120,000 2,321,000 - - - -

SD42 14 Jamacha Road/Lisbon St UPGRADE SR 2,011,000 1,431,000 211,000 369,000 - - - - SD44 14 La Jolla Shores/Torrey

Pines/ArdathUPGRADE SR 4,170,000 2,618,000 1,552,000 - - - - -

SD47 14 Napa/Linda Vista Roundabout UPGRADE SR 1,796,000 218,000 1,378,000 200,000 - - - -

SD48 14 National Ave UPGRADE SR 6,585,000 583,000 1,004,000 1,791,000 3,207,000 - - - SD49 14 Navajo Rd UPGRADE SR 3,046,000 402,000 2,644,000 - - - - - SD51 14 N. Torrey Pines Rd Bridge UPGRADE SR 10,711,000 1,234,000 9,477,000 - - - - - SD54 14 Rigel St Bridge UPGRADE SR 302,000 200,000 102,000 - - - - - SD56 14 Saturn Blvd UPGRADE SR 1,431,000 339,000 234,000 858,000 - - - - SD58 14 Sorrento Valley Rd UPGRADE SR 4,953,000 2,276,000 2,477,000 200,000 - - - - SD59 14 Sports Arena Blvd UPGRADE SR 1,443,000 423,000 50,000 970,000 - - - - SD65 14 Torrey Pines Rd Slope

ReconstructionUPGRADE SR 1,452,000 396,000 856,000 200,000 - - - -

SD68 14 Two-Way Couplet System UPGRADE SR 1,481,000 1,344,000 137,000 - - - - - SD70 14 W Mission Bay Dr Bridge UPGRADE SR 16,929,000 648,000 76,000 16,205,000 - - - - SD71 14 General Fund Reimbursement MISCELLANEOUS SR 65,736,000 - 12,632,000 12,884,000 13,142,000 13,405,000 13,673,000 -

SD72 14 El Cajon Blvd Revitalization UPGRADE SR 200,000 - 200,000 - - - - - SD73 14 Friars Rd/Mission Ctr

LandscapingUPGRADE SR 528,000 - 528,000 - - - - -

SD74 14 Sunset Cliffs Erosion Protection UPGRADE SR 230,000 - 230,000 - - - - -

SD75 14 Stadium Information & Monitoring System

UPGRADE SR 25,000 - 25,000 - - - - -

SD77 14 Median Improvements UPGRADE SR 509,000 - 509,000 - - - - - SD79 14 Coast Blvd Bluff Stabilization UPGRADE SR 1,050,000 - 1,050,000 - - - - -

SD80 14 Fay Ave Realignment UPGRADE SR 200,000 - 200,000 - - - - - SD81 14 Genesee Ave UPGRADE SR 2,973,000 - - 2,973,000 - - - SD82 14 Alley Improvements UPGRADE SR 232,000 - 232,000 - - - - - SD83 14 SR-163 & Friars Rd UPGRADE SR 5,034,000 2,926,000 2,108,000 - - - - - SD84 14 Cesar Chavez Signs MISCELLANEOUS SR 90,000 - 90,000 - - - - - SD86 14 Famosa Slough Salt Marsh

RestorationGREEN SR 133,000 - 93,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 -

SD87 14 SR-905 Right-of-Way Acquisition MISCELLANEOUS R 5,080,000 1,080,000 4,000,000 - - - - -

SD88 14 I-5/SR 56 Interchange UPGRADE R 2,803,000 - 2,803,000 - - - - - SD89 14 Genesee Ave UPGRADE S 2,733,000 - 2,733,000 - - - - - SD90 14 SR 163/Clairemont Mesa Blvd

InterchangeUPGRADE S 10,750,000 - - 10,750,000 - - - -

SD91 14 Infrastructure Improvements UPGRADE S 5,200,000 - 5,070,000 130,000 - - - - SD92 14 Streetscape Projects UPGRADE S 1,346,000 - 1,346,000 - - - - - SD93 14 SR 274 Beautification UPGRADE S 965,000 - 965,000 - - - - - SD94 14 Balboa Ave Corridor

ImprovementUPGRADE S 2,558,000 - 852,000 1,706,000 - - - -

SD95 14 Rosecrans Corridor Improvement

UPGRADE S 692,000 - 230,000 462,000 - - - -

SD96 14 San Pasqual Rd Bikeway Study TECHNOLOGY S 50,000 50,000 - - - - - -

48

Exhibit 6Transit and Highway Capital Projects

ProjectNo.

Agency ID Project Description Project TypeRegional (R) /

Subregional (SR/S)* Total Cost

Costs Prior to FY 2003

FY 2003Costs

FY 2004Costs

FY 2005Costs

FY 2006Costs

FY 2007Costs

Costs After FY 2007

SD97 14 Pershing Dr/Redwood St Intersection

UPGRADE S 210,000 210,000 - - - - - -

SD98 14 Centre City Intersection Pop-outs

UPGRADE S 15,000 15,000 - - - - - -

SD99 14 Bird Rock Coastal Traffic Flow Improvements

UPGRADE S 103,039 103,039 - - - - - -

SD100 14 Sea World Dr/I-5 UPGRADE S 11,733,200 - - 1,000,000 4,505,800 6,227,400 - -

SD101 14 Black Mountain Rd - Gemini Ave to Mira Mesa Blvd

UPGRADE S 822,000 - 16,600 97,400 400,000 308,000 - -

SD102 14 Camino Ruiz - Gold Coast Dr to Jade Coast and Miralani Dr to Miramar Rd

UPGRADE S 1,987,151 23,151 - 14,000 362,000 1,588,000 - -

SD103 14 Mira Sorrento Place - Scranton Rd to Vista Sorrento Pkwy

NEW S 8,500,000 8,500,000 - - - - - -

SD104 14 Pedestrian bridge NEW S 2,273,000 22,379 - 10,621 347,000 178,000 1,715,000 -

SD105 14 Vista Sorrento Pkwy Bike Lanes UPGRADE S 415,000 415,000 - - - - - -

SD106 14 Rose Creek Bikeway UPGRADE S 2,000,000 400,000 - 1,600,000 - - - -

SD107 14 I-8/Fairmount Ave/Mission Gorgeinterchange improvements

UPGRADE S 750,000 - 750,000 - - - - -

SD108 14 Mission Trail Bike Path Study TECHNOLOGY S 50,000 50,000 - - - - - -

SD109 14 Palm Ave/I-805 interchange UPGRADE S 11,428,000 270,000 - 3,773,000 1,400,000 5,985,000 - -

SD110 14 Ocean View Hills Pkwy UPGRADE S 10,179,897 7,304,297 - - 759,200 2,116,400 - -

SD111 14 Georgia St Bridge/University Ave Separation Replacement

UPGRADE S 4,151,302 677,402 - 3,473,900 - -

SD112 14 Camino Ruiz - Carmel Mtn Rd to 1600 ft north of Park Village Rd

NEW S 5,415,000 5,415,000 - - - - - -

SD113 14 Carmel Mtn Rd - I-5 Interchange UPGRADE S 17,800,000 17,800,000 - - - - - -

SD114 14 Hiking/Equestrian Trail - Central NEW S 146,000 - 41,500 41,500 21,000 21,000 21,000 -

SD115 14 Rancho Bernardo St & Sidewalk Improvements

UPGRADE S 293,000 293,000 - - - - - -

SD116 14 Scripps Ranch Blvd - Carroll Canyon Rd to Aviary Dr

UPGRADE S 655,000 655,000 - - - - - -

SD117 14 Scripps Ranch Blvd - Scripps Lake Dr to Mira Mesa Blvd

UPGRADE S 450,000 450,000 - - - - - -

SD118 14 Del Mar Heights Road Median - Mango Drive to City Limits

UPGRADE S 480,000 455,000 - 25,000 - - - -

SD119 14 Eastgate Mall - Miramar Rd to SDG&E Easement

UPGRADE S 2,700,000 2,200,000 - 500,000 - - - -

SD120 14 Genesee Ave - I-5 to Eastgate Mall

UPGRADE S 1,696,000 30,000 292,000 1,374,000 - - - -

SD121 14 Genesee Ave - Widen I-5 Crossing

UPGRADE S 25,808,800 15,808,800 - - - 10,000,000 - -

SD122 14 Judicial Dr NEW S 16,646,000 13,367,000 3,279,000 - - - - -

SD123 14 La Jolla Village Dr - Torrey Pines Rd to Villa La Jolla Dr

UPGRADE S 6,899,400 6,899,400 - - - - - -

SD124 14 La Jolla Village Dr & Regents Rd UPGRADE S 595,000 320,000 - 275,000 - - - -

49

Exhibit 6Transit and Highway Capital Projects

ProjectNo.

Agency ID Project Description Project TypeRegional (R) /

Subregional (SR/S)* Total Cost

Costs Prior to FY 2003

FY 2003Costs

FY 2004Costs

FY 2005Costs

FY 2006Costs

FY 2007Costs

Costs After FY 2007

SD125 14 La Jolla Village Dr/I-805 Interchange Ramps

UPGRADE S 10,687,585 6,687,585 - 4,000,000 - - - -

SD126 14 Miramar Rd UPGRADE S 3,800,000 800,000 3,000,000 - - - - -

SD127 14 North Torrey Pines Rd UPGRADE S 404,000 20,000 - 87,000 297,000 - - -

SD128 14 Regents Rd UPGRADE S 2,080,000 - 20,000 2,060,000 - - -

SD129 14 First Ave Bridge over Maple Canyon - Rehabilitation

UPGRADE S 3,092,381 1,082,381 - 2,010,000 - - - -

SD130 14 I-15 Auxiliary Lane UPGRADE R 608,000 608,000 - - - - - -

SD131 14 Tierrasanta Bikepath UPGRADE S 5,410,000 205,000 205,000 - 5,000,000 - - -

SD132 14 Home Avenue/C Street Bikepath UPGRADE S 62,000 62,000 - - - - - -

SD133 14 State Route 15 Bikeway UPGRADE S 2,555,425 555,425 2,000,000 - - - - -

SD134 14 College Ave Median Improvements

UPGRADE S 503,000 503,000 - - - - - -

SD135 14 Del Mar Mesa Rd - Carmel Country Rd to Carmel Mtn Rd

NEW S 5,600,000 5,600,000 - - - - - -

SD136 14 Hiking/Equestrian Trail - Northern

NEW S 350,000 300,000 50,000 - - - - -

SD137 14 Carmel Valley Rd - Via Albutura to Camino Ruiz

MISCELLANEOUS S 3,300,000 - 660,000 2,640,000 - - -

SD138 14 Camino Ruiz, San Dieguito Rd to Carmel Valley Rd

MISCELLANEOUS S 4,000,000 2,300,000 1,700,000 - - - - -

SD139 14 Camino Ruiz, Santaluz to Camino del Norte - Street Improvements

MISCELLANEOUS S 8,000,000 - 3,900,000 692,000 933,000 1,210,000 1,265,000 -

SD140 14 Camino Ruiz, Santaluz to Resort St - Wildlife Crossing

MISCELLANEOUS S 3,000,000 - - - - - 41,000 2,959,000

SD141 14 El Camino Real - San Dieguito Rd to Via de la Valle

UPGRADE S 14,224,458 1,587,198 320,092 - 12,317,168 - - -

SD142 14 Kearny Villa Rd UPGRADE S 1,540,000 745,855 - 794,145 - - - -

SD143 14 Via de la Valle Bikeway UPGRADE S 651,228 651,228 - - - - - -

SD144 14 Architectural Barriers Removal MANDATED S 989,934 954,934 35,000 - - - - -

SD145 14 Bayshore Bikeway UPGRADE S 1,500,000 350,000 1,150,000 - - - - -

SD146 14 Beach Access Reconstruction UPGRADE S 300,000 - 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 150,000

SD147 14 Bridge Rails UPGRADE S 2,800,000 - 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 300,000

SD148 14 Coastal Infrastructure Improvements

UPGRADE S 250,000 - 250,000 - - - - -

SD151 14 District Three Sidewalk Study TECHNOLOGY S 246,000 - 246,000 - - - - -

SD152 14 Hiking/Equestrian Trail - Eastern NEW S 208,000 - - - 67,600 26,000 26,000 88,400

SD153 14 New Heritage Rd UPGRADE S 3,000,000 2,847,505 152,495 - - - - -

SD154 14 Ocean Beach Bikepath/Hotel Circle North Bikeway Design

TECHNOLOGY S 1,300,000 300,000 - 1,000,000 - - - -

SD155 14 Resurfacing/Slurry Seal UPGRADE S 24,400,000 - 1,000,000 2,600,000 2,600,000 2,600,000 2,600,000 13,000,000

SD156 14 San Diego River Bike Path - Mission Valley

UPGRADE S 201,500 201,500 - - - - - -

SD157 14 Sidewalks UPGRADE S 3,535,000 - 385,000 350,000 350,000 350,000 350,000 1,750,000

SD158 14 Sidewalks UPGRADE S 2,200,000 - 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 1,200,000

SD159 14 Sidewalks UPGRADE S 2,950,000 - 250,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 1,500,000

SD160 14 Regional Fare Technology TECHNOLOGY S 35,402,000 - 4,001,000 12,001,000 17,700,000 1,700,000 -

50

Exhibit 6Transit and Highway Capital Projects

ProjectNo.

Agency ID Project Description Project TypeRegional (R) /

Subregional (SR/S)* Total Cost

Costs Prior to FY 2003

FY 2003Costs

FY 2004Costs

FY 2005Costs

FY 2006Costs

FY 2007Costs

Costs After FY 2007

SD161 14 Transit Planning Projects TECHNOLOGY S 18,715,000 4,470,000 4,025,000 3,495,000 2,595,000 2,065,000 2,065,000 - SM04 15 Los Posas Rd UPGRADE SR 21,900,000 4,375,000 16,600,000 925,000 - - - - SM07 15 Rancho Santa Fe Rd UPGRADE SR 11,500,000 2,100,000 9,400,000 - - - - - SM08 15 San Elijo Rd UPGRADE SR 14,500,000 7,375,000 7,125,000 - - - - SM09 15 S Santa Fe Rd UPGRADE SR 4,600,000 100,000 3,900,000 600,000 - - - - SM10 15 SR-78 Smilax Interchange

ImprovementsUPGRADE SR 600,000 - - - - - 600,000 -

SM11 15 Twin Oaks Valley Rd UPGRADE SR 1,000,000 - 200,000 800,000 - - - - SM14 15 Linda Vista Dr Realignment UPGRADE SR 100,000 - 100,000 - - - - - SM15 15 Linda Vista Dr UPGRADE SR 70,000 - 50,000 20,000 - - - - SM16 15 Bent Ave UPGRADE SR 3,200,000 2,100,000 1,100,000 - - - - - SM17 15 San Marcos Blvd UPGRADE SR 3,123,000 50,000 3,073,000 - - - - - SM18 15 East La Moree Blvd UPGRADE SR 950,000 500,000 450,000 - - - - - SM19 15 Grand Ave Bridge UPGRADE SR 3,000,000 1,200,000 1,025,000 775,000 - - - - SM20 15 Grand Ave UPGRADE SR 75,000 - 75,000 - - - - - SM21 15 El Norte Pkwy & Bennett Ave

Traffic SignalUPGRADE S 185,000 - - - - 185,000 - -

SM22 15 At Grade Pedestrian Rail Crossing

UPGRADE S 28,000 - 28,000 - - - - -

SM23 15 Borden Rd UPGRADE S 2,800,000 - - - 2,800,000 - - -

SM24 15 Borden Rd Bike Lanes UPGRADE S 161,000 6,500 154,500 - - - -

SM25 15 S. Santa Fe Rd UPGRADE S 9,200,000 100,000 7,050,000 2,050,000 - - - -

SM26 15 San Marcos Blvd and Pico Ave Traffic Signal

UPGRADE S 214,500 - 214,500 - - - - -

SM27 15 Twin Oaks Valley Rd UPGRADE S 6,000,000 - - - - - 4,170,000 1,830,000

SM28 15 Barham Dr UPGRADE S 750,000 - 750,000 - - - - -

SM29 15 Barham Dr & Hwy 78 Intersection Improvements

UPGRADE S 340,000 30,000 310,000 - - - - -

SM30 15 Borden Rd NEW S 6,000,000 - - - - 6,000,000 - -

SM31 15 Borden Rd UPGRADE S 1,600,000 - - - - 1,600,000 - -

SM32 15 Borden Rd UPGRADE S 2,500,000 - - - - - 1,700,000 800,000

SM33 15 Borden Rd UPGRADE S 400,000 - - - - - 230,000 170,000

SM34 15 Borden Rd Street Improvements UPGRADE S 451,000 32,000 419,000 - - - - -

SM35 15 Fulton Rd UPGRADE S 1,100,000 - - - - 1,100,000 - -

SM36 15 Hwy 78/Nordahl Rd Interchange Improvements

UPGRADE S 5,000,000 - - - - 5,000,000 - -

SM37 15 Hwy 78/Woodland Pkwy Interchange Improvements

UPGRADE S 25,000,000 - - - - 3,500,000 9,000,000 12,500,000

SM38 15 Mulberry Dr UPGRADE S 1,700,000 - - - 1,700,000 - - -

SM39 15 Mulberry Dr UPGRADE S 1,000,000 - - - - - 535,000 465,000

SM40 15 Mulberry Dr UPGRADE S 2,600,000 - - - - - 1,300,000 1,300,000

SM41 15 Olive St UPGRADE S 1,300,000 - - - - 1,300,000 - -

SM42 15 Olive St UPGRADE S 1,300,000 - - - - 1,300,000 - -

SM43 15 Richland Rd UPGRADE S 1,650,000 - - - - 1,650,000 - -

SM44 15 Rock Springs Rd UPGRADE S 650,000 - - - 650,000 - - -

SM45 15 Rock Springs Rd UPGRADE S 1,200,000 - - - 1,200,000 - -

SM46 15 Vineyard Rd Street Widening & Bike Lanes

UPGRADE S 561,000 46,000 515,000 - - - - -

SM47 15 Barham Dr UPGRADE S 3,500,000 - - - - - 1,250,000 2,250,000

SM48 15 Barham Dr Bike Lanes UPGRADE S 250,911 - 250,911 - - - - -

SM49 15 Barham Dr UPGRADE S 2,400,000 - - - 2,400,000 - - -

51

Exhibit 6Transit and Highway Capital Projects

ProjectNo.

Agency ID Project Description Project TypeRegional (R) /

Subregional (SR/S)* Total Cost

Costs Prior to FY 2003

FY 2003Costs

FY 2004Costs

FY 2005Costs

FY 2006Costs

FY 2007Costs

Costs After FY 2007

SM50 15 First St UPGRADE S 600,000 - - - - 600,000 -

SM51 15 Descanso Ave UPGRADE S 1,500,000 - - - 850,000 650,000 - -

SM52 15 Discovery Street NEW S 6,000,000 - - - - 6,000,000 - -

SM53 15 Discovery Street UPGRADE S 1,400,000 - - - - 1,400,000 - -

SM54 15 Discovery Street Bike Lane UPGRADE S 170,000 4,500 165,500 - - - - -

SM55 15 Hwy 78/Las Posas Rd interchange improvement

UPGRADE S 20,200,000 10,000,000 3,200,000 5,000,000 2,000,000 - - -

SM56 15 Hwy 78/Twin Oaks Valley Rd. Interchange Improvements

UPGRADE S 250,000 - 250,000 - - - - -

SM57 15 La Mirada Dr Sidewalk Construction

UPGRADE S 290,000 - 290,000 - - - - -

SM58 15 Las Flores Dr UPGRADE S 1,400,000 - - - - - 900,000 500,000

SM59 15 Rancho Santa Fe Rd UPGRADE S 670,000 15,000 5,000 650,000 - - - -

SM60 15 Rancho Santa Fe Rd UPGRADE S 2,000,000 - - - - 1,075,000 925,000 -

SM61 15 Rancho Santa Fe Rd UPGRADE S 3,400,000 - - - - - 2,000,000 1,400,000

SM62 15 Rancho Santa Fe Rd & Eighth St Traffic Signal

UPGRADE S 199,000 - 199,000 - - - - -

SM63 15 Rancho Santa Fe Rd. & Grandon Ave. Traffic Signal

UPGRADE S 190,000 - 190,000 - - - - -

SM64 15 Rancho Santa Fe Rd. Sidewalk Construction

UPGRADE S 156,500 - 156,500 - - - - -

SM65 15 San Marcos Blvd UPGRADE S 420,000 - 140,000 280,000 - - -

SM66 15 San Marcos Blvd UPGRADE S 2,100,000 - - - 2,100,000 - - -

SM67 15 San Marcos Blvd UPGRADE S 4,000,000 - - - 4,000,000 - - -

SM68 15 San Marcos Blvd UPGRADE S 2,000,000 - - - - 2,000,000 - -

SM69 15 San Marcos Blvd and Rancho Santa Fe intersection improvements

UPGRADE S 203,000 - 203,000 - - - - -

SM70 15 Smilax Rd NEW S 2,000,000 - - - - - 600,000 1,400,000

SM71 15 Smilax Rd UPGRADE S 800,000 - - - - - 500,000 300,000

SM72 15 Rancho Santa Fe Road UPGRADE S 772,000 80,000 692,000 - - - - -

SM73 15 Rancho Santa Fe Road UPGRADE S 13,000,000 2,100,000 7,500,000 3,400,000 - - - -

SM74 15 Valpreda Rd Cul-de-sac UPGRADE S 400,000 10,000 390,000 - - - - -

SM75 15 West City Area UPGRADE S 800,000 - 200,000 - 200,000 - 200,000 200,000

SM76 15 Rail Trail - Phase 1 UPGRADE S 12,443,937 2,166,760 233,240 7,943,937 - - - -

SM77 15 Sidewalks UPGRADE S 175,000 - 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 50,000

SM78 15 Street Overlay Program UPGRADE S 2,334,500 - 300,000 310,500 321,500 332,500 344,500 725,500

SM79 15 Traffic Counts and Calming UPGRADE S 315,000 - 45,000 45,000 45,000 45,000 45,000 90,000

SM80 15 Traffic Signal UPGRADE S 300,000 - 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000

SM81 15 Rancho Sante Fe Road UPGRADE S 680,000 15,000 5,000 660,000 - - - -

SM82 15 Twin Oaks Valley Road UPGRADE S 2,750,000 300,000 - 2,450,000 - - - -

SM83 15 Private Enterprises Improvement Match

UPGRADE S 1,200,000 - - 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 400,000

SM84 15 Mission Rd UPGRADE S 571,600 - - 571,600 - - - -

SM85 15 West City Area NEW S 20,000 - - 20,000 - - - -

SM86 15 Rancho Sante Fe Road UPGRADE S 431,000 - - - 431,000 - - -

SM87 15 Borden Rd UPGRADE S 2,800,000 - - - 2,800,000 - - -

SM88 15 Grand Ave UPGRADE S 1,300,000 - - - 1,300,000 - - -

SM89 15 Rail Trail - Phase 2 NEW S 18,000,000 - - - 1,900,000 5,400,000 10,700,000 -

SM90 15 Rancho Santa Fe Rd at Hwy 78 UPGRADE S 5,000,000 - - - - 3,900,000 1,100,000 -

52

Exhibit 6Transit and Highway Capital Projects

ProjectNo.

Agency ID Project Description Project TypeRegional (R) /

Subregional (SR/S)* Total Cost

Costs Prior to FY 2003

FY 2003Costs

FY 2004Costs

FY 2005Costs

FY 2006Costs

FY 2007Costs

Costs After FY 2007

SM91 15 Twin Oaks Valley Road UPGRADE S 524,800 - - - - 524,800 - -

SM92 15 Discovery St UPGRADE S 1,200,000 - - - - - - 1,200,000

SM93 15 Coronado Hills UPGRADE S 8,600,000 - - - - - - 8,600,000

SM94 15 Barham Dr UPGRADE S 4,500,000 - - - - - - 4,500,000

SM95 15 Rose Ranch Rd UPGRADE S 400,000 - - - - - - 400,000

SM96 15 Twin Oaks Valley Rd UPGRADE S 1,400,000 - - - - - - 1,400,000

SM97 15 Twin Oaks Valley Rd UPGRADE S 1,300,000 - - - - - - 1,300,000

SM98 15 E La Moree Rd UPGRADE S 1,800,000 - - - - - - 1,800,000

SM99 15 Hwy 78/Rancho Santa Fe Rd UPGRADE S 250,000 - - - - - - 250,000

SM100 15 Kensington Dr UPGRADE S 650,000 - - - - - - 650,000

SM101 15 Discovery St NEW S 3,300,000 - - - - - - 3,300,000

SM102 15 Sycamore Dr NEW S 850,000 - - - - - - 850,000

SM103 15 Hwy 78/Woodland Pkwy Interchange Improvements

UPGRADE S 750,000 - - - - - - 750,000

SM104 15 Rock Springs Rd UPGRADE S 1,500,000 - - - - - - 1,500,000

SM105 15 Rock Springs Rd UPGRADE S 500,000 - - - - - - 500,000

SM106 15 Rock Springs Rd UPGRADE S 1,100,000 - - - - - - 1,100,000

SM107 15 Sycamore Dr NEW S 1,800,000 - - - - - - 1,800,000

SM108 15 Nordahl Rd UPGRADE S 2,400,000 - - - - - - 2,400,000

SM109 15 Rancho Sante Fe Road UPGRADE S 7,000,000 - - - - - - 7,000,000

SM110 15 Discovery St UPGRADE S 7,000,000 - - - - - - 7,000,000

SM111 15 Discovery St UPGRADE S 500,000 - - - - - - 500,000

SNT02 16 Forester Creek Channelization UPGRADE SR 13,919,000 9,045,000 3,857,000 1,017,000 - - - -

SNT04 16 Street Maintenance UPGRADE SR 7,112,000 2,984,000 514,000 574,000 1,112,000 1,141,000 787,000 - SNT05 16 Prospect Avenue Widening UPGRADE S 8,500,000 975,000 5,500,000 2,000,000 - - 3,000,000 -

SNT06 16 Pavement Repair UPGRADE S 3,200,000 2,017,040 1,182,960 - - - - -

SBCH01 17 Lomas Santa Fe Dr/I-5 Interchange

UPGRADE SR 14,500,000 3,664,000 733,000 10,103,000 - - - -

SBCH02 17 Cliff Street Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge

UPGRADE S 705,000 130,000 575,000 - - - - -

SBCH03 17 Eden Gardens Master Plan - Ida Street

UPGRADE S 385,000 - - - - 385,000 - -

SBCH04 17 Highway 101 Striping Improvements

UPGRADE S 30,000 - 30,000 - - - - -

SBCH05 17 Marine View Slope Repair UPGRADE S 250,000 - - 250,000 - - - -

SBCH06 17 Rosa Street Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge

UPGRADE S 565,600 130,000 435,600 - - - - -

SBCH07 17 Solana Hills Sidewalk Installation UPGRADE S 20,000 - 20,000 - - - - -

SBCH08 17 Annual Pavement Management Program

UPGRADE S 1,750,000 375,000 275,000 275,000 275,000 275,000 275,000 -

SBCH09 17 Highway 101 Interconnect UPGRADE S 286,000 1,000 30,000 255,000 - - - -

SBCH10 17 Street Light Master Plan Capital Improvements

UPGRADE S 600,501 49,563 66,250 156,500 80,813 247,375 - -

VISTA02 18 Hacienda Dr UPGRADE SR 819,000 - 819,000 - - - - - VISTA03 18 Street Rehabilitation &

MaintenanceUPGRADE SR 4,758,000 1,958,000 700,000 700,000 700,000 700,000 - -

VISTA07 18 SR-78 Corridor Enhancement UPGRADE SR 2,700,000 1,700,000 150,000 850,000 - - - - VISTA08 18 W Vista Way TECHNOLOGY SR 1,030,000 990,000 40,000 - - - - - VISTA09 18 Bikeway & Trail Plan TECHNOLOGY SR 110,000 - 110,000 - - - - - VISTA10 18 Olive Ave Sidewalks TECHNOLOGY SR 1,000,000 300,000 700,000 - - - - -

53

Exhibit 6Transit and Highway Capital Projects

ProjectNo.

Agency ID Project Description Project TypeRegional (R) /

Subregional (SR/S)* Total Cost

Costs Prior to FY 2003

FY 2003Costs

FY 2004Costs

FY 2005Costs

FY 2006Costs

FY 2007Costs

Costs After FY 2007

VISTA11 18 Median Enhancements UPGRADE SR 135,000 45,000 90,000 - - - - - VISTA12 18 E Vista Way Street

ImprovementsTECHNOLOGY SR 200,000 - 200,000 - - - - -

VISTA13 18 Signal at Hacienda Dr/Plaza Dr and Thunder Dr

UPGRADE S 63,000 - - 63,000 - - - -

VISTA14 18 Intersection Improvements: Emerald and Vista Way

UPGRADE S 260,000 60,000 200,000 - - - - -

VISTA15 18 Signal at La Mirada Dr and Poinsettia Ave

UPGRADE S 62,500 - - 62,500 - - - -

VISTA16 18 Signal at North Melrose Dr and West Los Angeles/Highland

UPGRADE S 125,000 - - - 125,000 - - -

VISTA17 18 Signal at South Melrose Dr and Dawson Dr

UPGRADE S 125,000 - - - - 125,000 - -

VISTA18 18 Signal at Sycamore Ave and Hibiscus

UPGRADE S 125,000 3,900 121,100 - - - -

VISTA19 18 Escondido Ave Traffic Enhancements

UPGRADE S 75,000 15,000 60,000 - - - - -

VISTA20 18 Signal at North Santa Fe and East Drive

UPGRADE S 125,000 90,099 - 34,901 - - - -

VISTA21 18 Signal at South Santa Fe and Santa Anita

UPGRADE S 125,000 - - 125,000 - - - -

VISTA22 18 ADA Street Sidewalk Improvements

MANDATED S 100,000 50,000 50,000 - - - - -

VISTA23 18 Minor Signal Modifications UPGRADE SR 385,000 235,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 - - -

VISTA24 18 Roadway Rehab/Curbs-Gutters UPGRADE SR 275,000 175,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 - -

CNTY03 19 De Luz Road Bridge UPGRADE SR 695,000 - 695,000 - - - - - CNTY06 19 Los Coches Rd UPGRADE SR 6,729,000 - 3,900,000 2,829,000 - - - - CNTY08 19 Mission Rd UPGRADE SR 3,278,000 - 2,000,000 1,278,000 - - - - CNTY09 19 Riverford Rd Bridge UPGRADE SR 1,562,000 - 314,000 591,000 430,000 127,000 100,000 - CNTY10 19 Riverside Dr UPGRADE SR 4,224,000 - 2,500,000 1,724,000 - - - - CNTY11 19 San Dieguito Rd UPGRADE SR 680,000 - 680,000 - - - - - CNTY14 19 South Santa Fe Ave UPGRADE SR 35,110,000 - 5,299,000 8,638,000 4,511,000 8,603,000 8,059,000 - CNTY15 19 Trophy Ave Storm Drain UPGRADE SR 1,335,000 - 1,335,000 - - - - - CNTY16 19 SR-52 Forrester Creek UPGRADE SR 3,105,000 - - 3,105,000 - - - - CNTY17 19 SR-54/SR-94 UPGRADE R 8,297,000 - 392,000 1,747,000 3,854,000 2,304,000 - - CNTY19 19 Valley Center North UPGRADE SR 15,287,000 - 2,430,000 6,138,000 6,638,000 81,000 - - CNTY20 19 Valley Center South UPGRADE SR 11,766,000 - 4,738,000 5,607,000 1,421,000 - - - CNTY21 19 Bradley Ave Overpass @ SR67 UPGRADE SR 1,696,000 1,405,000 95,000 196,000 - - - -

CNTY22 19 Valley Center Rd Bridge UPGRADE SR 8,500,000 725,000 450,000 3,663,000 3,662,000 - - - CNTY23 19 Valley Center Rd UPGRADE SR 6,137,000 - 774,000 1,361,000 141,000 3,861,000 - - CNTY24 19 Cole Grade Rd UPGRADE SR 4,692,000 - 355,000 776,000 2,194,000 1,367,000 - - CNTY25 19 SR-76 North County (D & E) TECHNOLOGY SR 50,000 - 50,000 - - - - - CNTY26 19 Briarwood Rd at Robinwood Rd-

BonitaUPGRADE S 150,500 150,500 - - - - - -

CNTY27 19 Greenfield/First Street Intersection Improvements-Bostonia

UPGRADE S 937,000 937,000 - - - - - -

CNTY28 19 Lincoln Acres 24th Street Sidewalks

UPGRADE S 180,000 180,000 - - - - - -

CNTY29 19 Riverside Drive Bridge-Descanso UPGRADE S 630,500 86,500 441,000 103,000 - - - -

CNTY30 19 Viejas Blvd Bridge UPGRADE S 1,832,500 100,500 1,732,000 - - - - -

54

Exhibit 6Transit and Highway Capital Projects

ProjectNo.

Agency ID Project Description Project TypeRegional (R) /

Subregional (SR/S)* Total Cost

Costs Prior to FY 2003

FY 2003Costs

FY 2004Costs

FY 2005Costs

FY 2006Costs

FY 2007Costs

Costs After FY 2007

CNTY31 19 Collier Way Bridge UPGRADE S 1,053,000 266,000 333,000 454,000 - - - -

CNTY32 19 Dehesa Rd Widening UPGRADE S 712,500 712,500 - - - - - -

CNTY33 19 Patrick Drive Bridge-Harbison Canyon

UPGRADE S 851,000 851,000 - - - - - -

CNTY34 19 Olive Vista Dr/Jefferson Rd. UPGRADE S 991,000 128,000 587,000 276,000 - - - -

CNTY35 19 Beechtree Street Sidewalks UPGRADE S 450,000 50,000 400,000 - - - - -

CNTY36 19 El Capitan Bike Path UPGRADE S 1,063,500 567,500 496,000 - - - - -

CNTY37 19 Julian Avenue-Lakeside UPGRADE S 910,000 60,000 850,000 - - - - -

CNTY38 19 Lake Jennings Park Rd at Harritt Rd-Lakeside

UPGRADE S 190,500 190,500 - - - - - -

CNTY39 19 Parkside Street Improvements-Lakeside

UPGRADE S 429,000 429,000 - - - - - -

CNTY40 19 Wildcat Canyon Rd Passing Lane-Lakeside

UPGRADE S 5,415,000 687,000 1,363,000 3,365,000 - - - -

CNTY41 19 Enrico Fermi Dr-East Otay Mesa NEW S 1,930,000 1,930,000 - - - - - -

CNTY42 19 8th Street-Ramona UPGRADE S 75,000 75,000 - - - - - -

CNTY43 19 9th Street-Ramona UPGRADE S 155,000 155,000 - - - - - -

CNTY44 19 13th Street-Ramona UPGRADE S 487,000 84,000 192,500 210,500 - - - -

CNTY45 19 E St-Ramona UPGRADE S 205,000 205,000 - - - - - -

CNTY46 19 Ramona Street Improvements-Ramona

UPGRADE S 971,500 614,000 357,500 - - - - -

CNTY47 19 Ramona Street & Montecito Rd UPGRADE S 350,000 350,000 - - - - - -

CNTY48 19 San Vicente Rd Curve Realignment-Ramona

UPGRADE S 1,875,500 281,500 712,000 882,000 - - - -

CNTY49 19 San Vicente Rd, South-Ramona UPGRADE S 1,089,000 1,089,000 - - - - - -

CNTY50 19 Del Dios-Mount Israel UPGRADE S 625,000 625,000 - - - - - -

CNTY51 19 Edgewood Drive-Mt. Helix UPGRADE S 1,063,500 - 115,000 948,500 - - - -

CNTY52 19 Fury Lane-Spring Valley UPGRADE S 1,299,000 - 220,000 100,000 29,000 950,000 - -

CNTY53 19 Ramona Ave Sidewalk-Spring Valley

UPGRADE S 400,500 - 400,500 - - - - -

CNTY54 19 Kenwood Drive Sidewalks-Spring Valley

UPGRADE S 547,500 419,000 128,500 - - - - -

CNTY55 19 Spring Valley Transit Center NEW S 2,403,500 1,487,000 916,500 - - - - -

CNTY56 19 West Lilac Road Curves-Bonsall UPGRADE S 445,500 445,500 - - - - - -

CNTY57 19 Fallbrook St Sidewalks-Fallbrook UPGRADE S 700,300 700,300 - - - - - -

CNTY58 19 Fallbrook St/Old Stage Intersection

UPGRADE S 529,000 87,000 76,000 366,000 - - - -

CNTY59 19 Gird Road Bridge UPGRADE S 1,397,000 1,109,000 288,000 - - - - -

CNTY60 19 Gum Tree Lane Sidewalks-Fallbrook

UPGRADE S 216,000 216,000 - - - - - -

CNTY61 19 Knottwood Way Construction-Fallbrook

NEW S 400,000 64,500 335,500 - - - - -

CNTY62 19 Stage Coach Lane UPGRADE S 582,200 142,200 104,000 336,000 - - - -

CNTY63 19 Via Monserate/Mission Rd Intersection Improvements-Fallbrook

UPGRADE S 505,000 505,000 - - - - - -

CNTY64 19 Black Canyon Rd. Bridge NEW S 1,309,000 114,000 88,000 1,107,000 - - - -

55

Exhibit 6Transit and Highway Capital Projects

ProjectNo.

Agency ID Project Description Project TypeRegional (R) /

Subregional (SR/S)* Total Cost

Costs Prior to FY 2003

FY 2003Costs

FY 2004Costs

FY 2005Costs

FY 2006Costs

FY 2007Costs

Costs After FY 2007

CNTY65 19 Barrier Rail Replacement Projects

UPGRADE S 552,000 552,000 - - - - - -

CNTY66 19 Camino Canada - Los Coches Rd I8 Interchange

UPGRADE S 5,140,000 190,000 2,900,000 1,800,000 - - - -

CNTY67 19 Old Highway 80 UPGRADE S 500,000 500,000 - - - - - -

CNTY68 19 Fallbrook Traffic Signal UPGRADE S 256,500 256,000 - - - - - -

CNTY69 19 Jamacha Road - Spring Valley UPGRADE S 179,500 179,500 - - - - - -

MTDB01 101 Bus Support & Equipment UPGRADE R 23,830,000 12,981,000 3,029,000 4,728,000 416,000 1,802,000 874,000 - MTDB03 101 Bus Lease Payment UPGRADE R 10,479,000 6,704,000 2,875,000 900,000 - - - - MTDB04 101 Bus Rolling Stock UPGRADE R 46,906,000 36,106,000 10,240,000 560,000 - - - - MTDB08 101 S. Bay Maintenance Facility

Prop. ExtensionMISCELLANEOUS SR 5,760,000 4,460,000 1,300,000 - - - - -

MTDB10 101 Light Rail Vehicle Rehabilitation UPGRADE R 14,126,000 844,000 - - - - 13,282,000 -

MTDB14 101 Rail Support & Equipment/Facilities

TECHNOLOGY R 8,958,000 3,562,000 3,303,000 362,000 334,000 1,083,000 314,000 -

MTDB16 101 Sorrento Valley Coaster Connection Station

MISCELLANEOUS SR 1,820,000 520,000 260,000 260,000 260,000 260,000 260,000 -

MTDB18 101 East Village Intermodal Transit Station

UPGRADE SR 24,641,000 23,957,000 684,000 - - - - -

MTDB19 101 San Ysidro Intermodal Transportation Center - Port of Entry

UPGRADE R 16,408,000 11,273,000 5,135,000 - - - - -

MTDB22 101 Reduced Price Pass Subsidy MANDATED R 27,500,000 - 5,500,000 5,500,000 5,500,000 5,500,000 5,500,000 - MTDB23 101 TransNet Expanded Service

SubsidyMANDATED R 27,760,000 - 5,330,000 4,780,000 5,300,000 5,870,000 6,480,000 -

MTDB24 101 Mid-Coast Corridor Project NEW SR 100,090,000 15,145,000 8,697,000 4,500,000 18,121,000 53,627,000 - MTDB25 101 Nobel Drive Station NEW SR 13,525,000 7,151,000 6,374,000 - - - - - MTDB27 101 Mission Valley East Light Rail

ProjectNEW SR 444,000,000 152,444,000 93,750,000 103,750,000 94,056,000 - - -

MTDB27A 101 Low Floor Vehicle Modification NEW SR 8,000,000 - 4,000,000 4,000,000 - - - -

MTDB28 101 Bus Station Stops & Terminals UPGRADE R 5,636,000 - 30,000 4,276,000 1,330,000 - - -

MTDB29 101 Rail Rolling Stock Rehabilitation UPGRADE R 4,500,000 - 400,000 3,500,000 - 400,000 200,000 -

MTDB30 101 Rail Transitway/Lines UPGRADE R 26,164,000 - 900,000 1,025,000 2,753,000 786,000 20,700,000 - MTDB31 101 Rail Station Stops & Terminals UPGRADE R 22,714,000 - 5,940,000 6,954,000 530,000 7,814,000 1,476,000 -

MTDB32 101 Rail Electrification/Power Distribution

UPGRADE R 5,721,000 - 3,240,000 1,566,000 - 915,000 - -

MTDB33 101 Rail Signal & Communication Equipment

TECHNOLOGY R 13,326,000 - 636,000 5,070,000 4,316,000 3,044,000 260,000 -

MTDB34 101 Rail Transit Enhancement UPGRADE R 250,000 - 50,000 200,000 - - - - MTDB35 101 Bus Preventive Maintenance UPGRADE R 34,931,000 - 6,586,000 7,096,000 5,071,000 7,846,000 8,332,000 - MTDB36 101 Rail Preventive Maintenance UPGRADE R 14,746,000 - 2,200,000 2,332,000 4,817,000 2,620,000 2,777,000 - MTDB38 101 Grossmont Station Pedestrian

EnhancementUPGRADE SR 2,700,000 1,220,000 1,480,000 - - - - -

MTDB39 101 Kearny Mesa Transit Center NEW SR 1,280,000 30,000 1,250,000 - - - - - MTDB40 101 Regional Operations Facility NEW SR 13,600,000 1,600,000 5,000,000 7,000,000 - - - - MTDB41 101 Automated Vehicle Locator

SystemTECHNOLOGY R 17,800,000 3,800,000 3,500,000 3,500,000 3,500,000 3,500,000 - -

MTDB42 101 Mission Valley West Light Rail UPGRADE SR 1,679,000 - 1,679,000 - - - - -

56

Exhibit 6Transit and Highway Capital Projects

ProjectNo.

Agency ID Project Description Project TypeRegional (R) /

Subregional (SR/S)* Total Cost

Costs Prior to FY 2003

FY 2003Costs

FY 2004Costs

FY 2005Costs

FY 2006Costs

FY 2007Costs

Costs After FY 2007

MTDB43 101 I-15 Bus Rapid Transit - Rolling Stock

UPGRADE R 25,000,000 - 25,000,000 - - - - -

MTDB44 101 Rail Rolling Stock UPGRADE R 27,370,000 - - - - - 27,370,000 - MTDB45 101 Bus Transit Enhancements MANDATED R 875,000 - 470,000 - - - 405,000 - MTDB46 101 I-15 Bus Rapid Transit Stations NEW SR 25,800,000 13,600,000 800,000 10,700,000 700,000 - - -

NCTD01 102 Bus Associated Capital Maintenance

UPGRADE SR 2,250,000 375,000 375,000 375,000 375,000 375,000 375,000 -

NCTD02 102 Preventive Maintenance UPGRADE SR 55,875,000 6,375,000 7,875,000 8,125,000 9,000,000 11,500,000 13,000,000 - NCTD03 102 ADA Paratransit Services MANDATED SR 13,936,000 2,138,000 2,200,000 2,277,000 2,357,000 2,439,000 2,525,000 - NCTD05 102 Bus Purchase & Related

EquipmentUPGRADE SR 41,007,000 13,748,000 5,813,000 5,762,000 3,130,000 6,177,000 6,377,000 -

NCTD06 102 Fixed Route - Support Equipment

TECHNOLOGY SR 19,099,000 9,697,000 2,718,000 4,910,000 1,070,000 486,000 218,000 -

NCTD07 102 Fixed Route - Bus, Shelters, & Stops

UPGRADE SR 2,226,000 523,000 837,000 207,000 215,000 222,000 222,000 -

NCTD15 102 Sorrento to Miramar Double Track/Realign

UPGRADE SR 31,716,000 3,023,000 28,693,000 - - - - -

NCTD16 102 Oceanside-Escondido Rail Project

NEW SR 351,520,000 54,930,000 96,990,000 118,300,000 75,200,000 6,100,000 - -

NCTD16A 102 Oceanside-Escondido Rail Project (non-federal)

TECHNOLOGY SR 750,000 - 750,000 - - - - -

NCTD16B 102 Inland Rail Trail NEW SR 14,677,000 2,579,000 1,701,000 350,000 10,047,000 - - - NCTD18 102 Rail - ROW Improvements UPGRADE SR 9,392,000 2,121,000 2,974,000 1,158,000 1,137,000 1,049,000 953,000 - NCTD20 102 Rail Vehicles & Related

EquipmentUPGRADE SR 5,001,000 3,004,000 575,000 699,000 723,000 - - -

NCTD21 102 Rail - Support Equipment UPGRADE SR 1,563,000 376,000 562,000 214,000 54,000 50,000 307,000 - NCTD22 102 Bridge & Infrastructure Reserve UPGRADE SR 5,508,000 - 5,508,000 - - - - -

NCTD28 102 San Dieguito River Bridge Replacement

TECHNOLOGY SR 855,000 - 855,000 - - - - -

NCTD29 102 Planning TECHNOLOGY SR 839,000 - 150,000 125,000 188,000 188,000 188,000 - NCTD32 102 Oceanside Transit Center

ParkingNEW SR 9,132,000 1,100,000 8,032,000 - - - -

NCTD33 102 Fixed Route - ROW Improvements

UPGRADE SR 129,000 - 129,000 - - - - -

NCTD34 102 Expanded Transit Services UPGRADE SR 25,390,000 3,600,000 3,929,000 4,134,000 4,344,000 4,571,000 4,812,000 - NCTD35 102 Bridge 259.6 UPGRADE SR 2,600,000 - 2,600,000 - - - - - NCTD36 102 Solana Beach Parking Structure TECHNOLOGY SR 625,000 - 625,000 - - - - -

NCTD37 102 Land acquisition MISCELLANEOUS SR 500,000 - 500,000 - - - - - NCTD38 102 Vista Transit Center UPGRADE SR 371,000 - 371,000 - - - - - CAL01 Caltrans I-5 Del Mar Heights Auxiliary

LaneUPGRADE R 6,100,000 615,000 - 5,485,000 - - - -

CAL09 Caltrans I-5 - HOV Added Lanes Study UPGRADE R 10,000,000 4,000,000 6,000,000 - - - - - CAL16 Caltrans SR-15(40th St.) UPGRADE R 5,496,000 5,496,000 - - - - - CAL18 Caltrans I-15 Managed Lanes (Stages 1-5) UPGRADE R 221,227,000 35,300,000 94,712,000 20,715,000 24,900,000 22,800,000 22,800,000 -

CAL18A Caltrans I-15 Managed Lanes-North Segment

UPGRADE R 5,000,000 - 5,000,000 - - - - -

CAL18B Caltrans I-15 Managed Lanes-South Segment

UPGRADE R 10,000,000 - 10,000,000 - - - - -

CAL24 Caltrans I-15 TOPS - Auxiliary Lane UPGRADE R 18,033,000 859,000 17,174,000 - - - - - CAL25 Caltrans I-15 - Auxiliary Lane UPGRADE R 40,000,000 17,170,000 22,830,000 - - - - - CAL26 Caltrans SR-52 Freeway (E) NEW R 143,710,000 80,450,000 63,260,000 - - - - -

57

Exhibit 6Transit and Highway Capital Projects

ProjectNo.

Agency ID Project Description Project TypeRegional (R) /

Subregional (SR/S)* Total Cost

Costs Prior to FY 2003

FY 2003Costs

FY 2004Costs

FY 2005Costs

FY 2006Costs

FY 2007Costs

Costs After FY 2007

CAL27 Caltrans SR-52 Freeway (F) NEW R 146,090,000 3,500,000 30,085,000 15,001,000 15,001,000 11,110,000 71,393,000 - CAL28 Caltrans SR 56 (Middle) NEW R 89,104,000 17,404,000 71,700,000 - - - - - CAL29 Caltrans SR-76 North County (D & E) UPGRADE R 17,055,000 - 10,789,000 6,266,000 - - - - CAL29A Caltrans SR 76 North County UPGRADE R 5,000,000 - 750,000 4,250,000 - - - - CAL30 Caltrans I-15 - Auxiliary Lane UPGRADE R 9,940,000 - 9,940,000 - - - - - CAL31 Caltrans SR-125 (Toll, Gap, Connector) NEW R 463,166,000 272,331,000 157,806,000 33,029,000 - - - -

CAL38 Caltrans SR-905 New Freeway (Stage 2-4) Port of Entry

NEW R 203,097,000 32,944,000 50,114,000 120,039,000 - - - -

CAL39 Caltrans SR-905 Siempre Viva (Stage 1) - Port of Entry

NEW R 28,700,000 4,500,000 24,200,000 - - - - -

CAL40 Caltrans San Diego Amtrak Maint. Facility

NEW S 9,000,000 2,900,000 6,100,000 - - - - -

CAL43 Caltrans HES/SR2S MANDATED R 7,422,000 - 2,500,000 2,662,000 2,260,000 - - - CAL44 Caltrans HBRR MANDATED R 46,338,000 - 17,604,000 7,976,000 20,758,000 - - - CAL45 Caltrans State Minor Program MANDATED R 23,100,000 - 7,500,000 7,800,000 7,800,000 - - - CAL46 Caltrans SHOPP Lump Sum TECHNOLOGY R 118,234,000 30,649,000 18,837,000 56,546,000 3,543,000 8,659,000 - - CAL47 Caltrans I-8 TMS UPGRADE R 1,662,000 - 1,662,000 - - - - - CAL48 Caltrans TMS (I-805, SR-94) UPGRADE R 9,037,000 - - - 9,037,000 - - - CAL49 Caltrans SR-75 (Silver Strand Blvd) UPGRADE R 32,207,000 - 3,019,000 29,188,000 - - - - CAL50 Caltrans TMS (I-8, I-15, I-805) UPGRADE R 11,250,000 366,000 10,884,000 - - - - - CAL51 Caltrans TMS (I-15, I-805, SR-94) Ramp

MetersUPGRADE R 9,180,000 - 640,000 8,540,000 - - - -

CAL52 Caltrans TMS (I-5, I-805, SR-52, SR-54) UPGRADE R 1,160,000 - 100,000 1,060,000 - - - - CAL53 Caltrans Section 5310 Elderly & Disabled

ProgramUPGRADE R 3,828,000 2,341,000 1,487,000 - - - - -

CAL54 Caltrans TMS (I-5, I-805, SR-54) Loops UPGRADE R 6,500,000 - 450,000 6,050,000 - - - - CAL55 Caltrans I-8 Auxiliary Lanes UPGRADE R 11,494,000 1,878,000 - - - 9,616,000 - - CAL56 Caltrans I-5/I-805 Port of Entry UPGRADE R 11,998,000 2,598,000 - 7,000,000 1,200,000 - 1,200,000 - CAL58 Caltrans SR-125 - Planting & Irrigation UPGRADE S 2,460,000 190,000 2,270,000 - - - - -

CAL59 Caltrans SR-125 - Mt. Miguel School Noise Mitigation

UPGRADE S 2,400,000 300,000 2,100,000 - - - - -

CAL60 Caltrans SR-125 Noise Mitigation UPGRADE S 3,000,000 820,000 2,180,000 - - - - - CAL61 Caltrans Oceanside Double Track Project UPGRADE S 6,000,000 500,000 5,500,000 - - - - -

CAL62 Caltrans SR-54/SR-125 HOV Lanes (PAED/Design)

UPGRADE R 7,000,000 - 500,000 6,500,000 - - - -

CAL63 Caltrans I-8 Bridge Projects UPGRADE R 30,233,000 - - - 30,233,000 - - - CAL64 Caltrans I-15 TOPS (Poway Rd-Mercy Rd) UPGRADE R 10,000,000 - 10,000,000 - - - - -

CAL65 Caltrans SR-125 Sweetwater (B) UPGRADE R 47,600,000 45,600,000 2,000,000 - - - - - CAL67 Caltrans SR-94 Widening UPGRADE R 10,000,000 4,000,000 - 6,000,000 - - - - CAL68 Caltrans 94/125 Widening UPGRADE R 5,400,000 1,700,000 - 3,700,000 - - - - CAL69 Caltrans Noise Barrier Program UPGRADE R 1,982,000 - 300,000 1,682,000 - - - - CAL70 Caltrans Advanced Technology Bridge NEW S 24,169,000 6,144,000 5,697,000 12,328,000 - - - -

PORT01 Port of San Diego

High Speed Ferry MISCELLANEOUS R 5,000,000 400,000 4,600,000 - - - - -

SDTC01 San Dieguito

Trans. Coop

Transportation Facility UPGRADE SR 773,000 - 773,000 - - - - -

SAN01 SANDAG Bayshore Bikeway MANDATED R 6,526,000 6,026,000 500,000 - - - - - SAN03 SANDAG Freeway Service Patrol MISCELLANEOUS R 16,092,000 6,032,000 3,760,000 3,150,000 3,150,000 - - -

58

Exhibit 6Transit and Highway Capital Projects

ProjectNo.

Agency ID Project Description Project TypeRegional (R) /

Subregional (SR/S)* Total Cost

Costs Prior to FY 2003

FY 2003Costs

FY 2004Costs

FY 2005Costs

FY 2006Costs

FY 2007Costs

Costs After FY 2007

SAN04 SANDAG I-15 Managed Lanes/Value Pricing

TECHNOLOGY R 1,200,000 1,125,000 75,000 - - - - -

SAN07 SANDAG Plan, Program, Monitor TECHNOLOGY R 2,368,000 - 473,000 473,000 474,000 474,000 474,000 - SAN09 SANDAG Traffic Signal Projects (support) TECHNOLOGY R 200,000 100,000 50,000 50,000 - - - -

SAN10 SANDAG Traffic Signal Projects TECHNOLOGY R 30,144,000 21,420,000 8,724,000 - - - - - SAN11 SANDAG Regional Rideshare Program TECHNOLOGY R 17,281,000 3,595,000 2,910,000 2,797,000 2,613,000 2,667,000 2,699,000 - SAN12 SANDAG Transportation Enhancement

ProgramMANDATED R 27,361,000 19,923,000 7,232,000 206,000 - - - -

SAN13 SANDAG Joint Traffic Operations Center TECHNOLOGY R 2,460,000 - 375,000 1,255,000 830,000 - - -

SAN14 SANDAG Regional Transp. Mgmt Syst. Network

TECHNOLOGY R 3,484,000 919,000 922,000 1,643,000 - - - -

SAN15 SANDAG Coastal Rail Trail MANDATED R 6,579,000 - 6,579,000 - - - - - SAN16 SANDAG Automated Traveller

Information SystemTECHNOLOGY R 9,314,000 57,000 3,065,000 3,090,000 3,102,000 - - -

SAN17 SANDAG Regional Arterial Monitoring System

TECHNOLOGY R 2,530,000 - 843,000 1,687,000 - - - -

SAN18 SANDAG Regional Performance Monitoring System

TECHNOLOGY R 200,000 - 200,000 - - - - -

TOTAL TOTAL (All Projects) 5,301,725,412 1,425,548,306 1,494,519,346 983,514,704 573,022,789 348,185,475 318,488,500 143,245,702 SR TOTALS 2,043,122,000$ 475,580,000$ 567,456,000$ 445,954,000$ 312,501,000$ 162,511,000$ 79,120,000$ -$

*Note 1: Subregional Projects are indicated with an SR or S. S TOTALS 908,733,412$ 255,208,306$ 137,857,346$ 119,624,704$ 97,899,789$ 86,864,475$ 52,832,500$ 143,245,702$ "SR" projects are subregional projects included in the RTIP. R TOTALS 2,349,870,000$ 255,208,306$ 137,857,346$ 119,624,704$ 97,899,789$ 86,864,475$ 52,832,500$ "S" projects are subregional projects not included in the RTIP,The S projects are related to land use decisions of local governments.

59

60

61

Exhibit 8 Community Infrastructure Planning Areas1

CIPA NO. JURISDICTION COMMUNITY PLANNING AREA

101 1 Carlsbad Carlsbad 1 102 1 Carlsbad Carlsbad 2 103 1 Carlsbad Carlsbad 3 104 1 Carlsbad Carlsbad 4 201 2 Chula Vista Chula Vista 1 202 2 Chula Vista Chula Vista 2 203 2 Chula Vista Chula Vista 3 204 2 Chula Vista Chula Vista 4 300 3 Coronado Coronado 400 4 Del Mar Del Mar 501 5 El Cajon El Cajon 1 502 5 El Cajon El Cajon 2 503 5 El Cajon El Cajon 3 601 6 Encinitas Encinitas 1 602 6 Encinitas Encinitas 2 603 6 Encinitas Encinitas 3 604 6 Encinitas Encinitas 4 701 7 Escondido Escondido 1 702 7 Escondido Escondido 2 703 7 Escondido Escondido 3 704 7 Escondido Escondido 4 705 7 Escondido Escondido 5 800 8 Imperial Beach Imperial Beach 901 9 La Mesa La Mesa 1 902 9 La Mesa La Mesa 2

1000 10 Lemon Grove Lemon Grove 1101 11 National City National City 1 1102 11 National City National City 2 1201 12 Oceanside Oceanside 1 1202 12 Oceanside Oceanside 2 1203 12 Oceanside Oceanside 3 1204 12 Oceanside Oceanside 4 1205 12 Oceanside Oceanside 5 1301 13 Poway Poway 1 1302 13 Poway Poway 2 1303 13 Poway Poway 3 1401 14 San Diego Balboa Park 1402 14 San Diego Barrio Logan 1403 14 San Diego Carmel Mountain Ranch 1404 14 San Diego Centre City 1405 14 San Diego Sabre Springs 1406 14 San Diego Clairemont Mesa 1407 14 San Diego East Elliott

62

CIPA NO. JURISDICTION COMMUNITY PLANNING AREA 1408 14 San Diego Greater Golden Hill 1409 14 San Diego Miramar Ranch North 1410 14 San Diego La Jolla 1412 14 San Diego Linda Vista 1414 14 San Diego Midway-Pacific Highway 1415 14 San Diego Mira Mesa 1417 14 San Diego Mission Bay Park 1418 14 San Diego Mission Beach 1419 14 San Diego Mission Valley 1420 14 San Diego Navajo 1421 14 San Diego Carmel Valley 1423 14 San Diego Ocean Beach 1424 14 San Diego Old San Diego 1425 14 San Diego Otay Mesa-Nestor 1426 14 San Diego Otay Mesa 1427 14 San Diego Pacific Beach 1428 14 San Diego Greater North Park 1429 14 San Diego Rancho Penasquitos 1430 14 San Diego Peninsula 1431 14 San Diego Rancho Bernardo 1432 14 San Diego San Pasqual 1433 14 San Diego San Ysidro 1434 14 San Diego Scripps Miramar Ranch 1435 14 San Diego Serra Mesa 1438 14 San Diego College Area 1439 14 San Diego Tijuana River Valley 1440 14 San Diego Torrey Pines 1441 14 San Diego University 1442 14 San Diego Uptown 1444 14 San Diego Skyline-Paradise Hills 1447 14 San Diego Tierrasanta 1448 14 San Diego Sorrento Hills 1449 14 San Diego Fairbanks Country Club 1450 14 San Diego Kearny Mesa 1455 14 San Diego Via De La Valle 1456 14 San Diego Mid-City:City Heights 1457 14 San Diego Mid-City:Eastern Area 1458 14 San Diego Mid-City:Kensington-Talmadge 1459 14 San Diego Mid-City:Normal Heights 1461 14 San Diego Del Mar Mesa 1462 14 San Diego Torrey Highlands 1463 14 San Diego Los Penasquitos Canyon Preserve 1464 14 San Diego Black Mountain Ranch 1465 14 San Diego Pacific Highlands Ranch 1466 14 San Diego NCFUA Subarea 2 1467 14 San Diego NCFUA Reserve 1468 14 San Diego Southeastern:Encanto Neighborhoods 1469 14 San Diego Southeastern:Southeastern San Diego

63

CIPA NO. JURISDICTION COMMUNITY PLANNING AREA 1481 14 San Diego Rancho Encantada 1482 14 San Diego Miramar Air Station 1483 14 San Diego Lindbergh Field 1485 14 San Diego Scripps Reserve 1486 14 San Diego Harbor 1488 14 San Diego Flower Hill 1491 14 San Diego 32nd Street Naval Station 1501 15 San Marcos San Marcos 1 1502 15 San Marcos San Marcos 2 1503 15 San Marcos San Marcos 3 1504 15 San Marcos San Marcos 4 1601 16 Santee Santee 1 1602 16 Santee Santee 2 1603 16 Santee Santee 3 1604 16 Santee Santee 4 1700 17 Solana Beach Solana Beach 1801 18 Vista Vista 1 1802 18 Vista Vista 2 1901 19 Unincorporated County Alpine 1902 19 Unincorporated County Central Mountain 1903 19 Unincorporated County Crest-Dehesa 1904 19 Unincorporated County Desert 1906 19 Unincorporated County Jamul-Dulzura 1907 19 Unincorporated County Lakeside 1908 19 Unincorporated County Mountain Empire 1909 19 Unincorporated County North County Metro 1911 19 Unincorporated County Otay 1912 19 Unincorporated County Pala-Pauma 1914 19 Unincorporated County Ramona 1915 19 Unincorporated County San Dieguito 1918 19 Unincorporated County Sweetwater 1919 19 Unincorporated County Valle De Oro 1920 19 Unincorporated County Valley Center 1921 19 Unincorporated County Spring Valley 1922 19 Unincorporated County Julian 1951 19 Unincorporated County North Mountain 1952 19 Unincorporated County Bonsall 1953 19 Unincorporated County Fallbrook 1954 19 Unincorporated County Pendleton-De Luz 1955 19 Unincorporated County Rainbow 1998 19 Unincorporated County Barona 1999 19 Unincorporated County County Islands

1. Community infrastructure planning areas (CIPAs) are the same as community planning areas (CPAs) in the City of San Diego and the County of San Diego. CIPAs reflect comparable planning areas for the other cities.

64

Exhibit 9 Vehicle Miles Traveled and Population

Projected Growth 2003-2030

Population Increase, 30%

Base Year 2003

Increase in VMT, 43%

-50%

0%

50%

2000 2010 2020 2030

Source: SANDAG, Mobility 2030 (Regional Transportation Plan), 2003 Note 1. This is a comparison of projected growth in population and

projected growth in total vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Note 2. Population in 2000 was 2,813,800; projected population in 2030

is 3,855,085. Total VMT in 2000 was 74.7 million; projected total VMT in 2030 is 112.2 million.

Note 3. Base year 2003 is assumed for population and vehicle miles traveled. 2003 numbers were linearly extrapolated from 2000 numbers.

65

Exh

ibit

10

Su

mm

ary

of

Cap

ital

Imp

rovem

en

t Pro

gra

ms

Pro

ject

ed

Cate

go

ries

FY 2

003 t

o 2

030

($ M

illi

on

)

FY 2

002-

2010

FY

201

1-20

20

FY 2

021-

2030

FY

2002

-203

0 Pe

rcen

t o

f To

tal

Tr

ansi

t Im

pro

vem

ents

M

ajo

r N

ew F

acili

ties

$

2,53

5

$ 2,

285

$ 3,

680

$

8,50

0 53

.3%

(in

clu

des

$80

mill

ion

by

2010

fo

r Ea

rly

Act

ion

pro

ject

s)

Mis

cella

neo

us

Cap

ital

/Reh

abili

tati

on

/Rep

lace

men

t

600

870

51

0

1,

980

12.4

%

O

per

atin

g S

ub

sid

ies

1,

265

1,79

5

2,41

5

5,

475

34.3

%

Tota

l Tr

an

sit

$

4,4

00

$

4

,95

0

$

6,6

05

$

1

5,9

55

100.

0%

Join

t U

se a

nd

Hig

hw

ay Im

pro

vem

ents

M

anag

ed/H

igh

Occ

up

ancy

Veh

icle

(H

OV

) La

ne

Faci

litie

s

78

0

3,

770

2,

900

7,45

0 48

.0%

Syst

em C

om

ple

tio

n/W

iden

ing

Pro

ject

s

2,13

0

34

0

1,11

0

3,

580

23.1

%

O

per

atio

ns

31

0

27

0

290

870

5.6%

(in

clu

des

$10

0 m

illio

n b

y 20

10 f

or

Co

ng

esti

on

Rel

ief

pro

ject

s)

M

ain

ten

ance

470

570

63

0

1,

670

10.8

%

R

ehab

ilita

tio

n

49

0

65

0

800

1,94

0 12

.5%

Tota

l Jo

int

Use

an

d H

igh

way

$

4,1

80

$

5

,60

0

$

5,7

30

$

1

5,5

10

100.

0%

Lo

cal S

tree

ts a

nd

Ro

ads

New

Fac

ility

Co

nst

ruct

ion

1,34

0

1,

515

1,

575

4,43

0 45

.9%

R

egio

nal

ly S

ign

ific

ant

Art

eria

ls

16

0

17

0

170

500

5.2%

O

per

atio

ns/

Mai

nte

nan

ce/R

ehab

ilita

tio

n

1,

440

1,61

5

1,66

5

4,

720

48.9

%

To

tal

Str

eets

an

d R

oad

s $

2

,94

0

$

3,3

00

$

3

,41

0

$

9,6

50

100.

0%

La

nd

Use

/Sys

tem

s M

anag

emen

t/D

eman

d M

anag

emen

t

Sm

art

Gro

wth

Ince

nti

ve P

rog

ram

25

-

-

25

3.

0%

Bic

ycle

/Ped

estr

ian

Imp

rove

men

ts

35

85

11

0

23

0 27

.7%

Tr

ansp

ort

atio

n S

yste

ms

Man

agem

ent

13

0

15

0

160

440

53.0

%

Tran

spo

rtat

ion

Dem

and

Man

agem

ent

40

45

50

135

16.3

%

Tota

l Str

eets

an

d R

oad

s

23

0

2

80

32

0

8

30

100.

0%

Tota

l C

IP

$

11

,75

0

$

14

,13

0

$

16

,06

5

$

41

,94

510

0.0%

Sou

rce:

M

ob

ility

203

0, A

pri

l 200

3, T

able

4.2

66

67

68

Exhibit 13 Mobility 2030: Regional Transportation Plan

Revenues and Expenditures, FY 2002-30

RTP Revenues RTP Expenditures [1]

$41.8 Billion $41.9 Billion

Source: Mobility 2030, The Transportation Plan for the San Diego Region, April 2003, Table 4.1

[1] RTP Expenditures are a combination of O&M and Project Expenditures for the RTP over the years FY 2002 - 2030.

Joint Use Facilities, 17.8%

Highways, 19.2%

Transit, 38.0%

Land Use Management,

2.0%

Local Streets and Roads,

23.0%

Transnet, 18.8%

State , 32.6%

Federal , 20.4%

General Fund, 9.8%

Local, 18.4%

69

70

Exhibit 15 San Diego International Airport and San Diego Unified Port District: Operations and Maintenance Revenues and

Expenditures, FY 2002-03

O&M Revenues O&M Expenditures

$215.5 Million $190.6 Million Source: San Diego Unified Port District and San Diego International Airport Authority

Operations and Maintenance,

49.0%

Capital Costs, 29.5%

General and Admin., 7.8%

Contracts & services, 14.0%

Special taxes & assessments,

17.9%

Other Local Revenues,

14.9%

Income from Operations,

42.2%

Interest, Rents, 25.0%

71

Exhibit 16 San Diego International Airport and San Diego Unified Port District Operations and Maintenance Revenues and Expenditures, FY 2003

Percent FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 Total of Total Regional Improvements New $ 15.2 $ 8.6 $ 8.0 $ 4.0 $ 0.0 $ 35.8 13.9% Upgrade 28.4 53.4 50.8 51.4 0.0 184.0 71.4% Technology 6.0 9.7 11.7 0.1 0.0 27.5 10.7% Mandated 0.3 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.6% Green 0.5 1.9 2.0 0.0 0.0 4.5 1.7% Other 1.5 1.5 1.5 0.0 0.0 4.6 1.8% Total Regional $ 1.9 $ 76.2 $ 74.1 $ 55.6 $ 0.0 $ 257.8 100.0% Source: SDIA Note: “New” projects refer to expansion/installation of existing facilities; “upgrades” refer to renovation, reconstruction, or other improvements to existing facilities. “Technology” projects improve overall productivity, such as system or control technologies “Mandated” projects are undertaken to satisfy federal or state requirements on safety and other issues. “Green” projects (which may also be mandated) refer to actions to mitigate impacts to or improve the natural environment.

72

Exhibit 17 San Diego International Airport Capital Projects

Project No.

Agency ID / Fund

No.Project Description

Project Type

Regional (R) / Subregional Total Cost

Costs Prior to FY 2003

FY 2003 Costs

FY 2004 Costs

FY 2005 Costs

FY 2006 Costs

FY 2007 Costs

Costs After FY 2007

1346 SDCRAA Upgrade Aircraft Emergency Alarm UPGRADE R 365,000 273,000 92,000 - - - - - 1456 SDCRAA Employee Parking Lot UPGRADE R 6,800,000 345,000 3,427,000 3,028,000 - - - -

1483 SDCRAA Residential Sound Attenuation Program (Pilot) NEW R

3,750,000 3,750,000 - - - - - -

1483 SDCRAA Residential Sound Attenuation Program NEW R 18,300,000 16,803,000 1,497,000 - - - - - 1483 SDCRAA Residential Sound Attenuation Program NEW R 28,503,000 - 8,503,000 8,000,000 8,000,000 4,000,000 - -

1485 SDCRAA Upgrade Aircraft Noise Monitoring Field System TECHNOLOGY R

1,224,000 29,000 278,000 917,000 - - - -

1551 SDCRAA Commuter Terminal Modifications UPGRADE R 605,000 284,000 321,000 - - - - - 1619 SDCRAA Terminal Upgrades UPGRADE R 3,847,000 1,568,000 779,000 703,000 797,000 - - - 1637 SDCRAA Replace ARFF Vehicle UPGRADE R 699,000 68,000 631,000 - - - - - 3002 SDCRAA Rehabilitate Runway "Ovals" UPGRADE R 13,464,000 3,858,000 9,606,000 - - - - -

3003 SDCRAA Construct Shoulder TW B & Fillets between Delta & B NEW R

1,761,000 272,000 1,489,000 - - - - -

3007 SDCRAA Harbor Drive Intersection Improvements UPGRADE R 273,000 26,000 9,000 238,000 - - - - 3013 SDCRAA Oil/Water Separators - Phase II UPGRADE R 2,721,000 282,000 694,000 1,745,000 - - - - 3014 SDCRAA Replace Pavement at Taxiway D UPGRADE R 554,000 73,000 481,000 - - - - -

3019 SDCRAA Commuter Terminal Third Floor Buildout NEW R

1,235,000 100,000 1,135,000 - - - - -

3021 SDCRAA Comprehensive Sign Program NEW R 1,156,000 226,000 694,000 236,000 - - - - 3022 SDCRAA Backup Power ACS TECHNOLOGY R 682,000 115,000 567,000 - - - - - 3023 SDCRAA Modification/Upgrade to CCTV TECHNOLOGY R 2,638,000 12,000 1,118,000 1,508,000 - - - - 3032 SDCRAA Rehabilitate Commuter Terminal Apron UPGRADE R 3,786,000 1,259,000 2,527,000 - - - - - 3040 SDCRAA Rehabilitate Taxiway B from B1 to B4 UPGRADE R 5,072,000 499,000 4,573,000 - - - - - 3044 SDCRAA NTC Land - Environmental Remediation GREEN R 4,600,000 589,000 100,000 1,889,000 2,022,000 - - - 3046 SDCRAA British Airways Ticket Counter NEW R 399,000 - 41,000 358,000 - - - - 3053 SDCRAA Improve Instrument Approach TECHNOLOGY R 2,832,000 13,000 323,000 2,394,000 102,000 - - - 3057 SDCRAA Improve Runway Safety Area (EMAS) TECHNOLOGY R 10,617,000 - 100,000 1,000,000 9,407,000 110,000 - - 3058 SDCRAA Replace Perimeter Fence and Gate UPGRADE R 1,324,000 - 102,000 1,181,000 41,000 - - - 3066 SDCRAA NTC Access Improvements UPGRADE R 2,000,000 - - 708,000 1,122,000 170,000 - -

3071 SDCRAA Install Auto Flushers & Faucets @ T1, T2 & CT UPGRADE R

612,000 - 58,000 374,000 180,000 - - -

3075 SDCRAA Install Fire Life Safety System in T1 and T2 UPGRADE R

3,183,000 - 137,000 346,000 1,356,000 1,344,000 - -

3078 SDCRAA Paint Pedestrian Bridge & Pavilion, T1 and T2W UPGRADE R

1,186,000 - 66,000 350,000 770,000 - - -

3082 SDCRAA Alternate Power (T2W and CT) TECHNOLOGY R 1,291,000 24,000 1,267,000 - - - - -

3084 SDCRAA Replace Interleave Runway Lighting UPGRADE R

1,038,000 163,000 875,000 - - - - -

3091 SDCRAA CT 2nd Floor Improvements UPGRADE R 9,721,000 - 1,738,000 7,983,000 - - - - 3092 SDCRAA Install Temporary Office Trailers NEW R 1,098,000 - 1,098,000 - - - - - 3095 SDCRAA Implement ADA Recommendations MANDATED R 1,436,000 - 300,000 1,110,000 26,000 - - -

73

Project No.

Agency ID / Fund

No.Project Description

Project Type

Regional (R) / Subregional Total Cost

Costs Prior to FY 2003

FY 2003 Costs

FY 2004 Costs

FY 2005 Costs

FY 2006 Costs

FY 2007 Costs

Costs After FY 2007

3096 SDCRAA Construct Security Improvments UPGRADE R 100,000,000 - 1,000,000 33,000,000 33,000,000 33,000,000 - - 3097 SDCRAA T1 Electrical Upgrades UPGRADE R 718,000 - 51,000 523,000 144,000 - - -

3098 SDCRAA Video Hotel/Motel Boards TECHNOLOGY R

200,000 - 200,000 - - - - -

3099 SDCRAA Install Escalator Energy Controllers UPGRADE R 151,000 - 151,000 - - - - - 3100 SDCRAA Airport Wide IT Strategic Plan Program TECHNOLOGY R 3,103,000 - 186,000 1,521,000 1,396,000 - - - 3101 SDCRAA Aviation Offices Facilities Improvements UPGRADE R 1,041,000 - 36,000 109,000 896,000 - - - 3102 SDCRAA Western Salt Environmental Project GREEN R 902,000 450,000 402,000 50,000 - - - -

1111A SDCRAA Master Plan - EIR/EIS TECHNOLOGY R 5,475,000 3,213,000 1,262,000 1,000,000 - - - -

1617A SDCRAA Infrastructure Data Mgmt. System (Phase 3) TECHNOLOGY R

3,500,000 771,000 556,000 1,334,000 839,000 - - -

3000A SDCRAA Interior Design Master Plan UPGRADE R 947,000 517,000 430,000 - - - - -

3000D SDCRAA Implement Prolog Project Mgmt. Software TECHNOLOGY R

583,000 475,000 108,000 - - - - -

3000F SDCRAA Install Roof Access Stairs by Gate 23 UPGRADE R

236,000 - 47,000 189,000 - - - -

3000G SDCRAA Install Airport Monument Sign NEW R 631,000 - 631,000 - - - - -

3000H SDCRAA Construct Commissioners Offices HVAC NEW R

100,000 - 100,000 - - - - -

3054A SDCRAA T1 East Upgrades -Gates 1 and 2 Conversion UPGRADE R

6,460,000 - 367,000 735,000 2,487,000 2,871,000 - -

3054B SDCRAA T1 East Upgrades -Retail Expansion Program UPGRADE R

26,432,000 - 213,000 2,159,000 10,004,000 14,056,000 - -

3054B SDCRAA Small Works Projects MISCELLANEOUS R 4,621,000 - 1,540,000 1,540,000 1,541,000 - - -

74

Exhibit 18 Total Annual Enplanements and Population

Projected Growth 2003-2030

Population Increase, 30%

Base Year 2003

Enplanements per Departure,

96%

-50%

0%

50%

100%

150%

2000 2010 2020 2030

Source: SANDAG, The Impacts of Constrained Air Transportation Capacity on the San Diego Regional Economy, 2003

Note 1. This is a comparison of projected growth in population and projected growth in Enplanements (passengers). Projected enplanements represent an estimate of future passenger counts. There is a difference in methodology between the two forecasts. The population forecast is constrained by current and planned land and housing availability. The enplanement forecast is unconstrained and does not consider airport capacity restrictions. The enplanement forecast would be reduced if there were no expansion of airport capacity beyond existing facilities at San Diego International Airport.

Note 2. Population in 2000 was 2,813,800; projected population in 2030 is 3,855,085. Total Enplanemnts per Departure in 2000 was 16,142,000; projected total Enplaments per Departure in 2030 is 35,478,658.

Note 3. Base year 2003 is assumed for population and enplanements per departure. 2003 numbers were extrapolated from 2000 numbers.

75

Exhibit 19 Summary of Capital Improvement Programs

San Diego Unified Port District FY 2003 to 2007 ($ Million)

Percent FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 Total of Total Regional Improvements New $ 8.5 $ 1.0 $ 20.0 $ 8.0 $ 0.0 $ 37.5 20.9% Upgrade 28.4 17.1 21.5 10.0 0.0 77.0 43.0% Technology 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.7% Mandated 5.7 3.5 3.0 0.0 0.0 12.2 6.8% Green 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% Other 31.4 8.7 5.3 5.7 0.0 51.1 28.5% Total Regional $ 75.3 $ 30.3 $ 49.8 $ 23.7 $ 0.0 $ 179.1 100.0% Source: San Diego Unified Port District, FY 2002-03 Capital Improvement Programs Note: “New” projects refer to installation of new cargo warehouses and other facilities; “upgrades” refer to renovation, reconstruction, or other improvements to existing facilities. “Mandated” projects are undertaken to satisfy federal or state requirements on safety and other issues. “Green” projects (which may also be mandated) refer to actions to mitigate impacts to or improve the natural environment. “Technology” projects improve overall productivity, such as system or control technologies.

76

Exhibit 20 San Diego Unified Port District Capital Projects

Project No. Project Description Project Type

Regional (R) / Subregional Total Cost

Costs Prior to FY 2003

FY 2003 Costs

FY 2004 Costs

FY 2005 Costs

FY 2006 Costs

FY 2007 Costs

Costs After

FY 2007

15 Acquisition of BF Goodrich, Chula Vista MISCELLANEOUS R 1,063,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 300,000 163,000 - -

2 ADA Compliance Projects MANDATED R 2,480,000 495,000 1,985,000 - - - - -

45 Canyon Path Pedestrian Access Improvements UPGRADE R 450,000 450,000 - - - - - -

16A Channel Deepening, Phase 1 TAMT UPGRADE R 4,350,000 1,100,000 3,250,000 - - - - -

38A Convention Center Hotel Site infrastructures UPGRADE R 25,000,000 500,000 2,500,000 6,000,000 6,000,000 10,000,000 - -

36 Convention Center Parking Mitigation MANDATED R 21,000,000 11,000,000 3,500,000 3,500,000 3,000,000 - - -

25 Coronado Seawall/Yachtclub Promenade UPGRADE R 2,530,000 - 2,530,000 - - - - -

112 Cruise Ship Terminal - Security & Inter. Improve. UPGRADE R 900,000 100,000 700,000 100,000 - - - -

111 Cruise Ship Terminal Fender Replacement UPGRADE R 1,965,000 200,000 1,500,000 265,000 - - - -

16B Deepen Births 10-3 thru 10-6, TAMT UPGRADE R 4,750,000 200,000 4,550,000 - - - - -

43 Expand Parking Lot, Emb. Mar. Park North UPGRADE R 400,000 400,000 - - - - - -

76 Gate Complex Reconfiguration - TAMT UPGRADE R 5,000,000 500,000 2,500,000 2,000,000 - - - -

67 Harbor Dr. Left Turn Lane @ Rent-a-Car Road UPGRADE R 300,000 - 300,000 - - - - -

139 Harbor Island Landscape Improvements UPGRADE R 200,000 - 200,000 - - - - -

29 I.S. Infrastructure TECHNOLOGY R 7,373,000 6,893,000 480,000 - - - - -

129 IT Fire Suppression System UPGRADE R 150,000 25,000 125,000 - - - - -

131 Leak Detection System TAMT Fuel Farm UPGRADE R 71,000 71,000 - - - - - -

149 Miscellaneous Small Projects MISCELLANEOUS R 1,000,000 - 500,000 500,000 - - - -

114 Multipurpose Terminal - TAMT UPGRADE R 2,500,000 - 1,000,000 1,500,000 - - - -

130 New Financial Mgmt. Information System NEW R 7,750,000 250,000 7,500,000 - - - - -

24 North Embarcadero Planning TECHNOLOGY R 1,773,000 1,021,000 752,000 - - - - -

126 North Embarcadero/B Street UPGRADE R 21,000,000 - 1,000,000 5,000,000 15,000,000 - - -

50 Park and Ride Expansion UPGRADE R 1,500,000 - 750,000 750,000 - - - -

93 Pave Westerly Dirt Road, NC UPGRADE R 280,000 - 280,000 - - - - -

136 Pepper Park Restroom Upgrades UPGRADE R 140,000 - 140,000 - - - - -

35 Public Pkg for Convention Ctr/Hotel/Ballpark NEW R 30,500,000 500,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 20,000,000 8,000,000 - -

77

Project No. Project Description Project Type

Regional (R) / Subregional Total Cost

Costs Prior to FY 2003

FY 2003 Costs

FY 2004 Costs

FY 2005 Costs

FY 2006 Costs

FY 2007 Costs

Costs After

FY 2007

49 Public Restroom Improvement & ADA Compliance MANDATED R 500,000 264,000 236,000 - - - - -

13 Relocate General Services MISCELLANEOUS R 12,800,000 1,536,000 9,764,000 - - 1,500,000 - -

71 Security System/Fencing - TAMT UPGRADE R 480,000 80,000 400,000 - - - - -

138 Shelter Island Entrance Corridor Improvements UPGRADE R 40,000 - 40,000 - - - - -

26 South Bay MOU MISCELLANEOUS R 47,450,000 10,500,000 19,950,000 8,000,000 5,000,000 4,000,000 - -

3 South Embarcadero Central Park UPGRADE R 3,800,000 285,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 515,000 - - -

132 TAMT Electrical Submetering UPGRADE R 215,000 15,000 200,000 - - - - -

60 Telephone Cable Upgrade at TAMT UPGRADE R 521,000 81,000 440,000 - - - - -

113B Temporary Passenger Processing Pavilion UPGRADE R 1,250,000 - 1,250,000 - - - - -

109 Transfer Funds to National City Marina Project MISCELLANEOUS R 1,000,000 - 1,000,000 - - - - -

42 Transient Vessel Dock, Restroom Improvements UPGRADE R 375,000 375,000 - - - - - -

8 Transit Shed 1 - Demo & Paving UPGRADE R 2,830,000 135,000 2,695,000 - - - - -

135 Upgrade HVAC at Harbor Police UPGRADE R 175,000 - 175,000 - - - - -

137 Upgrade HVAC/Boilers at Admin. Building UPGRADE R 390,000 - 390,000 - - - - -

78

Exhibit 21 Total Annual Maritime Cargo Tonnage and Population

Projected Growth 2003-2030

Population Increase, 30%

Base Year 2003

Millions of Metric Tons,

50%

-50%

0%

50%

100%

2000 2010 2020 2030

Source: San Diego Unified Port Authority Note 1. This is a comparison of projected growth in population and

projected growth in maritime tonnage. Note 2. Population in 2003 is 2,961,600; projected population in 2030 is

3,855,085. Total cargo tonnage in 2003 was 2.1 million metric tons; projected total cargo tonnage (applying a 3% growth rate) in 2030 is 3.15 million metric tons.

79

80

Exhibit 23 Ports of Entry Capital Projects

ProjectNo.

AgencyID

Project Description ProjectType

Regional (R) / Subregional

Total Cost Costs Prior to FY 2003

FY 2003 Costs

FY 2004 Costs

FY 2005 Costs

FY 2006 Costs

FY 2007 Costs

Costs After FY 2007

CAL38 Caltrans SR-905 New Freeway (Stage 2-4) NEW R 203,097,000 32,944,000 50,114,000 120,039,000 - - - -

CAL39 Caltrans SR-905 Siempre Viva (Stage 1) NEW R 28,700,000 4,500,000 24,200,000 - - - - -

CAL56 Caltrans I-5/I-805 Port of Entry UPGRADE R 11,998,000 2,598,000 - 7,000,000 1,200,000 - 1,200,000 -

MTDB19 101 San Ysidro Intermodal Transportation Center UPGRADE R 16,408,000 11,273,000 5,135,000 - - - - -

DHS1 DHS San Ysidro/Virginia Avenue Expansion Project UPGRADE R N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

DHS2 DHS Tecate POE Modernization UPGRADE R N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Source: Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP), Final 2002; Binational Border Transportation Infrastructure Needs Study (BINS), Draft 2003.

81

Exhibit 24 Total Annual Passenger Car Equivalents (Border Crossings) and Population

Projected Growth 2003 – 2030

Population Increase, 30%

Base Year 2003

Increase in Passenger Car Equiv,

88%

-50%

0%

50%

100%

2000 2010 2020 2030

Source: Binational Border Transportation Infrastructure Needs Study (BINS), Draft 2003.

Note 1. This is a comparison of projected growth in population and projected growth in passenger car equivalents crossing the 3 International Ports of Entry

Note 2. Population in 2003 is 2,961,600; projected population in 2030 is 3,855,085. Total passenger car equivalents in 2000 was 21.8 million; projected total passenger car equivalents in 2030 is 45.5 million.

Note 3. Base year 2003 is assumed for population and passenger car equivalents. The 2020 forecast (from BINS) is linearly extrapolated to 2030.

85

IRIS TECHNICAL APPENDIX [A.2] WATER SUPPLY AND DELIVERY SYSTEM

I. Introduction / Description of Infrastructure System

Finding enough water to drink has always been a problem in San Diego. Due to limited local water supplies and our semi-arid climate, the San Diego region relies heavily on imported water supplies. Demand for water in the San Diego region reached 686,529 ac-ft in 2002.1 Although imported water currently meets most of the region’s water demands, local water resources are also an important component of the region’s projected water resource mix. Conservation programs, water recycling groundwater, surface water, and potentially seawater desalination, will help reduce the effect of shortages on the San Diego region’s supply. Reliability of supply of imported water will be enhanced through implementation of the proposed transfer of water from Imperial Irrigation District (IID).

Investment in water infrastructure supports the implementation of the Regional Comprehensive Plan (RCP) in two ways: (1) providing a safe and reliable supply of water to the San Diego region and (2) treating and distributing water to homes, businesses, and farms. For purposes of the IRIS, facilities with the former function are called “regional” water infrastructure, and facilities for treatment and distribution, “subregional” infrastructure.2 The San Diego County Water Authority’s aqueducts and the Olivenhain Reservoir/Dam are examples of regional water infrastructure. Cities’ and water districts’ water treatment plants and pipelines which distribute water to homes and businesses are examples of subregional water infrastructure. Regional infrastructure supports the overall growth of the region, while subregional infrastructure serves the pattern of development, and should be consistent with the smart growth urban form and design objectives of the RCP.

II. Responsibilities and Controlling Legislation

Agencies

The San Diego County Water Authority’s (Water Authority’s) mission is to provide a safe and reliable supply of water to its member agencies serving the San Diego region. The Water Authority’s service area encompasses the western third of the San Diego region and serves approximately 97 percent of San Diego County’s population. The Water Authority purchases water from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (Metropolitan) and delivers it to its member agencies through two aqueducts.

1 San Diego County Water Authority, Regional Water Facilities Master Plan, Draft, December 2002, page 3-3. 2 Subregional facilities can also contribute to providing a reliable supply of water to the region. For example,

local agencies own and operate local reservoirs, water recycling and groundwater facilities.

86

The Water Authority is charged with delivering the region's supply of imported water. The Water Authority delivers treated water, treated at Metropolitan’s Skinner Filtration Plant in Riverside County, and untreated water that is treated locally by the member agencies. Individual water districts, agencies, or departments obtain treated and/or untreated water from the Water Authority, treat it if necessary, and distribute it to homes and businesses (municipal and industrial users) and farms (agricultural users). The Water Authority is comprised of 23 member agencies. Local water agencies are shown in Exhibit 1 and listed in Exhibit 2. The service area of the Water Authority corresponds to the collection of all these water agencies, except for Coronado. The City of Coronado, as well as the City of Imperial Beach, is not within the Water Authority service area. These two cities receive water from the Cal-American Water Company. There are other water agencies in the San Diego region that are not members of the Water Authority. These agencies are not included in the IRIS.

Metropolitan is currently the sole source of imported water for the Water Authority. Metropolitan obtains its water from two sources: the Colorado River Aqueduct (CRA), which it owns and operates, and the State Water Project (SWP). The Water Authority is the largest of Metropolitan’s 27 member agencies in terms of deliveries, purchasing about 30 percent of all the water Metropolitan delivered in FY 1998-1999.3 The availability of water from the Colorado River is governed by a system of priorities and water rights that have been established over many years. The Colorado River Lower Basin states (California, Arizona, and Nevada) have an annual apportionment of 7.5 million acre-feet (ac-ft), of which California’s share is 4.4 million ac-ft.4

Within San Diego region, six cities have water departments, whose service areas largely cover jurisdiction boundaries (Del Mar, Escondido, National City, Oceanside, Poway, and San Diego). Carlsbad Municipal Water District (MWD) also operates largely as a water department within the city. Other cities and communities are served by independent water districts or agencies. Five agencies (Fallbrook Public Utilities District, Rainbow MWD, Ramona MWD, Valley Center MWD, and Yuima MWD) serve primarily agricultural users. Some of these local water agencies provide both water and sewer services (see wastewater appendix for more information).

The City of San Diego is the largest member agency of the San Diego County Water Authority. About 33-37 percent of the water delivered annually to the San Diego region by the Water Authority goes to the City of San Diego.5 The City of San Diego Water Department serves more than 1.2 million people and more than 200 square miles of developed land. The city has three water treatment plants and more than 200 million gallons of potable water storage capacity. The city also conveys and sells potable water to the City of Del Mar, the Santa Fe Irrigation District, San Dieguito Water District, and the California American Water Company in Coronado.6

The San Diego Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) is responsible for conducting Municipal Service Reviews and Sphere of Influence Studies for all local water agencies in the San Diego region.

3 San Diego County Water Authority, 2000 Urban Water Management Plan, page 3-3.4 An acre-foot of water is approximately 325,851 gallons, enough to sustain the needs of approximately two

households for one year. 5 San Diego County Water Authority, Annual Report 2002, page 41.6 The City of Coronado is not a member agency of the San Diego County Water Authority. The California-

American Water Company, which operates that city’s water system, purchases all of its water from the City of San Diego, which is local surface water from the City of San Diego’s local reservoirs.

87

These LAFCO studies may be prepared on a regional or subregional basis for the purpose of reviewing infrastructure, growth, financing, reorganization, management, and governance issues.

Legislation

The federal Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) ensures the safety and quality of the nation's drinking water. SDWA, originally passed in 1974 and amended in 1986 and 1996, requires many actions to protect drinking water and its sources. SDWA authorizes the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) to set national health-based standards for drinking water to protect against both naturally occurring and man-made contaminants that may be found in drinking water.

Most oversight of water systems is conducted by state drinking water programs. States can apply to USEPA for “primacy,” the authority to implement SDWA within their jurisdictions, if they can show that they will adopt standards at least as stringent as USEPA’s and insure that water systems meet those standards. California has received primacy. States, such as California, make sure water system operators test for contaminants, review plans for water system improvements, conduct on-site inspections and sanitary surveys, provide training and technical assistance, and take action against water system operators not meeting the SDWA standards.

While drinking water is regulated under the federal Safe Drinking Water Act, the production and use of recycled water is governed under Title 22 of the California Health Code, and regulated by the Regional Water Quality Control Board, the State Department of Health Services and the county Department of Environmental Health Services. California’s standards for recycled water are the bench marks in the United States and worldwide.7

New water-related legislation became effective on January 1, 2002. SB 221 prohibits a city or county from approving development agreements, parcel maps or tentative tract maps for any subdivision with more than 500 dwelling units unless a sufficient water supply is, or will be, available for the development prior to its completion. SB 610 requires cities and counties to consider water supply assessments during the approval stage of certain categories of development projects to determine whether projected water supplies can meet the project’s anticipated water demand. Together, these new laws represent the strongest link between water supply and land development in California’s history.8

III. Operations and Maintenance (FY 2003)

Water agencies in the San Diego region spent approximately $630 million in FY 2003 to buy and distribute water to homes, businesses, and farms.9 Administration, contracts, and operation and

7 San Diego Union Tribune, March 7, 2003, section B7 8 Ed Casey and Weston Benshoof, “After Contentious Debate, Litigation & Legislation State’s Water Policy Still

Leaves Questions Unanswered,” Metro Investment Report, April 2002. 9 The San Diego County Water Authority expended approximately $294 million and the other, local agencies,

approximately $605 million. Purchase of water represents the largest expenditure category ($227 million by Water Authority and $269 million by local water agencies). It should be noted, however, that water purchases by local water agencies represent payments to Water Authority or other local agencies. To avoid double counting, purchases by local water agencies should be excluded from total water purchases, resulting in consolidated regional expenditures of $630 million for operations and maintenance in FY 2003 ($899 million minus $269 million).

88

maintenance costs totaled $27 million for the Water Authority and $307 million for local agencies. Debt service and selected capital costs totaled $40 million for the Water Authority and $29 million for local agencies. These expenditure patterns are shown in Exhibits 3, 4, and 5.

Revenues for operations are obtained primarily from user charges, sales to member agencies in the case of the Water Authority, and sales to final users in the case of local agencies. Interest, rent, and taxes comprise the other main revenue sources. Local agencies vary in their rate structure and frequency of billing cycle. Water fees generally consist of a base fee and water-used fee. The base fee is a non-variable amount intended to offset the fixed costs of operations. Examples of fixed costs include rent, routine maintenance, and replacement of facilities. The water used fee is a variable fee based upon the amount of water consumed by the customer. Distribution of revenue sources for local water agencies and the Water Authority are also shown in Exhibits 3, 4, and 5.

IV. Capital Improvement Programs

The San Diego County Water Authority and local water agencies have adopted multi-year capital improvement programs (CIPs). Capital improvement programs of city water departments are included in citywide CIPs. Over the next five years (FY 2003 to FY 2007), planned improvements to water treatment and conveyance facilities total $1.6 billion, of which regional facilities (see above) total $852 million and subregional facilities, $732 million (see Exhibit 8 for a summary of CIP projects and Exhibit 9 for a detailed listing of projects). This CIP Exhibit reflects information collected from cities’ and districts’ capital improvement programs, as well as information from SANGIS for some of the City of San Diego’s water projects. These projects from SANGIS were merged into the capital projects database and duplicate projects were taken out.

Regional facilities will be constructed primarily by the Water Authority, although expenditures by some local agencies, such as Olivenhain MWD's expenditures for Olivenhain Reservoir and Dam, have been classified as regional facility costs. Subregional facilities, primarily treatment and distribution facilities are planned and constructed by local water agencies.10

Among regional facilities, 59 percent of planned expenditures are for the construction of new facilities, 18 percent for upgrades to existing facilities, and the remaining 23 percent for technology and other improvement projects. Among subregional facilities, 22 percent are for the construction of new facilities, 55 percent for upgrades, and 22 percent for technology and other improvement projects. That a smaller percentage of subregional capital expenditures, compared to regional expenditures, is devoted to new construction is likely a result of jurisdictions' common requirement for private developments to construct the necessary infrastructure, including water pipelines, and dedicate it to a public agency.11 Regional projects are also larger and therefore have higher capital costs.

10 Regional and subregional CIP expenditures in FY 2003 total $453 million, declining to $227 million in FY 2007.

This decline likely reflects completion of the large regional Olivenhain Reservoir Project, which is part of the San Diego County Water Authority’s Emergency Storage Project. Final engineering design and environmental reviews are generally completed for near-term projects, but are likely to be incomplete for the later projects.

11 “New” projects refer to installation of new pipelines and other facilities; “upgrades” refer to renovation, reconstruction, or other improvements to existing facilities. “Mandated” projects are undertaken to satisfy federal or state requirements on safety and other issues. “Green” projects (which may also be mandated) refer to actions to mitigate impacts to or improve the natural environment. “Technology” projects improve overall productivity, such as system or control technologies.

89

Geographic distribution of FY 2003 investments in subregional facilities by community planning areas is shown in Exhibit 6. Capital improvement projects listed in Exhibit 9 were coded to individual community planning areas (see Exhibit 7 for the list of community planning areas), if projects were contained in single planning areas, or allocated to multiple planning areas, if they spanned those areas. The Exhibit indicates the proportion of total FY 2003 investment in subregional facilities expended in each community planning area. Since subregional infrastructure investment generally follows urban development, it is anticipated that the pattern of investment will change, as RCP's urban form and design goals are implemented.

Capital improvement projects are typically funded by a combination of impact fees (such as connection fees and capacity charges) and debt financing based on water revenues, charges, and fees. The Water Authority levies capacity charges on new meter connections and annual water standby availability charge (greater of $10 per acre or per parcel). In FY 2003, the Water Authority budgeted $40.4 million from these revenues, which are used exclusively for capital improvement projects.12 Local water agencies also collect connection fees which are dedicated to capital projects. In FY 2003, over $25 million was budgeted by local agencies from this source.13

Financial assistance programs play an important role in the construction of water reclamation facilities. The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation manages Title XVI Grant Program, and the State Water Resources Control Board sponsors low-interest loan programs. The Metropolitan manages the Local Resources Program (LRP), and the Water Authority has Financial Assistance Program (FAP) and Reclaimed Water Development Fund (RWDF) to assist local water agencies.

V. Projected Long-Term Need

Regional Need

The Water Authority is preparing a long-range facilities master plan for ensuring a safe and reliable water supply to its service area.14 Estimated total water use in FY 2002 was 686,529 acre-feet (ac-ft), consisting of 85 percent to 90 percent municipal and industrial (M&I) use and 10 percent to 15 percent agricultural use. The Water Authority projects that total demand will increase to approximately 872,400 ac-ft by 2030, which represents a 26 percent increase over the estimated use in 2003, while the population is projected to increase by 30 percent over the same period (2.96 million in 2003 to 3.85 million in 2030).15 The 2030 projection of water demand assumes (a) that normal weather conditions will prevail over this period; (b) that conservation programs will be implemented; and (c) that water supplied by the Water Authority for agricultural use will decline after 2005, due to reduction in irrigated acreage. The Water Authority is in the process of updating its demand projections based on SANDAG’s 2030 forecast. This process is scheduled to be completed by early next year and demands are predicted to be lower. Relative growths in population and regional demand for water are shown in Exhibit 10.

12 San Diego County Water Authority, FY 2002-2003 Operating Budget. 13 Operating budgets of local water agencies. 14 San Diego County Water Authority, Regional Water Facilities Master Plan (March 2003), “Water Demand Projections.” 15 San Diego County Water Authority projects that total demand will increase to between 696,100 and

1,050,400 ac-ft in 2030, with a mid-range projection of 872,400 ac-ft. The facility master plan used the 2020 population projection prepared by SANDAG in their 2020 Cities/County Forecast, with base year of 1995.

90

Subregional Need

The City of San Diego has also adopted a long-range master plan to address water demand through 2030.16 In 2002, the city supplied approximately 38,700 ac-ft from local sources and 205,000 ac-ft from imported water (purchased from the Water Authority), or a total of nearly 244,000 ac-ft. Total demand is projected to grow to 350,000 ac-ft in 2030 without conservation and 297,000 ac-ft with planned conservation programs. (The higher projection assumes above-normal demand, and the lower projection is based on normal weather conditions.)

VI. Relationship of Facility Planning to Local General Plan and Land Use

Investment in water infrastructure is closely tied to new development or redevelopment and patterns of land use. That is, the local jurisdiction's general plan and its land use element provide the framework for infrastructure planning. If the general plan anticipates that future growth in housing and employment will occur in currently non-urbanized areas, then new facilities would be constructed to serve such growth. If growth is anticipated to occur in currently urbanized areas, then additions to or reconstruction of existing infrastructure may be necessary.

Accordingly, major networks of facilities required to treat and distribute water to final users are identified in the public facilities elements of local jurisdictions' general or specific plans and in facility master plans of independent water agencies, which are in turn coordinated with local general plans. New facilities are planned to meet the service demand of projected growth in housing and employment as outlined in the general plans.

Implementation of the goals of the RCP and smart growth may require changes to local general plans, their public facilities elements, or water agencies' facility master plans. However, the shift in emphasis from new development in currently non-urbanized areas to development or redevelopment of urbanized areas would occur over time as general plans are amended. For example, capital improvement projects are generally planned several years in advance of construction. This lag in implementation would provide an opportunity for the local jurisdictions to adjust, if necessary, their planning to reflect the goals of the RCP. In turn, the water agencies would adjust their capital improvement programs to reflect revisions to local jurisdictions land use planning policies.

Construction of local water infrastructure facilities is generally funded on a pay-as-you-go basis, from fees collected at development approval or issuance of building permits, or the facilities may be required as part of development exaction and dedicated to a public agency for operation and maintenance. Major, particularly regional, infrastructure facilities may also be financed through issuance of bonds. Principal and interest payments on bonds are paid out of revenues from the sale of water to agencies or final users. If implementation of the RCP leads to a new urban form, water districts should have little trouble adjusting their capital programs. Fee- and exaction-based construction will follow new development or redevelopment; charges for services to existing users would continue to provide debt service payments for outstanding bonds.

16 City of San Diego, Long-Range Water Resources Plan (2002-2030), December 2002.

91

VII. Public Policy / Financing Issues and Strategies

Regional Water Supply

Strategies to meet the projected long-term demand for water in San Diego region incorporate a combination of imported and local sources of water. Options for imported water include additional purchase and conveyance from Metropolitan and the proposed transfer of conserved water from Imperial Irrigation District (IID transfer). Local sources include water conservation and recycling, surface water, groundwater recharge and extraction, and seawater desalination.

According to the Draft Regional Water Facilities Master Plan, the estimated cost to implement the Water Authority’s recommended long-term strategy, including IID transfer and seawater desalination, is $31.6 billion.17 The draft estimate is a net present value of both capital costs (pipelines, pump stations, treatment plants, and dams) and operating costs (water purchases, including payments to Metropolitan and IID, and operations and maintenance). Net present value of capital costs total $3.1 billion; operations and maintenance, $4.4 billion; payments to Metropolitan, $20.9 billion; and payments to IID, $3.3 billion.

The Water Authority's Draft Regional Water Facilities Master Plan relies on continued use of both imported and local sources, with emphasis on IID transfer and seawater desalination. By 2021, IID transfer is projected to reach 200,000 ac-ft and stay constant thereafter; seawater desalination is projected to supply 89,000 ac-ft by 2015.18 These new sources, which are not currently available to the region, would account for at least 289,000 ac-ft after 2020. If continued at those levels, they would represent approximately 33 percent of the projected demand of 872,400 ac-ft in 2030. The new sources would help replace water which the San Diego region may lose, as the State of California reduces its reliance on surplus water from the Colorado River.

Current terms of the agreement between the Water Authority and IID include the stipulation for the transfer of 10,000 ac-ft in the first year and a total of 1 million ac-ft over the first 15 years, with annual quantities increasing to 200,000 ac-ft in year 19 and remain at that level for the duration of the 75-year term of the agreement. The Water Authority would pay $258 per ac-ft for 10,000 ac-ft in the first year, excluding transportation costs. Currently, Water Authority pays approximately $350 per ac-ft to Metropolitan for untreated water and $431 for treated water, including transportation costs.19

The IID transfer is conditioned on resolving the agreement on allocation of the Colorado River water among California, Arizona, and Nevada. A 1931 agreement (“Seven Party Agreement”) limited the amount available to California to 4.4 million ac-ft, unless the U.S. Department of the Interior declares that a surplus is available. Since 2001, however, the Colorado River has experienced drought conditions, while California has continued to use more than 600,000 ac-ft over its allocation limit.

The Water Authority has identified seawater desalination as the preferred alternative for a new source of water for the San Diego region. The Water Authority is taking steps toward negotiating a 17 Discount rate of 3 percent and planning horizon of 90 years (Water Authority, Draft Regional Water Facilities

Master Plan). 18 San Diego County Water Authority’s Draft Regional Water Facilities Master Plan, December 2002 (page 7-15). 19 San Diego County Water Authority, FY 2002-2003 Operating Budget, p. 87.

92

public/private partnership to construct and operate a 50 million gallons/day (mgd) desalination plant in Carlsbad. The project could produce up to 56,000 ac-ft per year of desalinated water. Environmental review of the project should begin in 2003, and the facility is expected to be operational in 2008.

Subregional Distribution Facilities

Local water agencies in San Diego region (excluding the Water Authority) in FY 2003 spent approximately $336 million for operations and maintenance, capital costs,20 and debt service and $243 million for subregional CIP projects, or a total of approximately $579 million, excluding water purchases from the Water Authority.21 If these expenditures keep pace with population growth, annual expenditures in 2030 could total $774 million, excluding water purchases.22 Net present value of combined O&M and subregional CIP expenditures from 2003 to 2030 is estimated to be over $12 billion.23 Both O&M and subregional CIP expenditures, however, are expected to follow the pattern of housing and employment land uses as they are developed over this period.

Water Section Exhibits

1) Water Service Districts 2) Water Service Districts in San Diego County 3) Local Water Agencies in San Diego County, Operations and Maintenance Revenues and

Expenditures, FY 2002-03 4) San Diego County Water Authority, Operations and Maintenance Revenues and Expenditures,

FY 2002-03 5) Water Agencies’ Operations and Maintenance, FY 2003 6) Water Infrastructure Distribution of Subregional CIP Expenditures FY 2003 7) Community Infrastructure Planning Areas 8) Summary of Capital Improvement Programs, Water Supply and Distribution FY 2003 to 2007 9) Water Capital Projects 10) Water Demand is Projected to Increase Less Than Population, 2003-2030

20 “Capital” cost in the operating budget refers to purchase of long-lived items, such as equipment, and not to

capital facilities such as pipelines. 21 Cost to purchase imported water is reflected in the long-term regional cost estimated by Water Authority, as

discussed above. 22 Based on 2002 population of 2,908,500 and forecast 2030 population of 3,889,604 (SANDAG, Preliminary

2030 Cities/County Forecast). 23 Assuming inflation-adjusted interest rate of 3 percent and accounting for slightly more than 1 percent

annual growth in population.

93

94

Exhibit 2 Water Service Districts in San Diego County

FUND OR O&M CIP ID NO. DISTRICT DATA DATA

675001 FALLBROOK PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT X X 675004 HELIX WATER DISTRICT X X 675014 CITY OF NATIONAL CITY X 675016 CITY OF OCEANSIDE X X 675018 CITY OF SAN DIEGO X X 675019 RAMONA MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT X X 675022 SANTA FE IRRIGATION DISTRICT X X 675024 SAN DIEGUITO WATER DISTRICT X X 675029 CITY OF ESCONDIDO X X 675031 SOUTH BAY IRRIGATION DISTRICT X X 675037 RAINBOW MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT X 675040 CITY OF POWAY X X 675045 RINCON DEL DIABLO MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT X X 675048 CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT X X 675049 VALLEY CENTER MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT X X 675051 PADRE DAM MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT X X 675060 OTAY WATER DISTRICT X X 675064 OLIVENHAIN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT X X 675071 CITY OF DEL MAR X X 675075 YUIMA MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT 675130-2 PENDLETON MILITARY RESERVATION 675140 VALLECITOS WATER DISTRICT X X 675152 VISTA IRRIGATION DISTRICT X X CWA SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER AUTHORITY X X 319 CITY OF CORONADO (CALIFORNIA-AMERICAN WATER CO.)

X indicates that budget data is included in this report.

All districts with fund numbers beginning with 675 are members of San Diego County Water Authority.

95

Exhibit 3 Local Water Agencies in San Diego County

Operations and Maintenance Revenues and Expenditures, FY 2002-03 [Excludes San Diego County Water Authority]

O&M Revenues O&M Expenditures

$624.4 Million $604.9 Million

Operations & Maintenance,

50.7%

Debt Service & Capital Costs,

4.7%

Water Purchases,

44.5%

Interest, Rents, 3.6%

Taxes and Assessments,

1.1%

Federal and State Grants,

0.2%Other Local

Revenues, 5.4%

Water Sales, 89.6%

96

Exhibit 4 San Diego County Water Authority

Operations and Maintenance Revenues and Expenditures, FY 2002-03

Operations & Maintenance,

9.2%

Debt Service & Capital Costs,

13.5%

Water Purchases,

77.3%

Interest, Rents, 0.8%

Taxes and Assessments,

5.8%

Other Local Revenues, 2.1%

Water Sales, 91.2%

O&M Revenues$312.6 Million

O&M Expenditures$293.7 Million

97

Exhibit 5 Water Agencies’ Operation and Maintenance, FY 2003

($ Million)

All Local Water

Agencies Percent

San Diego CountyWater

Authority Percent Total All Agencies Percent

Operating Revenues (FY 2003)

General tax (e.g., property tax, sales tax) $ 6.2 1.0% $ 8.1 2.6% $ 14.3 1.5% Special taxes and assessments 0.9 0.1% 10.2 3.3% 11.1 1.2% Water sales to other agencies 12.3 2.0% 285.2 91.2% 297.5 31.8% Water sales to final users 546.6 87.7% 0.0 0.0% 546.6 58.4% Interest, rents 22.2 3.6% 2.6 0.8% 24.9 2.7% Other local funds 33.9 5.4% 6.6 2.1% 40.5 4.3% Transfers from federal / state 0.6 0.1% 0.0 0.0% 0.6 0.1% Transfers from other agencies 0.7 0.1% 0.0 0.0% 0.7 0.1%

Total Annual Revenues $ 623.5 100.0% $ 312.6 100.0% $ 936.1 100.0%

Operating Expenditures (FY 2003) Water purchases 269.0 44.5% 227.2 77.3% 496.2 55.3% Operations and maintenance

General & administrative 107.1 17.7% 17.0 5.8% 124.1 13.8% Contracts & services 7.5 1.2% 8.7 3.0% 16.3 1.8% Other O&M 191.8 31.8% 1.2 0.4% 193.0 21.5%

Subtotal O&M 306.5 50.7% 26.9 9.2% 333.4 37.1%

Capital costs 4.8 0.8% 3.2 1.1% 8.0 0.9% Debt service 23.6 3.9% 36.4 12.4% 60.1 6.7%

Total Operating Expenditures $ 603.9 100.0% $ 293.7 100.0% $ 897.6 100.0%

Revenues Over or (Under) Expenditures 19.6 18.9 38.5

Source: Water agencies in San Diego County, FY 2002-03 budgets

98

19511951

19541954

19061906

19141914

19121912

19201920

19011901

19071907

19531953

19021902

19151915

19111911

14821482

203203

702702

204204

19031903

19521952

19091909705705

12021202

19191919

300300

14151415

14321432

13031303

704704

13021302

19551955

103103

14261426

18011801

14201420

101101

14411441

14061406

19091909

201201

15041504

19211921

18021802

14471447

102102

13011301

104104

12011201

14311431

14861486

14291429

503503

15011501

601601

703703

202202

14101410

14251425

19981998

14301430

14641464

501501

16011601

14441444

14211421

604604

14501450

902902

15021502

701701

14341434

14171417

603603

14681468

800800

14391439

11021102

502502

14191419901901

14571457

14691469

12031203

14561456

14071407

14121412

14401440

602602

11011101

14811481

14421442

14651465

14271427

10001000

16021602

15031503

16031603

14281428

14351435

12041204

17001700

14611461

14381438

14091409

14331433

14051405

1403140314621462

12051205

14041404

400400

1401140114831483

14581458

19181918

14631463

16041604

1414141414591459

14481448

1466146614491449

14081408

14231423

14021402 14911491

14241424

14851485

14181418

19991999

14881488

0 5 10 152.5Miles

99

Exhibit 7 Community Infrastructure Planning Areas 1

CIPA NO. JURISDICTION COMMUNITY PLANNING AREA

101 1 Carlsbad Carlsbad 1 102 1 Carlsbad Carlsbad 2 103 1 Carlsbad Carlsbad 3 104 1 Carlsbad Carlsbad 4 201 2 Chula Vista Chula Vista 1 202 2 Chula Vista Chula Vista 2 203 2 Chula Vista Chula Vista 3 204 2 Chula Vista Chula Vista 4 300 3 Coronado Coronado 400 4 Del Mar Del Mar 501 5 El Cajon El Cajon 1 502 5 El Cajon El Cajon 2 503 5 El Cajon El Cajon 3 601 6 Encinitas Encinitas 1 602 6 Encinitas Encinitas 2 603 6 Encinitas Encinitas 3 604 6 Encinitas Encinitas 4 701 7 Escondido Escondido 1 702 7 Escondido Escondido 2 703 7 Escondido Escondido 3 704 7 Escondido Escondido 4 705 7 Escondido Escondido 5 800 8 Imperial Beach Imperial Beach 901 9 La Mesa La Mesa 1 902 9 La Mesa La Mesa 2

1000 10 Lemon Grove Lemon Grove 1101 11 National City National City 1 1102 11 National City National City 2 1201 12 Oceanside Oceanside 1 1202 12 Oceanside Oceanside 2 1203 12 Oceanside Oceanside 3 1204 12 Oceanside Oceanside 4 1205 12 Oceanside Oceanside 5 1301 13 Poway Poway 1 1302 13 Poway Poway 2 1303 13 Poway Poway 3 1401 14 San Diego Balboa Park 1402 14 San Diego Barrio Logan 1403 14 San Diego Carmel Mountain Ranch 1404 14 San Diego Centre City 1405 14 San Diego Sabre Springs 1406 14 San Diego Clairemont Mesa 1407 14 San Diego East Elliott 1408 14 San Diego Greater Golden Hill

100

CIPA NO. JURISDICTION COMMUNITY PLANNING AREA 1409 14 San Diego Miramar Ranch North 1410 14 San Diego La Jolla 1412 14 San Diego Linda Vista 1414 14 San Diego Midway-Pacific Highway 1415 14 San Diego Mira Mesa 1417 14 San Diego Mission Bay Park 1418 14 San Diego Mission Beach 1419 14 San Diego Mission Valley 1420 14 San Diego Navajo 1421 14 San Diego Carmel Valley 1423 14 San Diego Ocean Beach 1424 14 San Diego Old San Diego 1425 14 San Diego Otay Mesa-Nestor 1426 14 San Diego Otay Mesa 1427 14 San Diego Pacific Beach 1428 14 San Diego Greater North Park 1429 14 San Diego Rancho Penasquitos 1430 14 San Diego Peninsula 1431 14 San Diego Rancho Bernardo 1432 14 San Diego San Pasqual 1433 14 San Diego San Ysidro 1434 14 San Diego Scripps Miramar Ranch 1435 14 San Diego Serra Mesa 1438 14 San Diego College Area 1439 14 San Diego Tijuana River Valley 1440 14 San Diego Torrey Pines 1441 14 San Diego University 1442 14 San Diego Uptown 1444 14 San Diego Skyline-Paradise Hills 1447 14 San Diego Tierrasanta 1448 14 San Diego Sorrento Hills 1449 14 San Diego Fairbanks Country Club 1450 14 San Diego Kearny Mesa 1455 14 San Diego Via De La Valle 1456 14 San Diego Mid-City:City Heights 1457 14 San Diego Mid-City:Eastern Area 1458 14 San Diego Mid-City:Kensington-Talmadge 1459 14 San Diego Mid-City:Normal Heights 1461 14 San Diego Del Mar Mesa 1462 14 San Diego Torrey Highlands 1463 14 San Diego Los Penasquitos Canyon Preserve 1464 14 San Diego Black Mountain Ranch 1465 14 San Diego Pacific Highlands Ranch 1466 14 San Diego NCFUA Subarea 2 1467 14 San Diego NCFUA Reserve 1468 14 San Diego Southeastern:Encanto Neighborhoods 1469 14 San Diego Southeastern:Southeastern San Diego 1481 14 San Diego Rancho Encantada

101

CIPA NO. JURISDICTION COMMUNITY PLANNING AREA 1482 14 San Diego Miramar Air Station 1483 14 San Diego Lindbergh Field 1485 14 San Diego Scripps Reserve 1486 14 San Diego Harbor 1488 14 San Diego Flower Hill 1491 14 San Diego 32nd Street Naval Station 1501 15 San Marcos San Marcos 1 1502 15 San Marcos San Marcos 2 1503 15 San Marcos San Marcos 3 1504 15 San Marcos San Marcos 4 1601 16 Santee Santee 1 1602 16 Santee Santee 2 1603 16 Santee Santee 3 1604 16 Santee Santee 4 1700 17 Solana Beach Solana Beach 1801 18 Vista Vista 1 1802 18 Vista Vista 2 1901 19 Unincorporated County Alpine 1902 19 Unincorporated County Central Mountain 1903 19 Unincorporated County Crest-Dehesa 1904 19 Unincorporated County Desert 1906 19 Unincorporated County Jamul-Dulzura 1907 19 Unincorporated County Lakeside 1908 19 Unincorporated County Mountain Empire 1909 19 Unincorporated County North County Metro 1911 19 Unincorporated County Otay 1912 19 Unincorporated County Pala-Pauma 1914 19 Unincorporated County Ramona 1915 19 Unincorporated County San Dieguito 1918 19 Unincorporated County Sweetwater 1919 19 Unincorporated County Valle De Oro 1920 19 Unincorporated County Valley Center 1921 19 Unincorporated County Spring Valley 1922 19 Unincorporated County Julian 1951 19 Unincorporated County North Mountain 1952 19 Unincorporated County Bonsall 1953 19 Unincorporated County Fallbrook 1954 19 Unincorporated County Pendleton-De Luz 1955 19 Unincorporated County Rainbow 1998 19 Unincorporated County Barona 1999 19 Unincorporated County County Islands

1. Community infrastructure planning areas (CIPAs) are the same as community planning areas (CPAs) in the City of San Diego and the County of San Diego. CIPAs reflect comparable planning areas for the other cities

102

Exhibit 8 Summary of Capital Improvement Programs

Water Supply and Distribution FY 2003 to 2007 ($ Million)

Percent FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 Total of Total Regional Improvements New $ 153.4 $ 92.5 $ 85.5 $ 73.9 $ 93.4 $ 498.7 58.5% Upgrade 22.2 22.8 35.3 41.9 34.2 156.4 18.4% Technology 16.6 10.5 6.5 3.0 3.1 39.7 4.7% Mandated 18.6 37.5 39.1 21.6 29.9 146.7 17.2% Green 0.1 0.3 5.0 5.0 0.1 10.5 1.2% Other 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0% Total Regional $ 210.9 $ 163.5 $ 171.6 $ 145.4 $ 160.7 $ 852.2 100.0% Subregional Improvements New 54.8 46.5 34.0 23.1 6.0 164.4 22.4% Upgrade 151.4 76.8 101.5 45.2 28.5 403.5 55.1% Technology 24.1 15.7 9.9 6.9 7.4 64.0 8.7% Mandated 9.0 16.3 22.0 20.3 24.5 92.1 12.6% Green 0.2 0.5 1.0 1.0 0.0 2.8 0.4% Other 3.0 1.6 0.2 0.2 0.4 5.4 0.7% Total Subregional $ 242.5 $ 157.5 $ 168.7 $ 96.7 $ 66.7 $ 732.2 100.0% Total CIP $ 453.4 $ 321.1 $ 340.3 $ 242.2 $ 227.4 $ 1,584.4 Source: Water agencies in San Diego County, FY 2002-03 budgets.

Note: “New” projects refer to installation of new pipelines and other facilities; “upgrades” refer to renovation, reconstruction, or other improvements to existing facilities. “Mandated” projects are undertaken to satisfy federal or state requirements on safety and other issues. “Green” projects (which may also be mandated) refer to actions to mitigate impacts to or improve the natural environment. “Technology” projects improve overall productivity, such as system or control technologies.

Exhibit 9Water Capital Projects

ProjectNo.

Agency ID / Fund No.

Project Description Project TypeRegional (R) / Subregional

Total Project Cost Costs Prior to

FY 2003 FY 2003

CostsFY 2004Costs

FY 2005Costs

FY 2006Costs

FY 2007Costs

Costs After FY 2007

1000 675048 "D" Reservoir - Phase II Upgrade S 3,984,500 - - - - - - 3,984,500

1001 675048 "D" Reservoir - Phase II Upgrade S 1,328,000 - - - - - - 1,328,000

1002 675048 580 Zone Secondary Supply New S 512,000 - - - - - - 512,000

1003 675048 680 Zone Supply New S 550,000 - - - - - - 550,000

1004 675048Aviara Parkway-Poinsettia Lane to Palomar Airport Road

Upgrade S 495,000 - - 495,000 - - - -

1005 675048Calavera Hills Water Booster Station Standby Generator

Upgrade S 250,000 - - 50,000 200,000 - - -

1006 675048 Cannon Road West Transmission Main New S 2,864,457 2,864,457 - - - - - -

1007 675048Carlsbad Blvd.-Manzano Drive to Avenida Encinas

Upgrade S 133,000 - - - - - - 133,000

1008 675048Carlsbad Blvd.-Manzano Drive to Avenida Encinas

Upgrade S 142,000 - - - - - - 142,000

1009 675048College Blvd.-Cannon Rd. to Carlsbad Village Drive

Upgrade S 550,000 50,000 500,000 - - - - -

1010 675048College Blvd.-El Camino Real to Aqua Hedionda Creek

Upgrade S 235,000 183,375 51,625 - - - - -

1011 675048 College Blvd. (33" line to Cannon Rd.) Upgrade S 421,000 - - 421,000 - - - -

1012 675048College Blvd-Maerkle Reservoir to Agua Hedionda Creek

New S 2,340,000 - - - - - - 2,340,000

1013 675048 El Camino Real-Palomar Airport Road South New S 3,225,000 3,225,000 - - - - - -

1014 675048 El Camino Real Crossing at Kelly Drive Upgrade S 94,000 - - 94,000 - - - -

1015 675048El Camino Real Transmission Main - Lisa Street to Kelly Drive

Upgrade S 250,000 50,000 - 200,000 - - - -

1016 675048El Camino Real Transmission Main from Cassia to Poinsettia

New S 835,800 - 835,800 - - - - -

1017 675048El Camino Real Transmission Main from Faraday to Cougar Drive

Upgrade S 660,000 50,000 610,000 - - - - -

1018 675048 El Fuerte - North of Loker Upgrade S 148,750 - - 148,750 - - - - 1019 675048 El Fuerte - Alga Road to Poinsettia Lane New S 2,000,000 2,000,000 - - - - - - 1020 675048 El Fuerte - Faraday to Maerkle Reservoir Upgrade S 330,000 25,000 - - - - - 305,000

1021 675048El Fuerte - Poinsettia Lane to Palomar Airport Road

New S 820,000 - 820,000 - - - - -

1022 675048Faraday Avenue - Orion to Melorose Waterline

Upgrade S 97,210 97,210 - - - - - -

1023 675048 Foussat Road Well Abandonment Upgrade S 150,000 - 150,000 - - - - - 1024 675048 Interstate 5 Crossing New S 982,000 982,000 - - - - - - 1025 675048 Lake Calavera Reservoir Improvements Upgrade S 1,650,000 1,650,000 - - - - - -

1026 675048Marron Road - Pressure Regulating Station to Oceanside

Upgrade S 604,000 - - - - - - 604,000

1027 675048 Miscellaneous Pipeline Replacement Projects Upgrade S 1,400,000 - 200,000 400,000 - 400,000 400,000 -

1028 675048 Miscellaneous Storage Tank Repairs Upgrade S 170,000 170,000 - - - - - - 1029 675048 Miscellaneous Water Reservoir Fencing Upgrade S 110,000 110,000 - - - - - -

103

Exhibit 9Water Capital Projects

ProjectNo.

Agency ID / Fund No.

Project Description Project TypeRegional (R) / Subregional

Total Project Cost Costs Prior to

FY 2003 FY 2003

CostsFY 2004Costs

FY 2005Costs

FY 2006Costs

FY 2007Costs

Costs After FY 2007

1030 675048 North Agua Hedionda Transmission Main New S 130,000 - - 30,000 100,000 - - -

1031 675048 Oceanside Intertie Upgrade Upgrade S 100,000 - - 100,000 - - - -

1032 675048 Palomar Airport - North of Owens Upgrade S 150,000 150,000 - - - - - -

1033 675048Poinsettia Lane - El Camino Real to "D" Reservoir

New S 2,700,000 2,700,000 - - - - - -

1034 675048 Poinsettia Lane - El Fuerte to El Camino Real New S 2,800,000 - - - - - - 2,800,000

1035 675048Poinsettia Lane - Paseo Del Norte to Carlsbad Blvd.

Upgrade S 375,000 375,000 - - - - - -

1036 675048Poinsettia Lane - From "D" Reservoir to Ambrosia Lane

Upgrade S 322,000 322,000 - - - - - -

1037 675048Pressure Regulating Station - Cannon Road and College Blvd.

Upgrade S 250,000 - 250,000 - - - - -

1038 675048 Rancho Carrillo Oversizing/Extension Upgrade S 90,000 90,000 - - - - - -

1039 675048 Seawater Desalination Programs Technology S 649,860 649,860 - - - - - -

1040 675048Tanglewood Pressure Reducing Station Replacement

Upgrade S 150,000 - - 50,000 150,000 - - -

1041 675048 Tap No. 2 Reservoir New S 1,750,000 150,000 - - - 100,000 100,000 1,400,000

1042 675048 Tap Reservoir Exterior Painting Upgrade S 120,000 70,000 50,000 - - - - -

1043 675048 Tri-Agency Pipeline Erosion Protection Upgrade S 150,000 - 150,000 - - - -

1044 675048Water Certificate of Participation (COP) payment (16%)

Misc. S 391,450 - 195,178 196,272 - - - -

1045 675048Water Certificate of Participation (COP) payment (84%)

Misc. S 2,055,110 - 1,024,682 1,030,428 - - - -

1046 675048 Water Operations Water Pump Project Upgrade S 55,000 - 55,000 - - - - -

1047 675048 Water System Intertie Connection New S 400,000 400,000 - - - - - -

1048 675048 Water/Sewer Master Plan Update Technology S 124,580 124,580 - - - - - - 1049 675048 Water/Sewer Master Plan Update Technology S 31,145 31,145 - - - - - - 1050 675048 Debt Service on State Loan Misc. S 1,880,702 - 159,527 159,527 159,527 159,527 159,527 1,083,067

1051 675048 Industrial Park System New S 1,179,539 1,179,539 - - - - - -

1052 675048 I-5 Recycled Water Transmission Line New S 140,000 140,000 - - - - - - 1053 675048 Recycled Line - Poinsettia Bridge Upgrade S 240,000 240,000 - - - - - - 1054 675048 Recycled Water Ph II - Design Report Technology S 600,000 600,000 - - - - - - 1055 675048 Recycled Water Ph II - Treatment Facility New S 12,860,000 12,500,000 360,000 - - - - -

1056 675048 Recycled Water Ph II - Pipelines New S 15,800,000 15,800,000 - - - - - -

1057 675048 Recycled Water Ph II - Flow Equalization New S 2,970,000 2,970,000 - - - - - -

104

Exhibit 9Water Capital Projects

ProjectNo.

Agency ID / Fund No.

Project Description Project TypeRegional (R) / Subregional

Total Project Cost Costs Prior to

FY 2003 FY 2003

CostsFY 2004Costs

FY 2005Costs

FY 2006Costs

FY 2007Costs

Costs After FY 2007

1058 675048 Recycled Water Ph II - Pump Stations New S 866,667 866,667 - - - - - - 1058 675048 Recycled Water Ph II - Pump Stations New S 866,667 866,667 - - - - - - 1058 675048 Recycled Water Ph II - Pump Stations New S 866,666 866,666 - - - - - - 1059 675048 Recycled Water Prog - Phase II New S 4,000,000 4,000,000 - - - - - - 1060 675048 Pump Station Upgrade Upgrade S 400,000 - 400,000 - - - - - 1061 675064 Unit H Deepwell Anode Bed Upgrade S 55,000 10,000 45,000 - - - - - 1062 675064 District Facilities Renovation/Expansion Upgrade S 325,000 75,000 250,000 - - - - - 1063 675064 Unit Y Pipeline New S 200,000 85,600 114,400 - - - - -

1064 675064 Hodges/Olivenhain Pumped Storage New S 2,500,000 8,000 68,000 138,000 532,000 1,232,000 522,000 -

1065 675064 Shelly Project-Rancho Santa Fe Road Widening Upgrade S 200,000 46,000 154,000 - - - - - 1066 675064 Flow Control Facility #4 Modification Upgrade S 50,000 8,000 42,000 - - - - - 1067 675064 Replacement of San Dieguito Pipeline Upgrade S 250,000 30,000 220,000 - - - - - 1068 675064 Denk Inflow Pipeline New S 1,984,000 30,000 954,000 1,000,000 - - - - 1069 675064 Wiegand Reservoir Recoating Upgrade S 250,000 5,000 245,000 - - - - - 1070 675064 520 Vault Pressure Reducing Station Upgrade S 367,500 - 367,500 - - - - - 1071 675064 Zorro I & II Reservoir Rehabilitation Upgrade S 1,178,000 102,000 1,076,000 - - - - - 1072 675064 Miller Reservoir Rehabilitation Upgrade S 1,206,000 - - 100,000 1,106,000 - - - 1073 675064 Denk Reservoir Rehabilitation Upgrade S 1,425,000 - 100,000 1,325,000 - - - - 1074 675064 Reclaimed Water Treatment Misc. S 832,083 832,083 - - - - - - 1075 675064 Security Installations for District Facilities New S 100,000 - 100,000 - - - - - 1076 675064 Battery Replacement of Radio Read Meters Upgrade S 200,000 - - 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 - 1077 675064 Roof Replacement of OMWD Operations Bdg. Upgrade S 40,000 - 40,000 - - - - - 1078 675064 Replacement of Fortuna Ranch Road Pipeline Upgrade S 2,000,000 - - - - 500,000 1,500,000 - 1079 675064 Replacement of 12" Pipeline in El Camino Rea Upgrade S 1,783,000 - - - 183,000 1,000,000 600,000 - 1080 675064 Replacement of 12" Pipeline Upgrade S 1,725,000 - - 862,500 862,500 - - - 1081 675064 Replacement of 6" Pipeline Upgrade S 105,000 - - 105,000 - - - - 1082 675064 Replacement of 12" Pipeline Upgrade S 1,082,000 - - 130,000 952,000 - - - 1083 675064 Telemetry Installations Technology S 1,083,000 283,000 300,000 300,000 200,000 - - -

1084 675064 Units W-1 and V-5 Pipelines New S 440,095 318,895 121,200 - - - - -

1085 675064 Gano Reservoir (6.5MG) New S 7,120,000 402,000 3,718,000 3,000,000 - - - -

1086 675064Rancho Santa Fe Road Pipeline Relocation Phase II

New S 590,000 90,000 500,000 - - - - -

1087 675064 Wiegand Parcel Conditional Permit Upgrade S 671,000 330,000 341,000 - - - - - 1088 675064 Unit X Pipeline New S 3,250,000 430,000 1,820,000 1,000,000 - - - - 1089 675064 Unit W-2 Pipeline New S 350,440 276,540 73,900 - - - - - 1090 675064 Denk Reservoir Outflow Pipeline Upgrade S 550,000 20,800 529,200 - - - - - 1091 675064 Automated Meter Reading Project (AMR) Technology S 2,750,000 - 750,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 - 1092 675064 520 Vault Pressure Reducing Station (PRS) Upgrade S 364,500 - 364,500 - - - - - 1093 675064 Units V-2, V-3, and V-4 Pipelines New S 847,000 - 50,000 797,000 - - - - 1094 675064 Unit G Parallel Pipeline New S 2,262,000 40,000 1,310,000 912,000 - - - - 1095 675064 Connection b/w Unit G & OWSP West Pipeline New S 420,000 1,000 419,000 - - - - - 1096 675064 Paperless Agenda Technology S 65,800 15,800 50,000 - - - - - 1097 675064 Server Room Modifications Technology S 30,000 - 30,000 - - - - - 1098 675064 GPS Vehicle Tracking System Technology S 25,000 - 25,000 - - - - -

105

Exhibit 9Water Capital Projects

ProjectNo.

Agency ID / Fund No.

Project Description Project TypeRegional (R) / Subregional

Total Project Cost Costs Prior to

FY 2003 FY 2003

CostsFY 2004Costs

FY 2005Costs

FY 2006Costs

FY 2007Costs

Costs After FY 2007

1099 675064 Upsizing of 6" Pipeline in 9th Street Upgrade S 84,000 - 84,000 - - - - - 1100 675064 District Facilities Expansion/Renovation Upgrade S 1,300,000 - 750,000 550,000 - - - - 1101 675064 Water Treatment Plant Upgrade S 5,347,061 5,247,061 100,000 - - - - -

1102 675064Preliminary Study for Expansion of Olivenhain WTP

Technology S 50,000 5,000 45,000 - - - - -

1103 675064 N.W. Quadrant Recycled Water Study Technology S 165,000 50,000 115,000 - - - - -

1104 675064 San Dieguito Basin Recovery Mandated S 2,838,000 18,000 920,000 1,900,000 - - - -

1105 675064 Rancho Santa Fe Road Recycled Water P/L New S 430,000 - 430,000 - - - - - 1106 675064 Rancho Santa Fe Community Services District Mandated S 50,000 - 50,000 - - - - -

1107 675064 Olivenhain Dam and Reservoir (WSP) New R 21,602,300 8,973,700 10,269,200 2,359,400 - - - -

1108 675064 WSP-Flow Control Facility #8 Mandated R 2,427,000 471,400 1,955,600 - - - - - 1109 675064 WSP-Non-Creditable Costs Misc. S 1,350,000 1,150,000 200,000 - - - - - 1110 675064 WSP-Mitigation Subject to $1 Million Green S 1,223,000 920,000 156,000 147,000 - - - -

1111 675064 WSP-Changed Circumstances Misc. S 400,000 247,000 153,000 - - - - -

1112 675064 WSP-Conveyance of Easements Misc. S 110,000 - 110,000 - - - - -

1113 675064 Olivenhain Water Treatment Plant (WTP) New R 15,945,000 14,729,300 1,215,700 - - - - - 1114 675064 Water Treatment Plant Cyclic Aeration Technology S 1,584,000 1,510,000 74,000 - - - - - 1115 675064 Fish Screens Mandated S 650,000 - 650,000 - - - - -

1116 675064 WTP-Pipelines East of Aqueduct New R 7,588,000 7,556,000 32,000 - - - - -

1117 675064WTP-Pipelines East of Aqueduct Property Mitigation

Misc. S 1,018,000 994,200 23,800 - - - - -

1118 675064 WTP-Membrane Filtration System New S 12,222,000 12,113,700 108,300 - - - - - 1119 675064 COP's-Property Mitigation Misc. S 1,157,000 907,000 250,000 - - - - - 1120 675064 WTP-Environmental Services Mandated S 316,000 306,000 10,000 - - - - - 1121 675064 WTP-Centrifuge New S 445,000 46,000 399,000 - - - - - 1122 675051 El Cap PL Corrosion Seg-1 Technology S 420,986 - - - - - - 420,986 1123 675051 Pressure Red Sta Relocate ESA Upgrade S 717,863 215,359 358,932 143,573 - - - - 1124 675051 Schafer WTR tpm19758 Dist Part New S 48,200 1,928 - - - - - 46,272 1125 675051 Dewitt Offsite/RBL Grnde Dist New S 78,909 30,775 - - - - - 48,134 1126 675051 Cal Trans 125 Grossmont Bridge New S 328,985 62,507 266,478 - - - - - 1127 675051 HWD/PD Connec @ Camino Canada New S 30,000 30,000 - - - - - - 1128 675051 Los Coches Reservoir Pump Station New S 173,326 173,326 - - - - - - 1129 675051 Upgrade Turnout Structures Upgrade S 1,076,447 96,880 53,823 462,872 462,872 - - - 1129 675051 Upgrade Turnout Structures Upgrade S 1,076,447 96,880 53,823 462,872 462,872 - - - 1130 675051 Magnolia Summit Land Acquisition New S 121,824 - - - - - - 121,824 1131 675051 West Victoria Reservoir #4 (Replacement) Mandated S 6,046,549 120,931 - 544,189 604,655 1,511,637 3,265,136 - 1132 675051 Pump Station 1, 3, 4, 7, & 9 Upgrade S 1,223,076 1,223,076 - - - - - - 1132 675051 Pump Station 1, 3, 4, 7, & 9 Upgrade S 1,223,076 1,223,076 - - - - - - 1133 675051 Lake Overflow & Connections Upgrade S 203,847 26,500 53,000 124,347 - - - - 1134 675051 District Well at OPS New S 141,426 57,985 49,499 33,942 - - - -

1135 675051 ESA - Undersized Water Lines Replacement Upgrade S 700,000 672,000 28,000 - - - - -

106

Exhibit 9Water Capital Projects

ProjectNo.

Agency ID / Fund No.

Project Description Project TypeRegional (R) / Subregional

Total Project Cost Costs Prior to

FY 2003 FY 2003

CostsFY 2004Costs

FY 2005Costs

FY 2006Costs

FY 2007Costs

Costs After FY 2007

1136 675051 Water Recycling Phase 2 Retrofitting New S 534,236 507,524 26,712 - - - - -

1137 675051PDMWD #6 Improvements (Turnout Upgrade)

Upgrade S 1,276,239 37,908 126,360 555,985 555,985 - - -

1138 675051 Water Recycling Fac Enhancements Green S 2,605,800 129,000 25,800 387,000 1,032,000 1,032,000 - - 1139 675051 GIS Project Technology S 530,000 371,000 79,500 79,500 - - - - 1140 675051 Inter-Agency Shared Resources Misc. S 168,867 110,872 28,997 28,997 - - - - 1141 675051 Annual Raise Air Vacs Mandated S 125,000 75,000 25,000 25,000 - - - - 1142 675051 Los Coches Repair Upgrade S 250,000 2,500 - 50,000 150,000 47,500 - - 1143 675051 Santee El Monte Gnd Water Basin Study Technology S 98,451 98,451 - - - - - - 1144 675051 Summit Ave. Waterline Upgrade S 125,806 125,806 - - - - - -

1145 675051Cal Trans 125 Grossmont Bridge - Recycled Water

New S 115,000 96,600 18,400 - - - - -

1146 675051 Crest Abandonment Study Technology S 5,500 3,685 1,815 - - - - 1147 675051 Ruis Map for Wholesale Area New S 45,000 3,600 41,400 - - - - 1148 675051 Spanish Bit Cathodic Protection New S 60,000 15,000 45,000 - - - - - 1149 675051 Crest Hydrant Valves New S 10,000 - 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 - 1150 675051 Arnold Way (valves) New S 200,000 - 20,000 180,000 - - - - 1151 675051 Fire Service Retrofit New S 50,000 - 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 - 1152 675051 Valve Replacement Program Upgrade S 5,000,000 550,000 450,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 2,000,000 1153 675051 SCADA Test Equipment Technology S 35,500 - - - - - - 35,500 1154 675051 Magnolia Res Pressure Conv Upgrade S 460,000 326,600 133,400 - - - - - 1155 675051 Chocolate Summit Service Expansion New S 170,000 170,000 - - - - - - 1156 675051 SCADA Spread Spectrum Radios Technology S 305,000 225,700 79,300 - - - - - 1157 675051 Reservoir Refurbishing - Phase 2 Upgrade S 800,000 424,000 376,000 - - - - - 1157 675051 Reservoir Refurbishing - Phase 2 Upgrade S 1,200,000 636,000 564,000 - - - - - 1158 675051 Reservoir Site Protection Upgrade S 60,000 60,000 - - - - - - 1159 675051 Mission Gorge 20" Valve Installation New S 150,000 51,000 99,000 - - - - - 1160 675051 Meters (6") Retrofit Upgrade S 30,000 3,000 27,000 - - - - - 1161 675051 Poly Service Replacement Upgrade S 500,000 10,000 40,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 250,000 1162 675051 Rayo Wholesale District Wet Tap D/P Upgrade S 6,455 6,455 - - - - - - 1163 675051 Grossmont P.S. Improvements Upgrade S - - - - - - - - 1164 675051 Alpine P.S. #5 Improvements Upgrade S 8,500 4,250 4,250 - - - - - 1165 675051 Meter between Oxidation Ponds & Lake 7 New S 75,000 - 75,000 - - - - - 1166 675051 Massery Ln Water Main New S - - - - - - - - 1167 675051 East County Square Reservoir New S - - - - - - - - 1168 675051 Site Security System Technology S 450,000 - 200,025 249,975 - - - - 1169 675051 La Cresta Heights Res Recirculation New S - - - - - - - -

1170 675051 Alpine Blvd Valve & Main Modification PH2 Upgrade S 300,000 - 51,000 249,000 - - - -

1171 675051 Annual SCADA Testing and Repair Program Upgrade S 200,000 - 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 150,000

1172 675051 Asphalt Replacement Upgrade S 60,000 - 60,000 - - - - - 1173 675051 Blossom Valley Conversion Assessment New S 25,000 - - 25,000 - - - - 1174 675051 Chlorine Contact Chamber Cover New S 30,000 - 30,000 - - - - -

1175 675051Chocolate Summit Dead-End Interconnect (16-inch)

New S 204,350 - 204,350 - - - - -

107

Exhibit 9Water Capital Projects

ProjectNo.

Agency ID / Fund No.

Project Description Project TypeRegional (R) / Subregional

Total Project Cost Costs Prior to

FY 2003 FY 2003

CostsFY 2004Costs

FY 2005Costs

FY 2006Costs

FY 2007Costs

Costs After FY 2007

1176 675051 Cogeneration for CSC New S 594,000 - 148,500 445,500 - - - - 1177 675051 Cogeneration for WRF New S 285,000 - 71,250 213,750 - - - - 1178 675051 Crest Customer Valve Installation New S 100,000 - 50,000 50,000 - - - - 1179 675051 ESA Policy Service Replacement Upgrade S 1,000,000 - 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 500,000 1180 675051 ESA Valve Replacement Upgrade S 1,400,000 - 140,000 140,000 140,000 140,000 140,000 700,000 1181 675051 Integrated Facilities Plan Annual Maint. Technology S 1,000,000 - 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 750,000 1182 675051 Replace Butterfly Valve @ PS #1 Upgrade S 75,000 - 75,000 - - - - 1183 675051 Reservoir Anode Installation New S 66,666 - 6,666 30,000 30,000 - - - 1183 675051 Reservoir Anode Installation New S 66,667 6,667 30,000 30,000 - - - 1183 675051 Reservoir Anode Installation New S 66,667 6,667 30,000 30,000 - - - 1184 675051 SCADA Software Upgrade Technology S 150,000 - 75,000 60,000 15,000 - - - 1185 675051 SCADA System Upgrade and Replacement Technology S 500,000 - 35,000 - - - - 465,000 1186 675051 Spanish Bit Reservoir Cycling Assessment Technology S 25,000 - 25,000 - - - - -

1187 675051 Water Recycling Facility Rerating Evaluation Technology S 50,000 - 16,500 16,500 17,000 - - -

1188 675051 West Victoria Dead-End Interconnect (8-inch) New S 94,484 - 94,484 - - - - -

1189 675051 Asset Management System Technology S 500,000 - - 250,000 250,000 - - - 1190 675051 Cogeneration for El Cap Pump Station New S 1,425,000 - - 356,250 1,068,750 - - - 1191 675051 Distribution Chlorine Residual Analyzers Technology S 250,000 - - 125,000 125,000 - - - 1192 675051 El Capitan Pressure Study Technology S 20,000 - - 20,000 - - - - 1193 675051 Fuel Tank Replacements Upgrade S 125,000 - - 125,000 - - - -

1194 675051La Cresta Heights South Zone Reservoir Cycling Assessment

Technology S 35,000 - - 35,000 - - - -

1195 675051 Mission Gorge Rd. (36" valves) Upgrade S 200,000 - - 68,000 66,000 66,000 - - 1196 675051 Mission Gorge Rd. Wholesale Line Upgrade S 2,900,000 - - 290,000 580,000 1,015,000 1,015,000 - 1197 675051 Shadow Mtn. Connection to Helix Upgrade S 75,000 - - 37,500 37,500 - - - 1198 675051 Zumbrata Road Upsize Upgrade S 127,743 - - 127,743 - - - - 1199 675019 East End System Improvements Upgrade S 2,854,000 5,000 100,000 650,000 2,099,000 - - - 1200 675019 Poway PS 30-in Pipeline Upgrade S 2,970,000 65,000 2,605,000 300,000 - - - - 1201 675019 Downtown System Improvements Upgrade S 2,892,000 - 510,000 2,082,000 300,000 - - - 1202 675019 Groundwater Development New S 70,000 - 20,000 50,000 - - - - 1203 675019 Cross Town UT Water Supply to Bargar New S 2,616,000 - 14,000 180,000 1,000,000 1,422,000 - - 1204 675019 East End System Reservoir Upgrade S 1,584,000 - - - 584,000 1,000,000 - - 1205 675019 Poway PS Forebay Addition New S 1,775,000 - - - - 1,775,000 - - 1206 675019 Technology Study (Mount Woodson WTF) Technology S 60,000 60,000 - - - - - - 1207 675019 Facility Design (Mount Woodson WTF) Technology S - - - - - - - - 1208 675019 Cedar Street-Alice to Maple Upgrade S - - - - - - - - 1209 675019 Boulder 1.4 Million Gallon Reservoir New S 1,815,000 15,000 400,000 1,200,000 200,000 - - - 1210 675019 Boulder Pipeline to Reservoir New S 650,000 - 100,000 450,000 100,000 - - - 1211 675019 Purchase two 400HP PPS Motors New S 90,000 90,000 - - - - - - 1212 675019 Replace PPS Pump #4 Upgrade S 55,000 55,000 - - - - - - 1213 675019 Poway Pump Station Realignment Upgrade S 20,000 20,000 - - - - - - 1214 675019 Road Work due to County-San Vicente Rd. Mandated S 190,000 150,000 40,000 - - - - - 1215 675019 Road Work due to County-Hwy.78 Mandated S 225,000 100,000 125,000 - - - - - 1216 675019 Evaluation of Bargar Plant for IESWTR & DBR's Mandated S 38,000 23,000 15,000 - - - - -

108

Exhibit 9Water Capital Projects

ProjectNo.

Agency ID / Fund No.

Project Description Project TypeRegional (R) / Subregional

Total Project Cost Costs Prior to

FY 2003 FY 2003

CostsFY 2004Costs

FY 2005Costs

FY 2006Costs

FY 2007Costs

Costs After FY 2007

1217 675019 Bargar Plant Chlorine Contact Tank Mandated S 200,000 - 75,000 125,000 - - - -

1218 675019Bargar Plant Improvements to meet IESWTR & DBR

Mandated S 1,500,000 - - 250,000 250,000 1,000,000 - -

1219 675019Work Due to City-Bargar 36" Plug Valve and Vault Piping

Mandated S 206,000 1,000 205,000 - - - - -

1220 675019 Bargar Plant automatic shut down capability Mandated S 50,000 35,000 15,000 - - - - - 1221 675019 Work due to State/County/City Requirements Mandated S 1,050,000 - 150,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 - -

1222 675019Road Work Due to County-Ramona St. & Hanson Lane

Mandated S 125,000 10,000 115,000 - - - - -

1223 675019Highland Vly 16" Bell Joint Replacemtn Valve UT

Upgrade S 150,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 - -

1224 675019Highland Vly 12" Bell Joint Replacement Valve T

Upgrade S 130,000 30,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 - -

1225 675019 Bargar Clear Well Tank Repair Upgrade S 225,000 15,000 210,000 - - - - - 1226 675019 SDCE Pump Station Surge Protection Mandated S 60,000 5,000 55,000 - - - - - 1227 675019 Boundary Tank Repair/Recoating Upgrade S 105,000 - - 105,000 - - - - 1228 675019 Poway Forebay Tank Repair/Recoating Upgrade S 50,000 - 50,000 - - - - - 1229 675019 Cathodic Protection Upgrade S - - - - - - - - 1230 675019 Pressure Reducing Station Upgrade Upgrade S 25,000 15,000 10,000 - - - - - 1231 675019 Pressure Reducing St Upgrade Upgrade S 35,000 15,000 20,000 - - - - - 1232 675019 Pressure Reducing Station Upgrade Upgrade S 25,000 - 25,000 - - - - - 1233 675019 Replacement of Easment Pipeline Upgrade S 50,000 - - 50,000 - - - - 1234 675019 1st Street Pipeline Replacement Upgrade S 60,000 - - 60,000 - - - -

1235 675019Hatfield Creek 8" Line Replacement South Side of Bridge

Upgrade S 160,000 - - 40,000 120,000 - - -

1236 675019 Woodson Untreated Tank Repair/Recoating Upgrade S 160,000 - - - 160,000 - - -

1237 675019 Julian Tank Repair/Recoating Upgrade S 105,000 - - - - 105,000 - - 1238 675019 ID5 Tank Repair/Recoating Upgrade S 60,000 - - - - 60,000 - - 1239 675019 Snow Treated Tank Repair/Recoating Upgrade S 25,000 - - - - 25,000 - - 1240 675019 Kennedy Tank #1 Repair/Recoating Upgrade S 90,000 - - - - 90,000 - - 1241 675019 Kennedy Tank #2 Repair/Recoating Upgrade S 75,000 - - - - 75,000 - - 1242 675019 Gillet Untreated Tank Repair/Recoating Upgrade S 45,000 - - - - 45,000 - - 1243 675019 Backwash Tank Repair/Recoating Upgrade S 25,000 - - - - 25,000 - - 1244 675019 SDCE Tank #4 Repair/Recoating Upgrade S 50,000 - - - - 50,000 - - 1245 675019 Cedar Street #1 Upgrade S 100 100 - - - - - - 1246 675019 Cedar Street #2 Upgrade S 6,000 6,000 - - - - - - 1247 675019 Cedar Street - Alice to Maple Upgrade S 150,000 5,000 20,000 125,000 - - - - 1248 675019 SDCE Pump Station By-Pass Upgrade S 120,000 20,000 100,000 - - - - - 1249 675019 Rockhouse Road Pipeline Upgrade S 50,000 - - 50,000 - - - - 1250 675019 SDCE Tank #3 Inlet-Outlet Reconfiguration Upgrade S 320,000 - - 20,000 300,000 - - - 1251 675019 SDCE Tank #4 Inlet-Outlet Reconfiguration Upgrade S 350,000 - - - - 350,000 - - 1253 675045 Anaheim Donee Diego New S 199,094 199,094 - - - - - - 1254 675045 Recycled Water Project New S 2,457,299 2,101,314 355,985 - - - - - 1255 675045 Via Ladera Replacement Study Upgrade S 135,000 - 135,000 - - - - - 1257 675045 Monticello Waterlne Improvements Upgrade S 64,960 64,960 - - - - - - 1258 675045 Mountain Shadows Mobile Home Park Upgrade S 18,445 18,445 - - - - - -

109

Exhibit 9Water Capital Projects

ProjectNo.

Agency ID / Fund No.

Project Description Project TypeRegional (R) / Subregional

Total Project Cost Costs Prior to

FY 2003 FY 2003

CostsFY 2004Costs

FY 2005Costs

FY 2006Costs

FY 2007Costs

Costs After FY 2007

1259 675045 Lake Bernardo Mobile Home Park Upgrade S 23,800 23,800 - - - - - - 1260 675045 Telemetry Improvements (SCADA) Technology S 109,250 - 109,250 - - - - - 1261 675045 Shop Lunch Room Refurbishment Upgrade S 13,459 13,459 - - - - - 1262 675045 Equipment Yard Refurbishment Upgrade S 28,482 9,725 18,757 - - - - - 1263 675045 Refurbishment of District Offices Upgrade S 290,000 - 290,000 - - - - -

1264 675045Landscape, Parking & Exterior Bldg. Refurbishment

Upgrade S 220,000 - 220,000 - - - - -

1265 675045 Welding & Maintenance Shop Doors New S 19,852 - 19,852 - - - - -

1266 675045 Rancho Verde Pump Station Rehab Upgrade S 155,000 - 155,000 - - - - -

1267 675045 Citracado Hamilton Pump Station Rehab Upgrade S 155,000 - 155,000 - - - - - 1268 675045 Candlelight Pump Station Evaluation Technology S 10,000 - 10,000 - - - - - 1269 675045 Rockhoff Pump Station Evaluation Technology S 10,000 - 10,000 - - - - - 1270 675045 NCTD Water Line Relocations Mandated S 450,000 - 450,000 - - - - - 1271 675045 Harmony Grove Line Extension New S 10,000 - 10,000 - - - - - 1272 675049 SCADA System Improvements - 2002 Technology S 200,000 200,000 - - - - - - 1273 675049 SCADA System Improvements - 2003 Technology S 200,000 - 1,250,000 - - - - - 1274 675049 SCADA System Improvements - 2004 Technology S 1,250,000 - - 1,250,000 - - - - 1275 675049 SCADA System Improvements - 2005 Technology S 1,250,000 - - - 1,250,000 - - - 1276 675049 Rainbow Pump Station Discharge Pipeline New S 1,300,000 - 1,300,000 - - - - - 1277 675049 Rainbow Pump Station Upgrade S 238,769 - 238,769 - - - - - 1278 675049 Circle R Pump Station New S 450,000 - 450,000 - - - - - 1279 675049 Circle R Reservoir Upgrade S 75,000 - 75,000 - - - - - 1280 675049 Double Tree PRV Upgrade Upgrade S 415,000 - 415,000 - - - - - 1281 675049 Pauma Heights Road Pipeline New S 90,000 - 90,000 - - - - - 1282 675049 Valley Center Road Pipeline Upgrade S 115,749 - 115,749 - - - - - 1283 675049 Cobb Lane to Lake Wohlford Road New S - - - - - - - - 1284 675049 Hilldale Road Pipeline Upgrade S 719,193 - 719,193 - - - - - 1285 675049 Pauma Heights Road Emergency PRV New S 364,782 - 364,782 - - - - - 1286 675049 Adams PRV Upgrade Upgrade S 90,000 - 90,000 - - - - - 1287 675049 Cool Valley Reservoir Upgrades Technology S 90,000 - 90,000 - - - - - 1288 675049 Merry Ferry PRV Upgrade Upgrade S 30,000 - 30,000 - - - - - 1289 675049 Hillcrest Drive Main Upgrade Upgrade S 90,000 - 90,000 - - - - - 1290 675049 Lilac North PRV New S 187,000 - 187,000 - - - - -

1291 675049 Mountain Gate Drive - Mountain Meadow R New S 90,000 - 90,000 - - - - -

1292 675049 High Mountain Drive Pipeline New S 359,096 - 359,096 - - - - - 1293 675049 Meadows 2 Reservoir Upgrade S 149,212 - 149,212 - - - - - 1294 675049 Meadows 2 Reservoir Pipeline New S 1,500,000 - 1,500,000 - - - - - 1295 675049 Betsworth Forebay 3 New S 49,191 - 49,191 - - - - - 1296 675049 North Ave. Pipeline Upgrade S 3,750,000 - 3,750,000 - - - - - 1297 675049 Red Mountain Pump Station New S 231,632 - 231,632 - - - - - 1298 675049 Red Mountain Pump Station New S 75,000 - 75,000 - - - - - 1299 675049 Ridge Ranch Interim Pump Station New S 337,500 - 337,500 - - - - - 1300 675049 Couser Canyon Road New S 75,000 - 75,000 - - - - - 1301 675049 Pfau Pump Station New S 646,189 - 646,189 - - - - -

110

Exhibit 9Water Capital Projects

ProjectNo.

Agency ID / Fund No.

Project Description Project TypeRegional (R) / Subregional

Total Project Cost Costs Prior to

FY 2003 FY 2003

CostsFY 2004Costs

FY 2005Costs

FY 2006Costs

FY 2007Costs

Costs After FY 2007

1302 675049 Couser Pump Station New S 300,000 - 300,000 - - - - - 1303 675049 Tyler Pump Station New S 450,000 - 450,000 - - - - - 1304 675049 Circle R Drive Main Replacement Upgrade S 75,000 - 75,000 - - - - -

1305 675049 Old Castle Road - Champagne Blvd. Pipeline New S 754,032 - 754,032 - - - - -

1306 675049 Welk Meter Upgrade Upgrade S 219,216 - 219,216 - - - - - 1307 675049 Circle R Meter Upgrade Upgrade S 90,000 - 90,000 - - - - - 1308 675049 Mesa Lilac Rd Pipeline Upgrade S 115,000 - 115,000 - - - - - 1309 675049 Lake Wohlford Road Pipeline Upgrade S 138,789 - 138,989 - - - - - 1310 675049 McNally Road Pipeline Upgrade S 396,214 - 396,214 - - - - - 1311 675049 Mesa Verde Drive Pipeline Upgrade S 441,225 - 441,225 - - - - - 1312 675049 Pipeline segment at Keys Creek Upgrade S 313,624 - 313,624 - - - - - 1313 675049 Miller Reservoir New S 12,571 - 12,571 - - - - - 1314 675049 Miller Reservoir Pipeline Upgrade S 7,500,000 - 7,500,000 - - - - - 1315 675049 Betsworth Forebay 4 New S 444,613 - 444,613 - - - - - 1316 675049 Ridge Ranch Reservoir New S 3,750,000 - 3,750,000 - - - - - 1317 675049 Santa Catalina Road Pipeline Upgrade S 750,000 - 750,000 - - - - - 1318 675049 Santa Catalina Road Pipeline Upgrade S 227,335 - 227,335 - - - - - 1319 675049 Old Hwy 395 Pipeline Upgrade S 130,978 - 130,978 - - - - - 1320 675049 Pipeline Replacement Projects Upgrade S 968,507 - 968,507 - - - - - 1321 675049 County Club Reservoir Upgrade Upgrade S 26,048,868 - 26,048,868 - - - - - 1322 675049 Cobb Lane Upgrade S 90,000 - 90,000 - - - - - 1323 675049 Cole Grade Rd (Miller-Cool Valley) New S 576,704 - 576,704 - - - - - 1324 675049 Valley Center Road Pipeline Relocation Upgrade S 473,424 - 473,424 - - - - - 1325 675049 Jesmond Dene Road Upgrade S 4,469,867 - 4,469,867 - - - - - 1326 675049 Jesmond Dene Road Upgrade S 158,134 - 158,134 - - - - - 1327 675049 Lilac Road Bridge Crossing New S 136,723 - 136,723 - - - - - 1328 675049 Champagne Lakes Replacement Upgrade S 72,226 - 72,226 - - - - - 1329 675049 Nelson Way Pipeline Replacement Upgrade S 497,700 - 497,700 - - - - - 1330 675004 El Cajon Valley (design/funding) Upgrade S 100,000 - 100,000 - - - - - 1331 675004 Homelands P.S. Upgrade S 100,000 - 100,000 - - - - - 1332 675004 Calavo P.S./El Cajon Tank Upgrade Upgrade S 80,000 - 80,000 - - - - - 1333 675004 Bostonia Tank (construction) New S 1,200,000 - 1,200,000 - - - - - 1334 675004 Windsor B Tank (design) New S 100,000 - 100,000 - - - - - 1335 675004 Pipeline Project (Olvera/Calavo/Avocado) Upgrade S 45,000 - 45,000 - - - - - 1336 675004 Pipeline Project (Lemon Grove Way) Upgrade S 525,000 - 525,000 - - - - -

1337 675004Pipeline Project (Lemon/Finley/Alley/4th/Cypress)

New S 845,000 - 845,000 - - - - -

1338 675004 Los Coches P.S. Pre-Design Study Technology S 100,000 - 100,000 - - - - - 1339 675004 Transmission Main Valving 2-42" & 1-48" New S 192,000 - 192,000 - - - - - 1340 675004 CIP replacement Upgrade S 120,000 - 120,000 - - - - - 1341 675004 Pipeline Project (Calavo/Vista/Louisa) New S 800,000 - 800,000 - - - - - 1342 675004 Pipeline Project (High St - design) Technology S 25,000 - 25,000 - - - - - 1343 675004 Pipeline Project (E. Main @ Tunnel Hill P.S.) Upgrade S 65,000 - 65,000 - - - - - 1344 675004 (Milden/Conrad/Dana/Hermosa/Barbic/Dutton) Upgrade S 15,000 - 15,000 - - - - - 1344 675004 (Milden/Conrad/Dana/Hermosa/Barbic/Dutton) Upgrade S 15,000 - 15,000 - - - - -

111

Exhibit 9Water Capital Projects

ProjectNo.

Agency ID / Fund No.

Project Description Project TypeRegional (R) / Subregional

Total Project Cost Costs Prior to

FY 2003 FY 2003

CostsFY 2004Costs

FY 2005Costs

FY 2006Costs

FY 2007Costs

Costs After FY 2007

1344 675004 (Milden/Conrad/Dana/Hermosa/Barbic/Dutton) Upgrade S 15,000 - 15,000 - - - - - 1344 675004 (Milden/Conrad/Dana/Hermosa/Barbic/Dutton) Upgrade S 15,000 - 15,000 - - - - - 1344 675004 (Milden/Conrad/Dana/Hermosa/Barbic/Dutton) Upgrade S 15,000 - 15,000 - - - - - 1344 675004 (Milden/Conrad/Dana/Hermosa/Barbic/Dutton) Upgrade S 15,000 - 15,000 - - - - - 1345 675004 Pipeline Project (Magnolia) New S 900,000 - 900,000 - - - - - 1346 675004 Pipeline Project (Garrison/Bradford easement) Upgrade S 45,000 - 45,000 - - - - - 1347 675004 CWA Flow Cntrl Facility/MLP Cost Sharing New S 900,000 - 900,000 - - - - - 1348 675004 Flume Replacement Project Upgrade S 50,000 - 50,000 - - - - - 1349 675004 R.M. Levy Treatment Plant Expansion Upgrade S 200,000 - 200,000 - - - - - 1350 675004 Ozone Mandated S 100,000 - 100,000 - - - - - 1351 675004 P.S. & Control Systems Upgrade Upgrade S 135,000 - 135,000 - - - - - 1352 675004 Treatment Plant Misc. Improvements Upgrade S 100,000 - 100,000 - - - - - 1353 675004 Lake Jennings Recreation Master Plan Study Technology S 20,000 - 20,000 - - - - - 1354 675004 El Monte P.S. Pipe Storage Site Improvements Upgrade S 75,000 - 75,000 - - - - - 1355 675004 54" BFV & Vault - Fletcher Hills 1 P.S. New S 90,000 - 90,000 - - - - - 1356 675004 30" BFV - Fletcher Hills 1 P.S. Upgrade S 35,000 - 35,000 - - - - - 1357 675004 20" BFV - Bancroft Dr. s/o Olive Upgrade S 34,000 - 34,000 - - - - - 1358 675004 Upgrade 6" Meter Upgrade S 12,000 - 12,000 - - - - - 1359 675004 Upgrade 6" Meter Upgrade S 12,000 - 12,000 - - - - - 1360 675004 Sedimentation Basin (copper sheeting) New S 200,000 - 200,000 - - - - - 1361 675004 Grossmont Reservoir Access Hatch Modifics. Upgrade S 50,000 - 50,000 - - - - - 1362 675004 HVAC Mechanical Equipment Cover New S 15,000 - 15,000 - - - - -

1363 675060PL - 20-inch, 850 Zone, Jamacha Boulevard - Regulatory Site/Trace Road

New S 1,092,000 - 1,000,000 92,000 - - - -

1364 675060 Res - 1004-2 Reservoir 1.4 MG Upgrade S 1,300,000 - 1,300,000 - - - - - 1365 675060 Res - 803-4 Reservoir 6.0 MG New S 3,063,000 - 150,000 1,200,000 - 601,000 - -

1366 675060624-1 Reservoir Disinfection Facility, Inlet/Outlet/Bypass and 613-1 Reservoir Demolition

Upgrade S 2,975,000 - 1,500,000 1,475,000 - - - -

1367 675060 RecRes - 680-1 Reservoir 3.4 MG Upgrade S 1,800,000 - 1,600,000 200,000 - - - - 1368 675060 RecPS - 944-1 Pump Station (7,300 GPM) Upgrade S 1,150,000 - 1,000,000 150,000 - - - -

1369 675060RecPL - 20-inch, 944 Zone, SDCWA R/W - 944-1 Pump Station/East Lake

Upgrade S 789,000 - 500,000 289,000 - - - -

1370 675060870-1 Reservoir Disinfection Facility Sewer Lateral

Upgrade S 100,000 - 100,000 - - - - -

1371 675060 PS - Lower Otay Pump Station (18,000 GPM) New S 4,118,000 - 120,000 1,998,000 - - - -

1372 675060Central Area Regional Operations Facilities Study

Technology S 100,000 - 60,000 40,000 - - - -

1373 675060 Water Resources Master Plan Technology S 45,000 - 45,000 - - - - -

1374 675060PL - Regulatory Reservoirs Inlet/Outlet/LMSE Inlet System Improvements

Upgrade S 1,150,000 - 550,000 600,000 - - - -

1375 675060Administration Building Electrical Power Enhancement

Upgrade S 43,000 - 43,000 - - - - -

1376 675060PL - 30-Inch, 870 Zone, 870-1 Reservoir Outlet Extension

New S 270,000 - 200,000 70,000 - - - -

112

Exhibit 9Water Capital Projects

ProjectNo.

Agency ID / Fund No.

Project Description Project TypeRegional (R) / Subregional

Total Project Cost Costs Prior to

FY 2003 FY 2003

CostsFY 2004Costs

FY 2005Costs

FY 2006Costs

FY 2007Costs

Costs After FY 2007

1377 675060 Construction Equipment Cover System New S 400,000 - 200,000 200,000 - - - - 1378 675060 Otay WD SDCWA FCF No.14 Cost Mandated S 425,000 - 425,000 - - - - - 1379 675060 Siempre Viva Bridge Pipeline Crossings Upgrade S 220,000 - 1,000 219,000 - - - - 1380 675060 Res - 1485-2 Reservoir 1.3 MG Upgrade S 1,339,000 - 500,000 839,000 - - - - 1381 675060 Res - 640-1 Reservoir 10.0 MG New S 5,983,000 - 15,000 345,000 - 2,232,000 - - 1382 675060 RecRes - 450-1 Reservoir 12.0 MG New S 5,915,000 - 100,000 4,295,000 - - - - 1383 675060 RecPS - 680-1 Pump Station (11,500 GPM) New S 5,877,000 - 100,000 4,192,000 - - - -

1384 675060RecPL - 30-inch, 450 Zone, Otay Valley - Otay Mesa Place/450-1 Reservoir

New S 5,640,000 - 96,000 3,220,000 - - - -

1385 675060RecPL - 30-inch, 450 zone, Dairy Mart Road to 450-2 Reservoir

New S 4,115,000 - 100,000 2,900,000 - - - -

1386 675060 Sewer Systems Operations Management Plan Technology S 166,000 - 10,000 156,000 - - - -

1387 675060 Master EIR for Water Resources Master Plan Technology S 110,000 - 60,000 50,000 - - - -

1388 675060PL - 12-inch, 832 Zone, Steele Canyon Road - Via Caliente/Campo

Upgrade S 350,000 - 10,000 200,000 - - - -

1389 675060 Res - 850-4 Reservoir 2.5 MG New S 2,091,000 - 94,000 135,000 - 376,000 186,000 -

1390 675060PS - Rolling Hills Hydro Pump Station (950 GPM)

Upgrade S 1,500,000 - 10,000 335,000 - - - -

1391 675060 PS - 980-2 Pump Station (24,000 GPM) New S 3,364,000 - - 24,000 - 1,500,000 300,000 - 1392 675060 Res - 980-3 Reservoir 10.0 MG New S 3,233,000 - - - - 2,489,000 - - 1393 675060 PS - 870-2 Pump Station (11,000 GPM) New S 4,850,000 - - - - 2,250,000 - -

1394 675060PL - 20-inch, 980 Zone, 980-1 Pump Station to 980 Reservoirs

New S 1,542,000 - 1,000 174,000 - 1,195,000 - -

1395 675060 Res-711-3 Central System 16.0 MG Upgrade S 250,000 - 250,000 - - - - - 1396 675060 PS - Buena Vista Expansion Upgrade S 70,000 - 70,000 - - - - - 1397 675060 RecPL-16 inch, Telegraph Canyon Road Upgrade S 500,000 - 500,000 - - - - - 1398 675060 PL - 16-inch Hillsdale and Vista Grande Upgrade S 150,000 - 150,000 - - - - - 1399 675060 PL -16, 20, 24 Lane and H Ave. Upgrade S 110,000 - 110,000 - - - - -

1400 675060Cathodic Protection Systems Installation and Maintenance Program

Upgrade S 550,000 - 150,000 100,000 - 100,000 100,000 -

1401 675060Reservoir Maintenance Interior/Exterior Coating/Painting/Repair Program

Upgrade S 1,360,000 - 560,000 200,000 - 200,000 200,000 -

1402 675060 Water Service Lateral Replacement Program Upgrade S 1,335,000 - 250,000 260,000 - 275,000 275,000 -

1403 675060 Water Quality Sampling Stations Upgrade S 246,000 - 50,000 48,000 - 50,000 50,000 -

1404 675060Disinfection Systems Minor Installation and Maintenance Program

Upgrade S 629,000 - 119,000 123,000 - 130,000 130,000 -

1405 675060Telemetry System Installation and Maintenance Program

Upgrade S 490,000 - 100,000 100,000 - 100,000 90,000 -

1406 675060Outside Agency Projects General Utility Conflicts Reconstruction/Relocation

Upgrade S 250,000 - 50,000 50,000 - 50,000 50,000 -

1407 675060Calavo Sewer Lift Station Force Main Replacement

Upgrade S 100,000 - 20,000 80,000 - - - -

1408 675060Steele Canyon Lift Station Generator Set Replacement

Upgrade S 39,000 - 39,000 - - - - -

1409 675060 Steele Canyon Lift Station Rehabilitation Upgrade S 120,000 - 20,000 100,000 - - - -

113

Exhibit 9Water Capital Projects

ProjectNo.

Agency ID / Fund No.

Project Description Project TypeRegional (R) / Subregional

Total Project Cost Costs Prior to

FY 2003 FY 2003

CostsFY 2004Costs

FY 2005Costs

FY 2006Costs

FY 2007Costs

Costs After FY 2007

1410 675060Sewer System Manhole Rehabilitation Program

Upgrade S 35,000 - 7,000 7,000 - 7,000 7,000 -

1411 675060Air/Vacuum Valve Assembly Replacement and Maintenance Program

Upgrade S 216,000 - 23,000 46,000 - 49,000 51,000 -

1412 675060 Water Service Tapping Saddle Replacements Upgrade S 125,000 - 25,000 25,000 - 25,000 25,000 -

1413 67506036-Inch Main Pumpouts and Air/Vacuum Ventilation Installations

New S 18,000 - 18,000 - - - - -

1414 675060 520-3 Reservoir Repairs/Modifications Upgrade S 1,062,000 - 1,062,000 - - - - -

1415 675060Facilities Pavement Installation, Maintenance, and Repair Program

Upgrade S 631,000 - 449,000 46,000 - 45,000 45,000 -

1416 675060 Meter Reading Program Upgrade S 993,000 - 968,000 25,000 - - -

1417 675060Building Roof Repair and Replacement Program

Upgrade S 59,000 - 11,000 12,000 - 12,000 12,000 -

1418 675060 Dictionary Hill PRS Improvements Upgrade S 150,000 - 145,000 5,000 - - - -

1419 675060Operations Department Emergency Room Mapping

Technology S 75,000 - 50,000 10,000 - - - -

1420 675060 Fleet Fuel System Control Replacement Upgrade S 60,000 - 60,000 - - - - 1421 675060 APCD Engine Replacements and Retrofits Upgrade S 983,000 - 700,000 283,000 - - - - 1422 675060 Asbestos Cement Pipe Materials Disposal Upgrade S 53,000 - 53,000 - - - - 1423 675060 Safety and Security Improvements Upgrade S 952,000 - 300,000 200,000 - 150,000 152,000 -

1424 675060Administration and Operations Buildings Enhancements

Upgrade S 527,000 - 127,000 400,000 - - - -

1425 675060Use Area Recycled Pond Potable Water Supplement

Upgrade S 160,000 - 10,000 150,000 - - - -

1426 675060 Reservoir Drain Catch Basins Upgrade S 250,000 - 50,000 50,000 - 50,000 50,000 -

1427 675060Flexible Membrane Cover Tension System Maintenance.

Upgrade S 60,000 - 60,000 - - - - -

1428 675060 Water System Valve Replacement Program Upgrade S 1,350,000 - 250,000 270,000 - 270,000 290,000 -

1429 675060General Planning and Budgeting Nonoperating Expenses

Technology S 2,155,000 - 350,000 350,000 - 350,000 755,000 -

1430 675060Developer Projects Support Nonoperating Expenses

Technology S 3,300,000 - 820,000 620,000 - 620,000 620,000 -

1431 675060San Miguel Mitigation Bank and CEQA/NEPA Environmental Nonoperating Expenses

Technology S 1,599,000 - 300,000 286,000 - 271,000 456,000 -

1432 675060 Vehicle Capital Purchases New S 910,000 - 310,000 150,000 - 150,000 150,000 -

1433 675060Office Equipment and Furniture Capital Purchases

New S 443,000 - 183,000 62,000 - 66,000 68,000 -

1434 675060 Field Equipment Capital Purchases New S 496,000 - 96,000 100,000 - 100,000 100,000 -

1435 675060Engine Power Equipment Repair and Replacement Program

Upgrade S 100,000 - 20,000 20,000 - 20,000 20,000 -

1436 675060Pump/Motor/Electrical Switchgear Repair and Replacement Program

Upgrade S 1,205,000 - 230,000 234,000 - 247,000 253,000 -

1437 675060Automatic Control Valve Repair and Replacement Program

Upgrade S 361,000 - 68,000 70,000 - 74,000 76,000 -

114

Exhibit 9Water Capital Projects

ProjectNo.

Agency ID / Fund No.

Project Description Project TypeRegional (R) / Subregional

Total Project Cost Costs Prior to

FY 2003 FY 2003

CostsFY 2004Costs

FY 2005Costs

FY 2006Costs

FY 2007Costs

Costs After FY 2007

1438 675060Information Technology System Enhancements and Replacements

Technology S 1,937,000 - 428,000 407,000 - 367,000 349,000 -

1439 675060 Information Technology GIS Enhancements Technology S 1,354,000 - 307,000 282,000 - 255,000 242,000 -

1440 675060Information Technology Utility Billing and Customer Data Management System

Technology S 2,394,000 - 1,287,000 1,107,000 - - -

1441 675060Information Technology Enterprise Reporting System

Technology S 720,000 - 177,000 146,000 - 132,000 126,000 -

1442 675060Rec-PL - 16-inch, 680 Zone, La Media Road - Telegraph/Olympic

Upgrade S 245,000 - 245,000 - - - -

1443 675060RecPL - 20-inch, 680 Zone, Olympic Parkway-La Media/680-1 Reservoir

Upgrade S 1,513,000 - 700,000 813,000 - - - -

1444 675060RecPL - 20-inch, 680 Zone, Olympic Parkway - Heritage/La Media

Upgrade S 687,000 - 687,000 - - - - -

1445 675060RecPL - 16-inch, 680 Zone, Olympic Parkway - Medical Center/Heritage

Upgrade S 38,000 - 38,000 - - - - -

1446 675060RecPL - 12-inch, 680 Zone, Heritage Road - Telegraph/Olympic

Upgrade S 355,000 - 355,000 - - - - -

1447 675060RecPL - 16-inch, 944 Zone, Olympic Parkway - SDCWA R/W /Hunte

Upgrade S 347,000 - 5,000 342,000 - - - -

1448 675060RecPL - 8" to 10" Oversize, 944 Zone, Hunte Parkway - Otay Lakes/Proctor Valley

Upgrade S 150,000 - 5,000 145,000 - - - -

1449 675060PL - 16-inch, 624 Zone, Olympic Parkway - Medical Center/Unit 19 Road

Upgrade S 100,000 - 100,000 - - - - -

1450 675060PL - 16-inch, 624 Zone, Olympic Parkway - Unit 19 Road/Loop

Upgrade S 100,000 - 100,000 - - - - -

1451 675060PL - 24-inch, 980 Zone, Proctor Valley - Lane/Hunte

Upgrade S 90,000 - 5,000 85,000 - - - -

1452 675060PL - 36-inch, 980 Zone, Proctor Valley Road - Hunte/PB Road

Upgrade S 959,000 - 5,000 400,000 - - - -

1453 675060PL - 20-inch, 711 Zone, Heritage Rd - East Palomar/Olympic

Upgrade S 248,000 - 248,000 - - - - -

1454 675060PL - 20-inch, 711 Zone, Olympic Parkway - Heritage/La Media

Upgrade S 710,000 - 710,000 - - - - -

1455 675060PL - 16-inch and PRV, 624 Zone, Olympic Parkway - Loop/Heritage

Upgrade S 30,000 - 30,000 - - - - -

1456 675060PL - PBH, 980 Zone, 12" to 16" Oversize, Proctor Valley Road - Lane/Mount Miguel

Upgrade S 70,000 - 5,000 65,000 - - - -

1457 675060PL - 16-inch, 711 Zone, 711-1 Pump Station to East Palomar

Upgrade S 449,000 - 5,000 444,000 - - - -

1458 675060PL - 16-inch, 980 Zone, Olympic Parkway - La Media/East Lake

Upgrade S 1,100,000 - 5,000 550,000 - - - -

1459 675060RecPL - 16-inch, 944 Zone, East H Street - East Lake/Lane

Upgrade S 647,000 - 5,000 298,000 - - 344,000 -

1460 675060RecPL - 12-inch, 944 Zone, Otay Lakes Road - Hunte/EastLake Vistas

Upgrade S 150,000 - 5,000 145,000 - - - -

1461 675060RecPL - 8-inch, 944 Zone, EastLake Vistas - Otay Lakes/Olympic

Upgrade S 200,000 - 5,000 195,000 - - - -

115

Exhibit 9Water Capital Projects

ProjectNo.

Agency ID / Fund No.

Project Description Project TypeRegional (R) / Subregional

Total Project Cost Costs Prior to

FY 2003 FY 2003

CostsFY 2004Costs

FY 2005Costs

FY 2006Costs

FY 2007Costs

Costs After FY 2007

1462 675060RecPL - 12-inch, 680 Zone, Olympic Parkway - SDCWA R/W Hunte

Upgrade S 300,000 - 5,000 295,000 - - - -

1463 675060RecPL - 12-inch, 944 Zone, Olympic Parkway - La Media/EastLake

Upgrade S 648,000 - 5,000 643,000 - - - -

1464 675060PL - 16-inch, 624 Zone, Paseo Ladera - East Palomar/Olympic

Upgrade S 260,000 - 260,000 - - - - -

1465 675060PL - 16-inch, 624 Zone, Paseo Ladera - Telegraph/East Palomar

Upgrade S 170,000 - 170,000 - - - - -

1466 675060PL - 16-inch, 711 Zone, Paseo Ladera - Telegraph/East Palomar

Upgrade S 170,000 - 170,000 - - - - -

1467 675060PL - 24-inch, 980 Zone, Otay Lakes Road - Salt Creek/Wueste

Upgrade S 330,000 - 5,000 295,000 - - - -

1468 675060PL - 16-inch, 711 Zone, East Palomar Street - Paseo Ladera/Heritage

Upgrade S 563,000 - 563,000 - - - - -

1469 675060PL - 24-inch, 980 Zone, Otay Lakes Road - Hunte/Salt Creek

Upgrade S 264,000 - 5,000 235,000 - - - -

1470 675060PL - 24-inch, 711 Zone, Olympic Parkway - SDCWA R/W Hunte

Upgrade S 500,000 - 5,000 245,000 - - - -

1471 675060PL - 24-inch, 711 Zone, Olympic Parkway - EastLake/SDCWA R/W

Upgrade S 309,000 - 5,000 244,000 - - - -

1472 675060PL - 24-inch, 711 Zone, EastLake Parkway - Trinidad/Olympic

Upgrade S 447,000 - 5,000 399,000 - - - -

1473 675060PL - 20-inch, 980 Zone, EastLake Parkway - Trinidad/Olympic

Upgrade S 400,000 - 5,000 355,000 - - - -

1474 675060PL - 16-inch, 980 Zone, Olympic Parkway - EastLake/SDCWA R/W

Upgrade S 200,000 - 5,000 145,000 - - - -

1474 675060PL - 16-inch, 980 Zone, Olympic Parkway - SDCWA R/W Hunte

Upgrade S 320,000 - 5,000 200,000 - - - -

1475 675060PL - 20-inch, 980 Zone, EastLake Parkway - Olympic/Birch

Upgrade S 325,000 - - - - 325,000 - -

1476 675060PL - 16-inch, 711 Zone, Olympic Parkway - La Media/East Palomar

Upgrade S 278,000 - 278,000 - - - - -

1477 675060PL - 16-inch, 711 Zone, Olympic Parkway - East Palomar/EastLake

Upgrade S 500,000 - 5,000 195,000 - - - -

1478 675060PL - 12-inch, 711 Zone, Otay Lakes and EastLake Vistas Roads - Hunte/Olympic

Upgrade S 440,000 - 5,000 395,000 - - - -

1479 675060RecPL - 16-inch, 944 Zone, EastLake Parkway - Trinidad Cove/Olympic

Upgrade S 495,000 - 6,000 489,000 - - - -

1480 675060RecPL - 12-inch, 680 Zone, La Media Road - Olympic/Birch

Upgrade S 340,000 - 5,000 165,000 - - - -

1481 675060RecPL - 12-inch, 944 Zone, La Media Road - Olympic/Birch

Upgrade S 252,000 - - 126,000 - 126,000 - -

1482 675060RecPL - 12-inch, 944 Zone, Birch Road - La Media/EastLake

Upgrade S 630,000 - - 430,000 - - - -

1483 675060PL - 16-inch, 980 Zone, Pacific Bay Homes Road - Proctor Valley/1296 PS

Upgrade S 300,000 - - 300,000 - - - -

1484 675060PL - 20-inch, 711 Zone, La Media Road - Olympic/Birch

Upgrade S 350,000 - 5,000 170,000 - 175,000 - -

116

Exhibit 9Water Capital Projects

ProjectNo.

Agency ID / Fund No.

Project Description Project TypeRegional (R) / Subregional

Total Project Cost Costs Prior to

FY 2003 FY 2003

CostsFY 2004Costs

FY 2005Costs

FY 2006Costs

FY 2007Costs

Costs After FY 2007

1485 675060PL - 16-inch, 711 Zone, Birch Road - La Media/SR 125

Upgrade S 420,000 - - 280,000 - 140,000 - -

1486 675060PL - 16-inch, 711 Zone, Birch Road - SR 12/East Lake

Upgrade S 300,000 - - - - 300,000 - -

1487 675060PL - 16-inch, 980 Zone, EastLake Parkway - Birch/Rock Mountain

Upgrade S 300,000 - - - - 300,000 - -

1488 675060PL - PBH, 1296 Zone, 10" to 12" Oversize - Rolling Hills Hydro PS/PB Bndy

Upgrade S 75,000 - - - - - - -

1489 675060PL - 12" to 16" Oversize, 980 Zone, EastLake Woods - Otay Lakes/Proctor Valley

Upgrade S 250,000 - - 250,000 - - - -

1490 675060RecPL - 12-inch, 944 Zone, EastLake Parkway - Olympic/Birch

Upgrade S 195,000 - - 95,000 - - - -

1491 675060RecPL - 12-inch, 680 Zone, Hunte Parkway - Olympic/EastLake

Upgrade S 900,000 - - 100,000 - 400,000 - -

1492 675060RecPL - 8-inch, 944 Zone, EastLake Parkway - Birch/Rock Mountain

Upgrade S 140,000 - - - - - 140,000 -

1493 675060RecPL - 8-inch, 944 Zone, Rock Mountain Road - SR 125/East Lake

Upgrade S 120,000 - - - - 120,000 - -

1494 675060RecPL - 8-inch, 944 Zone, Rock Mountain Road - La Media/SR 125

Upgrade S 130,000 - - - - 130,000 - -

1495 675060RecPL - 12-inch, 680 Zone, La Media Road - Birch/Rock Mountain

Upgrade S 370,000 - - - - 370,000 - -

1496 675060PL -36-inch, 980 Zone, Proctor Valley Road - PB Road/PB Bndy

Upgrade S 452,000 - - 405,000 - - - -

1497 675060PL - 16-inch, 711 Zone, La Media Road - Birch/Rock Mountain

Upgrade S 315,000 - - - - - - -

1498 675060PL - 16-inch, 711 Zone, La Media Road - Rock Mountain/Otay Valley

Upgrade S 210,000 - - - - 210,000 - -

1499 675060PL - 16-inch, 711 Zone, Rock Mountain Road - La Media/SR 125

Upgrade S 150,000 - - - - 150,000 - -

1500 675060PL - 20-inch, 711 Zone, Rock Mountain Road - SR 125/EastLake

Upgrade S 460,000 - - - - 460,000 - -

1501 675060PL - 20-inch, 711 Zone, Hunte Parkway - Olympic/East Lake

Upgrade S 1,250,000 - - 200,000 - 600,000 - -

1502 675060PL - 16-inch, 711 Zone, EastLake Parkway - Olympic/Hunte

Upgrade S 600,000 - - 60,000 - 300,000 - -

1503 675024 Badger Miscellaneous Plant Improvements Upgrade S 240,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 - 40,000 40,000 -

1504 675024 FY03/04 Water Distribution Line Upgrades Upgrade S 425,000 - - 425,000 - - - -

1505 675024Miscellaneous FY02/03 Water Improvements Projects

Upgrade S 125,000 - 125,000 - - - - -

1506 675024 Water Valve Replacements Upgrade S 2,100,000 100,000 75,000 - - 100,000 100,000 1,625,000 1507 675024 Fire Hydrant Installation Project New S 750,000 - - - - 100,000 100,000 450,000

1508 675024 FY04/05 Water Distribution Line Upgrades Upgrade S 510,000 - - - - - - -

117

Exhibit 9Water Capital Projects

ProjectNo.

Agency ID / Fund No.

Project Description Project TypeRegional (R) / Subregional

Total Project Cost Costs Prior to

FY 2003 FY 2003

CostsFY 2004Costs

FY 2005Costs

FY 2006Costs

FY 2007Costs

Costs After FY 2007

1509 675024 FY05/06 Water Distribution Line Upgrades Upgrade S 525,000 - - - - 525,000 - -

1510 675024 Joint SDWD/SFID 54" Parallel Pipeline New S 2,250,000 960,000 790,000 500,000 - - - - 1511 675140 Via Vera Cruz Tank Painting/Coating Upgrade S 150,000 - 150,000 - - - - -

1512 675140 Water Quality Monitor - Twin Oaks Reservoir Technology S 11,800 - 11,800 - - - - -

1513 675140 SCADA System Continued Modifications Technology S 10,000 - 10,000 - - - - - 1514 675140 VWD/VID Intertie New S 5,000 - 5,000 - - - - - 1515 675140 Furniture New S 30,000 - 30,000 - - - - - 1516 675140 Water Conservation Technology S 25,600 - 25,600 - - - - - 1517 675140 Classroom/Library Misc. S 25,000 - 25,000 - - - - - 1518 675140 Security and Access Control Upgrade Technology S 25,000 - 25,000 - - - - -

1519 675140Landscape Maintenance Utility Vehicle and Trailer

New S 13,300 - 13,300 - - - - -

1520 675022 Computer Expenses Technology S 6,400 - 6,400 - - - - - 1521 675022 Human Resources software Technology S 3,500 - 3,500 - - - - - 1522 675022 Datastream Changes Technology S 9,013 - 9,013 - - - - - 1523 675022 Konica 7130 copier Technology S 11,200 - 11,200 - - - - - 1524 675022 Security System Upgrades Technology S 25,000 - 25,000 - - - - - 1525 675022 Meter Truck New S 20,000 - 20,000 - - - - - 1526 675022 Mill and Lathe Misc. S 2,500 - 2,500 - - - - - 1527 675022 Paving and Sealant Upgrade S 11,200 - 11,200 - - - - - 1528 675022 Roof Repair Upgrade S 4,000 - 4,000 - - - - - 1529 675022 Rebuild Pump #3 Upgrade S 5,000 - 5,000 - - - - - 1530 675022 Laptop Computer Technology S 2,000 - 2,000 - - - - - 1531 675022 90 lb Jackhammer New S 900 - 900 - - - - - 1532 675022 Replace Leak Pump Upgrade S 1,000 - 1,000 - - - - - 1533 675022 Goldak Line Locator Misc. S 1,250 - 1,250 - - - - - 1534 675022 Generator/Light Tower New S 9,000 - 9,000 - - - - - 1535 675022 Crew Truck New S 60,000 - 60,000 - - - - - 1536 675022 Passenger Vechicle New S 32,000 - 32,000 - - - - - 1537 675022 Vibral Plate New S 2,500 - 2,500 - - - - - 1538 675022 Truck with service body New S 37,000 - 37,000 - - - - - 1539 675022 Plant security Technology S 40,000 - 40,000 - - - - - 1540 675022 Flow Simulator New S 1,800 - 1,800 - - - - - 1541 675022 Ratchet Crimping Tool New S 1,500 - 1,500 - - - - - 1542 675022 Install 12" Butterfly Valves in Clearwell New S 4,000 - 4,000 - - - - -

1543 675022Install 24" Butterfly Valve in Effluent/Influent Vault

New S 15,000 - 15,000 - - - - -

1544 675022 Replace HVAC controls Upgrade S 2,000 - 2,000 - - - - - 1545 675022 AT-14-SB Upgrade S 164,000 - 164,000 - - - - - 1546 675022 Via de la Valle - RSF New S 22,700 - 22,700 - - - - - 1547 675022 Linea Del Cielo - RSF New S 23,200 - 23,200 - - - - - 1548 675022 IT-6-RSF Upgrade S 34,000 - 34,000 - - - - - 1549 675022 RV-1-SB Upgrade S 84,000 - 84,000 - - - - - 1550 675022 AT-9B-SB Upgrade S 211,500 - 211,500 - - - - -

118

Exhibit 9Water Capital Projects

ProjectNo.

Agency ID / Fund No.

Project Description Project TypeRegional (R) / Subregional

Total Project Cost Costs Prior to

FY 2003 FY 2003

CostsFY 2004Costs

FY 2005Costs

FY 2006Costs

FY 2007Costs

Costs After FY 2007

1551 675022 AT-8-SB Upgrade S 100,500 - 100,500 - - - - - 1552 675022 Install Fire Hydrants - SB & RSF New S 320,000 - 320,000 - - - - - 1553 675022 AC-21A-SB New S 74,310 - 74,310 - - - - - 1554 675022 AT-16-RSF Upgrade S 59,740 - 59,740 - - - - - 1555 675022 AT-4-RSF Upgrade S 71,740 - 71,740 - - - - - 1556 675022 AT-12, AT-13, AT-17, Engineering Only New S 96,450 - 96,450 - - - - - 1557 675022 AC-22 Engineering Only New S 10,218 - 10,218 - - - - - 1558 675022 IT-2 RSF Upgrade S 74,400 - 74,400 - - - - -

1559 675022 AC-22-SB Upgrade S 120,782 - 120,782 - - - - -

1560 675022 Install Fire Hydrants - SB & RSF New S 84,000 - 84,000 - - - - -

1561 675022Reliability Project - Lago Lindo - Engineering Only

New S 104,000 - 104,000 - - - - -

1562 675022 AC-13 RSF Upgrade S 59,000 - 59,000 - - - - -

1563 675022AT-5A, AT-5B, AC-15, AV-1, IT-8, all RSF - Engineering Only

Upgrade S 161,700 - 161,700 - - - - -

1564 675022 AT-12, 13, 17 - SB - Engineering Only Upgrade S 747,550 - 81,983 665,567 - - - -

1565 675022Reliability Project - Lago Lindo - Engineering Only

New S 772,450 - 117,368 655,082 - - - -

1566 675022 AT-5A-RSF Upgrade S 163,200 - - 163,200 - - - - 1567 675022 AT-5B-RSF Upgrade S 119,850 - - 119,850 - - - - 1568 675022 AC-15-RSF Upgrade S 128,350 - - 128,350 - - - - 1569 675022 AC-1-RSF Upgrade S 71,400 - - 71,400 - - - - 1570 675022 AT-8-RSF Upgrade S 433,500 - - 433,500 - - - - 1571 675022 AT-7-SB Upgrade S 34,000 - - - 34,000 - - - 1572 675022 AC-1-RSF Upgrade S 25,000 - - - 25,000 - - - 1573 675022 AC-5-RSF New S 83,000 - - - 83,000 - - - 1574 675022 AC-12-RSF Upgrade S 149,000 - - - 149,000 - - - 1575 675022 AC-14-RSF Upgrade S 176,000 - - - 176,000 - - - 1576 675022 AC-16-RSF Upgrade S 15,000 - - - 15,000 - - - 1577 675022 IT-5 & AT-2A - RSF New S 655,424 - - - 655,424 - - - 1578 675022 AC-7-RSF New S 256,000 - - - 256,000 - - - 1579 675022 AC-19-SB New S 62,000 - - - 62,000 - - - 1580 675022 IT-11-SB Upgrade S 151,000 - - - 151,000 - - -

1581 675022 IC-12-RSF New S 128,000 - - - 128,000 - - -

1582 675022 AC-4-RSF Upgrade S 127,000 - - - 127,000 - - - 1583 675022 RT-2-RSF - Engineering Only New S 211,450 - - - 211,450 1,212,000 - - 1584 675022 RT-3-RSF - Engineering Only Upgrade S 62,400 - - - 62,400 375,440 - -

1585 675022 AC-17A-SB New S 66,000 - - - 66,000 - - -

1586 675022 AT-3-RSF New S 100,000 - - - 100,000 - - - 1587 675022 Cross country Line abandonment Upgrade S 10,000 - - - 10,000 - - - 1588 675022 Cross country Line abandonment Upgrade S 30,000 - - - 30,000 - - - 1589 675022 Cross country Line abandonment Upgrade S 30,000 - - - 30,000 - - -

119

Exhibit 9Water Capital Projects

ProjectNo.

Agency ID / Fund No.

Project Description Project TypeRegional (R) / Subregional

Total Project Cost Costs Prior to

FY 2003 FY 2003

CostsFY 2004Costs

FY 2005Costs

FY 2006Costs

FY 2007Costs

Costs After FY 2007

1590 675022 AC-9-RSF Upgrade S 145,000 - - - - 145,000 - - 1591 675022 IT-4-RSF Upgrade S 394,000 - - - - 394,000 - - 1592 675022 IT-15-RSF Upgrade S 65,000 - - - - 65,000 - -

1593 675022 IT-1, AC-11, & IC-15 All Fairbanks Upgrade S 844,500 - - - - 417,000 427,500 -

1594 675022 IC-11-RSF Upgrade S 89,000 - - - - - 89,000 - 1595 675022 AC-3A-RSF Upgrade S 84,000 - - - - - 84,000 - 1596 675022 IT-17-RSF Upgrade S 65,000 - - - - - 65,000 -

1597 675022 RT-1-RSF New S 2,150,500 - - - - - 2,150,500 -

1598 675022 AC-6-RSF Upgrade S 92,000 - - - - - 92,000 - 1599 675022 AT-1B-RSF Upgrade S 100,000 - - - - - 100,000 - 1600 675022 AT-10-SB Upgrade S 232,000 - - - - - 232,000 - 1601 675031 Property Acquisition - O.D. Arnold Surplus Misc. S 5,000 - 5,000 - - - - -

1602 675031 Chain Link Fencing along Pointe Golf Course New S 113,000 - 113,000 - - - - -

1603 675031Chain Link Fencing along USF&W Property at Sweetwater Reservoir

New S 80,000 - 80,000 - - - - -

1604 675031 Lynnwood Hills Tank Replacement Upgrade S 241,000 - 241,000 - - - - - 1605 675031 Construction of Abrigo Well New S 785,000 - 785,000 - - - - - 1606 675031 Screen Extension for Outlet Tower New S 1,800 - 1,800 - - - - -

1607 675031Additonal Improvements to Electric Generator Capacity - Lake Loveland

Upgrade S 8,500 - 8,500 - - - - -

1608 675031Fencing and Landscape Improvements at Loveland House and Cabin

Upgrade S 700 - 700 - - - - -

1609 675031Improvements to Lighting of Sweetwater Falls Dam at Loveland

Upgrade S 700 - 700 - - - - -

1610 675031Construction of URDS Phase II - Pumpback Pipeline

New S 400,000 - 400,000 - - - - -

1611 675031Hypochlorite & Ammonia Injection Facility Construction

New S 844,500 - 844,500 - - - - -

1612 675031 Cherry Hill Tank Construction New S 17,800 - 17,800 - - - - -

1613 675031 Improve Controls for Valves at Loveland Dam Upgrade S 91,600 - 91,600 - - - - -

1614 675031 Pump Efficiency Improvements Upgrade S 25,500 - 25,500 - - - - -

1615 675031Security Improvements at Various Booster Stations

Upgrade S 16,000 - 16,000 - - - - -

1616 675031 Starr Booster Pump Pad Reconstruction Upgrade S 6,500 - 6,500 - - - - -

1617 675031Bonita Bel Aire Booster #28 Electrical Upgrade

Upgrade S 46,400 - 46,400 - - - - -

1618 675031Emergency Generators - Water Production Facilities

New S - - - - - - - -

1619 675031 Pump Efficiency Improvements Upgrade S 49,300 - 49,300 - - - - -

1620 675031Perdue Water Treatment Plant Sewer System Upgrade

Upgrade S 132,500 - 132,500 - - - - -

120

Exhibit 9Water Capital Projects

ProjectNo.

Agency ID / Fund No.

Project Description Project TypeRegional (R) / Subregional

Total Project Cost Costs Prior to

FY 2003 FY 2003

CostsFY 2004Costs

FY 2005Costs

FY 2006Costs

FY 2007Costs

Costs After FY 2007

1621 675031Construction of SCADA System - Distribution System

Technology S 218,800 - 218,800 - - - - -

1622 675031 Lake Loveland Level Telemetry Equipment Technology S 7,000 - 7,000 - - - - - 1623 675031 Level Transmitter New S 1,000 - 1,000 - - - - -

1624 675031Improvements to Richard A. Reynolds Demineralization Facility

Upgrade S 100,900 - 100,900 - - - - -

1625 675031 Pavement Maintenance - Halecrest Tank Upgrade S 52,500 - 52,500 - - - - - 1626 675031 Design Main Replacements Upgrade S 180,000 - 180,000 - - - - - 1627 675031 Master Plan Main Replacements Upgrade S 150,000 - 150,000 - - - - - 1628 675031 Master Plan Main Replacements Upgrade S 453,000 - 453,000 - - - - - 1629 675031 Trench Paving Metallic Main Replacement Upgrade S 53,500 - 53,500 - - - - - 1630 675031 Trench Paving Metallic Main Replacement Upgrade S 38,500 - 38,500 - - - - - 1631 675031 Trench Paving Metallic Main Replacement Upgrade S 15,600 - 15,600 - - - - - 1632 675031 Trench Paving Metallic Main Replacement Upgrade S 39,500 - 39,500 - - - - - 1633 675031 Trench Paving Metallic Main Replacement Upgrade S 64,700 - 64,700 - - - - - 1634 675031 Trench Paving Metallic Main Replacement Upgrade S 32,100 - 32,100 - - - - - 1635 675031 Trench Paving Metallic Main Replacement Upgrade S 27,300 - 27,300 - - - - - 1636 675031 Trench Paving Metallic Main Replacement Upgrade S 15,000 - 15,000 - - - - - 1637 675031 Trench Paving Metallic Main Replacement Upgrade S 24,900 - 24,900 - - - - - 1638 675031 Trench Paving Metallic Main Replacement Upgrade S 8,400 - 8,400 - - - - - 1639 675031 Trench Paving Metallic Main Replacement Upgrade S 3,300 - 3,300 - - - - - 1640 675031 Trench Paving Metallic Main Replacement Upgrade S 20,000 - 20,000 - - - - - 1641 675031 Trench Paving Metallic Main Replacement Upgrade S 27,200 - 27,200 - - - - - 1642 675031 Trench Paving Metallic Main Replacement Upgrade S 24,300 - 24,300 - - - - - 1643 675031 Trench Paving Metallic Main Replacement Upgrade S 53,700 - 53,700 - - - - - 1644 675031 Trench Paving Metallic Main Replacement Upgrade S 102,000 - 102,000 - - - - - 1645 675031 Trench Paving Metallic Main Replacement Upgrade S 9,000 - 9,000 - - - - - 1646 675031 Metallic Main Replacements Upgrade S 134,200 - 134,200 - - - - - 1647 675031 Metallic Main Replacements Upgrade S 176,600 - 176,600 - - - - - 1648 675031 Metallic Main Replacements Upgrade S 77,800 - 77,800 - - - - - 1649 675031 Metallic Main Replacements Upgrade S 187,800 - 187,800 - - - - - 1650 675031 Metallic Main Replacements Upgrade S 260,000 - 260,000 - - - - - 1651 675031 Metallic Main Replacements Upgrade S 102,000 - 102,000 - - - - - 1652 675031 Metallic Main Replacements Upgrade S 100,200 - 100,200 - - - - - 1653 675031 Metallic Main Replacements Upgrade S 52,400 - 52,400 - - - - - 1654 675031 Metallic Main Replacements Upgrade S 100,000 - 100,000 - - - - - 1655 675031 Metallic Main Replacements Upgrade S 89,700 - 89,700 - - - - - 1656 675031 Metallic Main Replacements Upgrade S 55,600 - 55,600 - - - - - 1657 675031 Metallic Main Replacements Upgrade S 19,200 - 19,200 - - - - - 1658 675031 Metallic Main Replacements Upgrade S 86,800 - 86,800 - - - - - 1659 675031 Metallic Main Replacements Upgrade S 86,200 - 86,200 - - - - - 1660 675031 Master Plan Main Replacements Upgrade S 137,400 - 137,400 - - - - - 1661 675031 Master Plan Main Replacements Upgrade S 183,200 - 183,200 - - - - - 1662 675031 Master Plan Main Replacements Upgrade S 297,100 - 297,100 - - - - - 1663 675031 Replace Actuators on (3) 42-inch Valves Upgrade S 55,800 - 55,800 - - - - - 1664 675031 Retrofit Existing Air Release Valves Upgrade S 90,000 - 90,000 - - - - -

121

Exhibit 9Water Capital Projects

ProjectNo.

Agency ID / Fund No.

Project Description Project TypeRegional (R) / Subregional

Total Project Cost Costs Prior to

FY 2003 FY 2003

CostsFY 2004Costs

FY 2005Costs

FY 2006Costs

FY 2007Costs

Costs After FY 2007

1665 675031 Design Main Replacements Upgrade S 37,200 - 37,200 - - - - -

1666 675031Pavement Maintenance, Operations Center and Bonita Bel Air Tank

Upgrade S - - - - - - - -

1667 675031"H" Street Reconstruction, I-5 to Broadway, Chula Vista

Upgrade S 700 - 700 - - - - -

1668 675031 Palomar Street Reconstruction Upgrade S 400 - 400 - - - - -

1669 675031National City Boulevard, 30 Street to 26th Street, National City

Upgrade S 22,300 - 22,300 - - - - -

1670 675031 Grading of South Dike Fill Site Upgrade S 22,200 - 22,200 - - - - - 1671 675031 Villa San Miguel Development New S 49,700 - 49,700 - - - - - 1672 675031 Refund of Oversized Main (Mr. Phair) Misc. S 10,000 - 10,000 - - - - -

1673 675031 14th Street, "O" Ave. to Palm, National City Upgrade S 700 - 700 - - - - -

1674 675031Hoover Avenue, 8th to 76' South, National City

Upgrade S 500 - 500 - - - - -

1675 675031Mc Kinley Avenue, 14th Street to 16th Street, National City

Upgrade S 300 - 300 - - - - -

1676 67503127th St., "A" Avenue to National City Blvd. and "A" Ave., 27th to 28th St. North

Upgrade S 2,000 - 2,000 - - - - -

1677 675031Mc Kinley Avenue, 18th Street to 20th Street, National City

Upgrade S 2,300 - 2,300 - - - - -

1678 675031"G" Street and Broadway to 750" East, Chula Vista

Upgrade S 12,500 - 12,500 - - - - -

1679 675031"L" Street, Cedar Avenue to 5th Avenue, Chula Vista

Upgrade S 200 - 200 - - - - -

1680 675031"F" Ave. Sweetwater Road, West N. 2nd Ave. to 600' East of Grove, National City

Upgrade S 10,700 - 10,700 - - - - -

1681 675031Equitation Lane, Plaza Bonita Road to 450 East, Bonita

Upgrade S 5,000 - 5,000 - - - - -

1682 675031Elder Avenue and "D" Street to Flower Street, Chula Vista

Upgrade S 9,500 - 9,500 - - - - -

1683 675031"E" and 8th Street, Palm Avenue to I-805, National City

Upgrade S - - - - - - - -

1684 675031Sweetwater Road, West 2nd Ave. to 600' East of Grove, National City

Upgrade S 3,000 - 3,000 - - - - -

1685 675031Sweetwater Road, West 2nd Ave. to 600' East of Grove, National City

Upgrade S 49,200 - 49,200 - - - - -

1686 675031 Beck Line Upgrade S 21,900 - 21,900 - - - - - 1687 675031 Sweetwater Road Main Upgrade S 13,000 - 13,000 - - - - - 1688 675031 Highland Avenue, Division to 16th Upgrade S 323,200 - 323,200 - - - - - 1689 675031 San Miguel Road, 12-inch Main Upgrade S 618,900 - 618,900 - - - - -

1690 675031 Cathodic Protection Improvement Program Upgrade S 43,600 - 43,600 - - - - -

1691 675031 Retrofit Existing Air Release Valves Upgrade S 19,300 - 19,300 - - - - - 1692 675031 Morris Tank and Lake Loveland (overlay) Upgrade S 27,500 - 27,500 - - - - -

1693 675031Salt Creek Sewer and Main Street Reconstruction

Upgrade S - - - - - - - -

122

Exhibit 9Water Capital Projects

ProjectNo.

Agency ID / Fund No.

Project Description Project TypeRegional (R) / Subregional

Total Project Cost Costs Prior to

FY 2003 FY 2003

CostsFY 2004Costs

FY 2005Costs

FY 2006Costs

FY 2007Costs

Costs After FY 2007

1694 675031Interties at Sweetwater Road and Valley Vista Road and Valley Road

Upgrade S 31,900 - 31,900 - - - - -

1695 675031 Glenhaven Way Storm Drain Improvements Upgrade S - - - - - - - -

1696 675031Kearny Street and Elm Ave. to 157' East, Chula Vista (Construction)

New S 11,700 - 11,700 - - - - -

1697 675031Kearny Street and Elm Ave. to 157' East, Chula Vista (Paving)

New S - - - - - - - -

1698 675031Hoover Ave. at 24th St., National City (Offset Replacement) (Construction)

New S 1,000 - 1,000 - - - - -

1699 675031Hoover Ave. at 24th St., National City (Offset Replacement) (Paving)

New S - - - - - - - -

1700 675031 Del Monte Ave., Main Replacement Upgrade S - - - - - - - - 1701 675031 Meter Replacement Program New S 138,900 - 138,900 - - - - - 1702 675031 Meter Replacement Program Upgrade S 97,000 - 97,000 - - - - - 1703 675031 Meters and Services Upgrade S 28,100 - 28,100 - - - - - 1704 675031 Meters and Services Upgrade S 2,000 - 2,000 - - - - - 1705 675031 Meters and Services Upgrade S 13,900 - 13,900 - - - - - 1706 675031 Meters and Services Upgrade S 7,000 - 7,000 - - - - - 1707 675031 Meters and Services Upgrade S 8,500 - 8,500 - - - - - 1708 675031 Meters and Services Upgrade S 13,900 - 13,900 - - - - - 1709 675031 Meters and Services Upgrade S 23,800 - 23,800 - - - - - 1710 675031 Meters and Services Upgrade S 2,000 - 2,000 - - - - - 1711 675031 Management and Administration Technology S 3,500 - 3,500 - - - - - 1712 675031 Management and Administration Technology S 1,500 - 1,500 - - - - - 1713 675031 Management and Administration Technology S 2,500 - 2,500 - - - - - 1714 675031 Management and Administration Technology S 5,000 - 5,000 - - - - - 1715 675031 Management and Administration Technology S 6,000 - 6,000 - - - - - 1716 675031 Management and Administration Technology S 269,000 - 269,000 - - - - - 1717 675031 Management and Administration Technology S 15,000 - 15,000 - - - - - 1718 675031 Management and Administration Misc. S 1,100 - 1,100 - - - - - 1719 675031 Management and Administration Technology S 25,000 - 25,000 - - - - - 1720 675031 Management and Administration Misc. S 6,700 - 6,700 - - - - - 1721 675031 Management and Administration Technology S 1,600 - 1,600 - - - - - 1722 675031 Management and Administration Technology S 3,000 - 3,000 - - - - - 1723 675031 Safety/Training Technology S 4,000 - 4,000 - - - - - 1724 675031 Safety/Training Technology S 5,200 - 5,200 - - - - - 1725 675031 Safety/Training Technology S 8,500 - 8,500 - - - - - 1726 675031 Customer Accounts Technology S 2,600 - 2,600 - - - - - 1727 675031 Water Quality Technology S 2,500 - 2,500 - - - - - 1728 675031 Water Quality Technology S 2,000 - 2,000 - - - - - 1729 675031 Water Quality Technology S 3,000 - 3,000 - - - - - 1730 675031 Water Quality Technology S 1,200 - 1,200 - - - - - 1731 675031 Water Quality Technology S 11,000 - 11,000 - - - - - 1732 675031 Distribution Upgrade S 2,100 - 2,100 - - - - - 1733 675031 Office Chair (Distribution) Misc. S 800 - 800 - - - - -

123

Exhibit 9Water Capital Projects

ProjectNo.

Agency ID / Fund No.

Project Description Project TypeRegional (R) / Subregional

Total Project Cost Costs Prior to

FY 2003 FY 2003

CostsFY 2004Costs

FY 2005Costs

FY 2006Costs

FY 2007Costs

Costs After FY 2007

1734 675031Computer Software for Help Desk (Information Systems)

Technology S 15,000 - 15,000 - - - - -

1735 675031Computer Software - End User Interactive Reporting System

Technology S 11,500 - 11,500 - - - - -

1736 675031 Network Infrastructure Upgrade Technology S 5,200 - 5,200 - - - - - 1737 675031 Upgrade and Expansion of MP2 Software Technology S 54,000 - 54,000 - - - - -

1738 675031Chlorine Analyzer for Richard A. Reynolds Demineralization Facility

New S 4,000 - 4,000 - - - - -

1739 675031 Field Colorimeter New S 1,100 - 1,100 - - - - - 1740 675031 Portable Submersible Pump and Tripod New S 1,800 - 1,800 - - - - - 1741 675031 Programmable Jar Test Apparatus New S 3,500 - 3,500 - - - - - 1742 675031 Spare Online Turbidimeter New S 2,000 - 2,000 - - - - -

1743 675031Transportation Equipment (New and Replacement)

Upgrade S 567,500 - 567,500 - - - - -

1744 675031 Communication Equipment Upgrade S 6,800 - 6,800 - - - - - 1745 675031 Field Equipment New S 101,400 - 101,400 - - - - -

1746 675031 Remodel Safety Office (Operations Center) Upgrade S 2,200 - 2,200 - - - - -

1747 675031 Learning Center Remodel Upgrade S 7,000 - 7,000 - - - - -

1748 675031Access Step for Hazardous Material Bldg at Robert A. Perdue Water Treatment Plant

New S 1,000 - 1,000 - - - - -

1749 675031 Fencing at the Richard A. Reynolds Demin. New S 6,000 - 6,000 - - - - -

1750 675031Field Office and Storage at Loveland Reservoir

New S 21,000 - 21,000 - - - - -

1751 675031Replacement Refrigerator for Loveland Residence

Upgrade S 1,000 - 1,000 - - - - -

1752 675031 Security Camera Additions at the Perdue WTP Upgrade S 38,000 - 38,000 - - - - -

1753 675031 Admin. Bldg Heating and Cooling System New S 35,000 - 35,000 - - - - - 1754 675031 Space Improvements, Phase II Upgrade S - - - - - - - - 1755 675031 Sweetwater Reservoir Fishing Program Upgrade S - - - - - - - -

1756 675031Fencing for Restricting Access to Inventory Stored in Yard

New S 2,600 - 2,600 - - - - -

1757 675031Electronic Fuel Dispensing and Management System

New S 26,300 - 26,300 - - - - -

1758 675031 Engineering and Other Studies Technology S 1,527,600 - 1,527,600 - - - - - 1759 675031 Engineering and Other Studies Technology S 1,692,700 - 1,692,700 - - - - - 1760 675031 Loveland Dam Improvements Upgrade S 79,300 - 79,300 - - - - - 1761 675031 Sweetwater Dam Improvements Upgrade S 99,200 - 99,200 - - - - - 1762 675031 Loveland Dam Trails Improvement Upgrade S 4,800 - 4,800 - - - - - 1763 675031 Sweetwater Dam 36-inch Gate Valve Upgrade S 29,800 - 29,800 - - - - -

1764 675031Sweetwater Dam 14-inch and 18-inch Pipe Project Gate Valve

Upgrade S 110,600 - 110,600 - - - - -

1765 675031Loveland Dam Crest Deflection Monitoring Sites

Upgrade S 21,000 - 21,000 - - - - -

1766 675031 Sweetwater Dam Improvements Upgrade S 73,500 - 73,500 - - - - -

124

Exhibit 9Water Capital Projects

ProjectNo.

Agency ID / Fund No.

Project Description Project TypeRegional (R) / Subregional

Total Project Cost Costs Prior to

FY 2003 FY 2003

CostsFY 2004Costs

FY 2005Costs

FY 2006Costs

FY 2007Costs

Costs After FY 2007

1767 675031 Major Tank Maintenance Upgrade S 140,000 - 140,000 - - - - - 1768 675031 Major Reservoir Maintenance Upgrade S 223,400 - 223,400 - - - - - 1769 675152 Digital Copier Upgrade S 18,000 - 18,000 - - - - - 1770 675152 Asphalt Ziper New S 62,000 - 62,000 - - - - - 1771 675152 FY 2003 Main Replacement Program Upgrade S 1,000,000 - 1,000,000 - - - - -

1772 675152 Sycamore and La Mirada Pipelines New S 2,700,000 - 375,000 2,325,000 - - - -

1773 675152 Railroad Project Upgrade S 240,000 - 240,000 - - - - -

1774 675152 Taylor Street Pipeline Upgrade S 210,000 - 210,000 - - - - -

1775 675152 Pechstein Reservoir Secondary Fee Technology S 2,600,000 - 120,000 2,480,000 - - - -

1776 675152 E Reservoir Control Valve New S 120,000 - 120,000 - - - - -

1777 675152 Fairview Drive Intertie New S 30,000 - 30,000 - - - - - 1778 675152 Vehicles (7) Upgrade S 208,000 - 208,000 - - - - - 1779 675152 Backhoe Upgrade S 80,000 - 80,000 - - - - - 1780 675152 Network Servers (4) Technology S 26,500 - 26,500 - - - - -

1781 675152 Pump Station Upgrade S 25,000 - 25,000 - - - - -

1782 675152 Hydro Pneumatic Tank Upgrade S 14,000 - 14,000 - - - - - 1783 675152 Motor Control Centers (2) Mandated S 75,000 65,000 10,000 - - - - - 1784 675152 Vertical Pump Upgrade S 5,000 - 5,000 - - - - - 1785 675152 Single Family Residence Upgrade S 160,000 - 160,000 - - - - - 1786 675152 60's Pipeline Upgrade S 18,000 - 18,000 - - - - - 1787 675152 Air Compressor New S 12,000 - 12,000 - - - - - 1788 675152 Water Truck Upgrade S 10,000 - 10,000 - - - - - 1789 675152 Highway 76 Fence New S 10,000 - 10,000 - - - - - 1790 675001 Field Equipment New S 559,000 - 198,000 186,000 175,000 - - - 1791 675001 Reservoirs and Pump Stations Upgrade S 559,000 - 176,000 460,000 215,000 - - - 1792 675001 Seismic Retrofit Upgrade S 851,000 - 15,000 - 30,000 - - -

1793 675001District Pipelines: Fallbrook Rainbow Interconn.

Upgrade S 45,000 - 30,000 - - - - -

1794 675001 District Pipelines: El Paisano Upgrade S 90,000 - 90,000 - - - - -

1795 675001District Pipelines: Developer Project - District Share

Upgrade S 360,000 - 120,000 140,000 100,000 - - -

1796 675001 District Looping Project: Control Valve Upgrade S 15,000 - 5,000 5,000 5,000 - - - 1797 675001 District Looping Project: Hidden Walk Upgrade S 11,500 - 11,500 - - - - - 1798 675001 District Looping Project: Hillside Relocation Upgrade S 25,600 - - 25,600 - - - -

1799 675001District Looping Project: Alvarado St. Reconstruction

Upgrade S 73,000 - - 73,000 - - - -

1800 675001 District Looping Project: Snow Road Upgrade S 31,000 - - - 31,000 - - - 1801 675001 District Looping Project: Norstar Lane Upgrade S 22,000 - - - 22,000 - - - 1802 675001 District Looping Project: Vine to Old Stage Upgrade S 16,000 - - - 16,000 - - - 1803 675001 District Looping Project: Ivy-Pico to Main Upgrade S 16,000 - - - 16,000 - - - 1804 675001 District Looping Project: Avenida De Nog Upgrade S 3,500 - 3,500 - - - - - 1805 675001 Distrcit Looping Project: Alta Vista Drive Upgrade S 21,000 - - - 21,000 - - -

125

Exhibit 9Water Capital Projects

ProjectNo.

Agency ID / Fund No.

Project Description Project TypeRegional (R) / Subregional

Total Project Cost Costs Prior to

FY 2003 FY 2003

CostsFY 2004Costs

FY 2005Costs

FY 2006Costs

FY 2007Costs

Costs After FY 2007

1806 675001 Developer Pipelines New S 440,000 - 200,000 120,000 120,000 - - - 1807 675001 Shop Lift/Yard Paving Upgrade S 30,000 - 50,000 20,000 20,000 - - - 1808 675001 De Luz Capital Improvements Upgrade S 90,000 - 630,000 - - - - - 1809 675001 De Luz Capital Improvements Upgrade S 630,000 - - 95,000 - - - - 1810 675001 De Luz Capital Improvements Upgrade S 95,000 - - - 140,000 - - -

1811 675001 Pressure Station Maintenance Projects Upgrade S 140,000 - 26,800 20,000 17,880 - - -

1812 675001Santa Margarita River Water Resource Development

Technology S 64,680 - 365,000 305,000 1,295,000 - - -

1813 675001Crush and Process Asphalt at Red Mountain Reservoir

Misc. S 1,965,000 - 40,000 - - - - -

1814 675001 Meter Replacement Program Technology S 411,097 - 87,591 161,753 161,753 - - - 1815 675001 Meter Service Installations New S 218,400 - 84,000 67,200 67,200 - - - 1816 675071 Annual Water Program Upgrade S 1,146,224 168,924 178,400 108,275 271,000 119,800 299,825 - 1817 675071 Water System Telemetry Technology S 77,000 10,000 5,000 25,000 5,250 26,250 5,500 - 1818 675071 Reservoir Seismic Control System New S 286,822 61,822 - - 225,000 - - -

1819 675071 Demolition of Old Water Facilities Upgrade S 83,000 10,000 73,000 - - - - -

1820 675071 Paint & Reline Crest & Torrey Pines Reservoirs Upgrade S 325,000 - - 25,000 300,000 - - -

1821 675071 11th Street Reservoir Roofing Upgrade S 150,000 - 150,000 - - - - - 1822 675071 Zuni Reservoir Roofing New S 1,419,822 71,822 223,000 25,000 525,000 75,000 500,000 - 1823 675029 Alexander from Montview to Calmar Upgrade S 900,000 - 900,000 - - - - - 1824 675029 Bear Valley Parkway from Citrus to Boyle Upgrade S 3,384,675 1,084,675 2,300,000 - - - - - 1825 675029 Brotherton - Alexander Upgrade S 120,000 - 120,000 - - - - - 1826 675029 Calmar - Clarence Upgrade S 150,000 - 150,000 - - - - - 1827 675029 Canyon Crest Upgrade S 70,000 - 70,000 - - - - - 1828 675029 Cemetery Siphon Upgrade S 160,000 - 160,000 - - - - - 1829 675029 Cemetery Siphon to Cloverdale Upgrade S 320,000 - 320,000 - - - - - 1830 675029 Cemetery Siphon to Mountain View Upgrade S 520,000 - 520,000 - - - - -

1831 675029Citracado from Bernardo to South Escondido Blvd.

Upgrade S 300,000 - 300,000 - - - - -

1832 675029Clarence from South Center City Parkway to Felicita

Upgrade S 240,000 - 240,000 - - - - -

1833 675029 El Norte from La Honda to Ash Street Upgrade S 3,100,000 1,500,000 1,600,000 - - - - - 1834 675029 Falconer: Reed to Cemetery Upgrade S 190,000 - 190,000 - - - - - 1835 675029 Miller from Montview to Citracado Upgrade S 150,000 - 150,000 - - - - -

1836 675029 Montview from Reservoir to Vermont Street Upgrade S 1,200,000 - 1,200,000 - - - - -

1837 675029 Mutual Water Company Replacement Design Upgrade S 1,440,000 - 540,000 - - 900,000 - -

1838 675029 Park Hill Lane Upgrade S 425,000 - 425,000 - - - - - 1839 675029 Reed from Falconer to Cemetery Upgrade S 135,000 - 135,000 - - - - - 1840 675029 Small Mutual Lines Upgrade S 280,000 - 280,000 - - - - - 1841 675029 Citrus/Big Pine to FB Upgrade S 150,000 - - 150,000 - - - - 1842 675029 Citrus/Mountain View to Idaho Upgrade S 530,000 - - 530,000 - - - - 1843 675029 Park Hill Lane Looping (PHB-1) Upgrade S 360,000 - - 360,000 - - - -

126

Exhibit 9Water Capital Projects

ProjectNo.

Agency ID / Fund No.

Project Description Project TypeRegional (R) / Subregional

Total Project Cost Costs Prior to

FY 2003 FY 2003

CostsFY 2004Costs

FY 2005Costs

FY 2006Costs

FY 2007Costs

Costs After FY 2007

1844 675029 Washwater Tank at Water Treatment Plant Upgrade S 750,000 - - 750,000 - - - -

1845 675029Bear Valley Parkway between 78 to El Dorado

Upgrade S 1,235,000 - - - 1,235,000 - - -

1846 675029 Bear Valley Parkway between Boyle to Idaho Upgrade S 555,000 - - - 555,000 - - -

1847 675029Summit Drive: San Pasqual Valley Rd. to Rincon

Upgrade S 530,000 - - - 530,000 - - -

1848 675029 Vista Verde Reservoir Replacement Upgrade S 1,400,000 - - - 1,400,000 - - - 1849 675029 Ash/Hubbard to Vista Upgrade S 160,000 - - - - 160,000 - - 1850 675029 Ash/Rincon to Vista Upgrade S 300,000 - - - - 300,000 - - 1851 675029 Bear Valley Pkwy/Encino to N. County Fair Upgrade S 1,280,000 - - - - 1,280,000 - -

1852 675029Bear Valley Pkwy, Suburban to San Pasqual Valley Road

Upgrade S 425,000 - - - - 425,000 - -

1853 675029 Candado/El Dorado to end Upgrade S 50,000 - - - - 50,000 - - 1854 675029 Groton/Mary Lane to Ryan Upgrade S 280,000 - - - - 280,000 - - 1855 675029 Idaho/Bear Valley Pkwy to Skyline Upgrade S 450,000 - - - - 450,000 - -

1856 675029Kit Carson Park/Bear Valley Pkwy to Castaneda

Upgrade S 130,000 - - - - 130,000 - -

1857 675029 Knobhill/Sheridan to Leslie Lane Upgrade S 110,000 - - - - 110,000 - -

1858 675029 Mary Lane/Bear Valley Pkwy to Meadow Lane Upgrade S 150,000 - - - - 150,000 - -

1859 675029 Mary Lane/Beethoven to Calle Montera Upgrade S 75,000 - - - - 75,000 - - 1860 675029 Mary Lane/Summit Upgrade S 400,000 - - - - 400,000 - - 1861 675029 N. Broadway/Leslie to El Norte Pkwy Upgrade S 550,000 - - - - 550,000 - - 1862 675029 Rancho Verde/Bear Valley Pkwy to End Upgrade S 50,000 - - - - 50,000 - -

1863 675029 Replacement & Expansion of Reed Reservoir Upgrade S 7,425,000 - - - - 7,425,000 - -

1864 675029 Sheridan/Conway to Esperanza Upgrade S 100,000 - - - - 100,000 - - 1865 675029 Sheridan/Conway to Lindley Upgrade S 700,000 - - - - 700,000 - - 1866 675029 Stanley/Ash to Conway Upgrade S 115,000 - - - - 115,000 - - 1867 675029 Summit/Mary Lane to above Upgrade S 345,000 - - - - 345,000 - - 1868 675029 TeePee Hill/Summit Upgrade S 180,000 - - - - 180,000 - - 1869 675029 Washington/Escondido Creek and Citrus Upgrade S 1,500,000 - - - - 1,500,000 - - 1870 675029 Mary Lane/Summit to Rincon Conn. Upgrade S 630,000 - - - - - 630,000 - 1871 675029 Misc. Mutual (Replacement 7 Projects) Upgrade S 426,000 - - - - - 426,000 - 1872 675029 Vista Verde Zone Extension New S 400,000 - - - - - 400,000 - 1873 675016 Peyri Drive Upgrade S 300,000 - 300,000 - - - - - 1874 675016 Mission Basin Desalting Facility Expansion Upgrade S 5,613,907 - 5,613,907 - - - - - 1875 675016 Osborn 10 MGD Reservoir & Land Acquis. New S 8,300,803 - 300,803 - 4,000,000 4,000,000 - - 1876 675016 Rancho Del Oro Reservoir & Land Acquis. New S 1,200,000 - 700,000 - - 500,000 - -

1877 675016 Weese Treatment Plant Minor Improvements Upgrade S 1,250,000 - 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 -

1878 675016 Mission Basin Groundwatr Supply Study Technology S 205,000 - 205,000 - - - - - 1879 675016 Geographic Information Systems Technology S 1,100,000 - 700,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 - 1880 675016 Leak Detection Upgrade S 250,000 - 250,000 - - - - - 1881 675016 Tait Street Waterline Upgrade S 269,150 - 269,150 - - - - -

127

Exhibit 9Water Capital Projects

ProjectNo.

Agency ID / Fund No.

Project Description Project TypeRegional (R) / Subregional

Total Project Cost Costs Prior to

FY 2003 FY 2003

CostsFY 2004Costs

FY 2005Costs

FY 2006Costs

FY 2007Costs

Costs After FY 2007

1882 675016 Weese Building Expansion Upgrade S 750,000 - 250,000 500,000 - - - -

1883 675016 Groundwater Purification Facility Expansion Upgrade S 43,000,000 - 500,000 5,000,000 37,500,000 - - -

1884 675016 Peacock Hills Regulator Upgrade S 650,000 - 650,000 - - - - - 1885 675016 Monitor and Control System (SCADA) Technology S 500,000 - 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 - 1886 675016 Mesa Lomas/Lake Blvd. Upgrade Upgrade S 500,000 - 250,000 250,000 - - - - 1887 675016 30" W/L Mission, Foussat to El Camino Real Upgrade S 1,731,946 - 1,731,946 - - - - -

1888 675016Mission Basin Desalting Fac Minor Improvements

Upgrade S 1,350,000 - 350,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 -

1889 675016 Pier Area Waterlines Upgrade S 500,000 - 500,000 - - - - - 1890 675016 Miscellaneous Water Projects Upgrade S 2,000,000 - 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 - 1891 675016 Hwy 76 Waterline Relocation Upgrade S 4,000,000 - 4,000,000 - - - - - 1892 675016 30" W/L Rancho Del Oro/Mesa/Oside Blvd. New S 1,200,000 - 1,200,000 - - - - - 1893 675016 No. Oceanside Annex/Nrr/A Street Upgrade S 250,990 - 250,990 - - - - - 1894 675016 W/L Oceanside Blvd./RDO/Garrison New S 1,000,000 - 1,000,000 - - - - -

1895 675016 San Francisco Peak Electrical Undergrounding New S 250,000 - 250,000 - - - - -

1896 675016 Buddy Todd Reservoir Demolition Upgrade S 700,000 - 700,000 - - - - - 1897 675016 800 MHZ Radio System Technology S 915,000 - 915,000 - - - - - 1898 675016 W/L Replacement Areas 4, 5 & 6 Phase II Upgrade S 850,000 - - - - 850,000 - - 1899 675016 W/L Replacement Areas 1 & 13 Upgrade S 130,000 - - - - 130,000 - - 1900 675016 San Luis Rey Plant Water Reclamation Upgrade R 6,000,000 - - - 500,000 5,500,000 - - 1901 675016 Mission Ave/I-5 Crossing Waterline Upgrade S 1,500,000 - - - 150,000 1,350,000 - - 1902 675016 Galbar Waterline Upgrade S - - - - - - - 1903 675016 24" W/L in Frazee Road to N. River Road New S 1,500,000 - - - 150,000 1,350,000 - - 1904 675016 24" W/L College to Henie Hills New S 1,200,000 - - 150,000 1,050,000 - - - 1905 675040 Neighborhood Loans - Water Misc. S 50,000 50,000 - - - - - - 1906 675040 Lake Poway Water Main New S 49,000 49,000 - - - - - - 1907 675040 Donart Reservoir and Transmission Lines New S 314,019 314,019 - - - - - - 1908 675040 Ozone Treatment Pilot Plant Study Technology S 700 700 - - - - - -

1909 675040 Water Treatment Upgrade Upgrade S 11,011,571 11,011,571 - - - - - -

1910 675040 Toilet Rebate Program Misc. S 195,340 195,340 - - - - - -

1911 675040Water System Master Plan Update and Rate Study

Technology S 197,000 197,000 - - - - - -

1912 675040 Boulder Valley Pumped Storage Project Technology S 15,000 15,000 - - - - - - 1913 675040 Water Assessment District 79-1 Misc. S 63,949 63,949 - - - - - -

1914 675040Boulder Mountain Reservoirs No.1 to 3 Repairs

Upgrade S 210,561 210,561 - - - - - -

1915 675040 Additional Pump at Northcrest Pump Station New S 50,000 50,000 - - - - - -

1916 675040 High Valley Road Water Easement New S 10,000 10,000 - - - - - -

1917 675040Water Distribution System Mainline Valve Upgrade

Upgrade S 20,000 20,000 - - - - - -

1918 675040Flow Monitoring of Camelback and Northcrest Pump Stations

New S 30,000 30,000 - - - - - -

128

Exhibit 9Water Capital Projects

ProjectNo.

Agency ID / Fund No.

Project Description Project TypeRegional (R) / Subregional

Total Project Cost Costs Prior to

FY 2003 FY 2003

CostsFY 2004Costs

FY 2005Costs

FY 2006Costs

FY 2007Costs

Costs After FY 2007

1919 675040 Poway Emergency Treated Water Connection Upgrade S 120,000 120,000 - - - - - -

1920 675040 Old Coach Water Line Project New S 44,350 44,350 - - - - - -

1921 675040 Greystone Water Transmission Line Upgrade S 28,000 28,000 - - - - - - 1922 675040 High Valley Water Main Replacement Upgrade S 900,000 900,000 - - - - - - 1923 675040 Skyridge Reservoir - .7 Million Gallons New S 618,760 618,760 - - - - - -

1924 675040Pomerado Reservoir Interior Coating Rehabilitation

Upgrade S 125,440 125,440 - - - - - -

1925 675040Green Valley Water Transmissio Line Replacement

Upgrade S 223,440 223,440 - - - - - -

1926 675040Celestial Reservoir Interior Coating Rehabilitation

Upgrade S 116,445 116,445 - - - - - -

1927 675018Alvarado Water Treatment Plant - Earl Thomas Reservoir

Upgrade S 31,663,347 781,971 6,867,042 16,351,286 7,579,698 83,350 - -

1928 675018Alvarado Water Treatment Plant - Upgrade and Expansion - Phase II

Mandated S 81,549,874 12,299,673 3,358,359 8,295,202 11,306,483 15,887,074 12,312,020 18,091,063

1929 675018 Annual Allocation - CIP Contingencies Misc. S - - - - - - - - 1930 675018 Annual Allocation - Corrosion Control Upgrade S 700,000 - 100,000 - - - - 600,000

1931 675018 Annual Allocation - Dams and Reservoirs Upgrade S 3,465,146 - 2,955 - - - - 3,462,191

1932 675018Annual Allocation - Pressure Reduction Facility Upgrades

Upgrade S 2,518,564 - 918,564 950,000 650,000 - - -

1933 675018 Annual Allocation - Seismic Upgrades Upgrade S 6,955,043 - - - - - - 6,955,043

1934 675018Annual Allocation - Standpipe and Reservoir Rehabilitation

Mandated S 24,995,336 - 1,744,643 1,078,658 28,084 - - 22,143,951

1935 675018Annual Allocation - System Optimization and Pressure Improvements

Technology S 1,519,800 - - - - - - 1,519,800

1936 675018 Annual Allocation - Various Lakes and Docks Upgrade S 3,223,000 - 3,223,000 - - - - -

1937 675018Annual Allocation - Water Main Replacements

Upgrade S - - - - - - - -

1938 675018Annual Allocation - Water Meter & Vault Replacements

Upgrade S - - - - - - - -

1939 675018Annual Allocation - Water Pump Station Rehabilitation

Upgrade S - - - - - - - -

1940 675018 Barrett Flume Cover New S 2,549,999 - - - - 292,508 37,953 2,219,538 1941 675018 Barrett Reservoir Outlet Tower Upgrade Upgrade S 4,524,871 430,262 87,490 - - - 24,833 3,982,286 1942 675018 Black Mountain Reservoir New S 18,823,816 17,994,239 829,577 - - - - - 1943 675018 Black Mountain Road Pipeline New S 21,373,622 17,012,896 4,294,403 66,323 - - - - 1944 675018 Bonita Pipeline - Phase II Upgrade S 2,118,315 1,994,710 89,077 34,528 - - - - 1945 675018 CIP Program Management Technology S 46,778,493 23,090,883 5,590,821 6,178,140 3,758,649 4,080,000 4,080,000 - 1946 675018 Del Mar Heights Pipeline Rehabilitation Upgrade S 2,550,003 - - - - - 291,767 2,258,236

1947 675018 El Capitan Dam - Piezometers Replacement New R 211,675 204,675 7,000 - - - - -

1948 675018 El Capitan Parallel Pipeline New R 1,586,685 - - - - - - 1,586,685 1949 675018 El Capitan Reservoir - Road Improvements Upgrade R 2,802,389 410,389 - - - - - 2,392,000 1950 675018 El Monte Pipeline No.2 New S 58,424,151 - - - - - - 58,424,151

129

Exhibit 9Water Capital Projects

ProjectNo.

Agency ID / Fund No.

Project Description Project TypeRegional (R) / Subregional

Total Project Cost Costs Prior to

FY 2003 FY 2003

CostsFY 2004Costs

FY 2005Costs

FY 2006Costs

FY 2007Costs

Costs After FY 2007

1951 675018Flow Meters - Pump Stations and Pressure Reduction Stations with SCADA

New S 2,550,006 - - - - 12,306 292,064 2,245,636

1952 675018 Flow Meters - Raw Water Pipelines Upgrade S 1,019,139 - - - - - - 1,019,139 1953 675018 Genetic Algorithim Pipeline Replacement Upgrade S 42,620,686 - - - - - - 42,620,686

1954 675018 Groundwater Asset Development Program Technology S 30,266,000 8,266,000 - - - - - 22,000,000

1955 675018 Harbor Drive Pipeline Upgrade S 4,586,118 - - - - - - 4,586,118 1956 675018 Kearny Mesa Pipeline Upgrade Upgrade S 17,973,392 - - - - - - 17,973,392

1957 675018Lower Otay Reservoir - Emergency Outlet Improvements

Upgrade R 3,412,003 524,371 31,533 - - - - 2,856,099

1958 675018 Miramar Pipeline Improvements - Phase III Upgrade R 15,331,828 107,307 2,895 165,403 985,068 226,189 6,317,584 7,527,382 1959 675018 Miramar Pipeline Improvements - Phase IV Upgrade R 15,299,962 1,733 - - 144,980 1,233,856 866,129 13,053,264 1960 675018 Miramar Road Pipeline New R 12,038,368 11,867,568 170,800 - - - - -

1961 675018Miramar Water Treatment Plant - Upgrade and Expansion

Mandated R 155,860,611 13,307,303 15,776,695 33,100,239 31,394,196 21,484,464 29,753,803 11,043,911

1962 675018 Morena Reservoir Outlet Tower Upgrade Upgrade S 2,879,048 470,324 35,849 - - - 13,349 2,359,526 1963 675018 Murray Outlet Tower Upgrade S 1,081,976 - - - - - - 1,081,976 1964 675018 North City Pipeline Improvements Upgrade S 49,801,511 - 203,999 127,504 - - 5,100,000 44,370,008 1965 675018 Otay Second Pipeline Improvements Upgrade R 22,790,832 2,427,570 1,905,309 1,117,246 7,659,189 8,701,523 767,533 212,462

1966 675018Otay Water Treatment Plant - Mass Grading and Clearwell Storage

New S 16,061,287 2,689,381 904,255 12,315,724 127,871 24,056 - -

1967 675018Otay Water Treatment Plant - Raw Water Pump Operational Conversion

Upgrade S 444,207 124,972 30,172 286,743 2,320 - - -

1968 675018Otay Water Treatment Plant -Upgrade -PhaseII

Mandated S 28,437,552 3,932,383 499,646 3,793,275 9,499,466 1,644,489 8,890,725 177,568

1969 675018 Outlet Tower Silt Removal and Management Upgrade S 17,911,100 - - - - - - 17,911,100

1970 675018 Parkland Pump Station Upgrade S 2,647,548 432,108 - - - - - 2,215,440 1971 675018 Pomerado Pipeline Number 2 Misc. S 7,864,975 24,262 - - - - - 7,840,713 1972 675018 Rancho Bernardo Pump Station Number 2 New S 3,622,630 6,731 5,908 504,231 3,089,201 12,735 3,824 - 1973 675018 Rancho Bernardo Reservoir Rehabilitation Upgrade S 8,120,561 50,738 885,815 62,537 5,272,916 85,316 1,746,704 16,535 1974 675018 Reservoir Water Quality Systems Upgrade R 4,213,382 576,312 - 1,923,917 25,403 - - 1,687,750

1975 675018San Diego 17 Flow Control Facility and Pump Station

New R 9,222,089 1,060,562 - - - - - 8,161,527

1976 675018 Serra Mesa Pump Station New S 5,612,865 683,036 - - - - - 4,929,829 1977 675018 South San Diego Pipeline Number 2 New S 34,927,189 30,538,537 4,197,300 191,352 - - - -

1978 675018 Telemetry Control Systems - SCADA- Phase II Technology S 12,506,651 8,913,589 3,593,062 - - - - -

1979 675018 Tierrasanta Norte Water Pump Station New S 1,069,020 666 - - - - 1,068,354 -

1980 675018Torrey Pines Road/La Jolla Boulevard Water Main Replacement

Upgrade S 12,027,961 4,267,200 1,037,516 1,600,078 4,999,407 98,499 13,639 11,622

1981 675018 Waring Road Pump Station - Upgrade Upgrade S 4,455,783 4,079,000 353,743 23,040 - - - -

1982 675018 Water Department Central Facility New S 61,918,257 22,148,597 - - - - - 39,769,660

1983 675018Annual Allocation - CIP Contingencies - Reclaimed Water Distribution System/RWDS

Misc. S 2,637,166 - 190,022 161,910 63,750 70,430 201,087 1,949,967

130

Exhibit 9Water Capital Projects

ProjectNo.

Agency ID / Fund No.

Project Description Project TypeRegional (R) / Subregional

Total Project Cost Costs Prior to

FY 2003 FY 2003

CostsFY 2004Costs

FY 2005Costs

FY 2006Costs

FY 2007Costs

Costs After FY 2007

1984 675018Annual Allocation - Reclaimed Water Extension

New S 751,684 - 672,988 78,696 - - - -

1985 675018 North City Reclamation System New R 48,820,848 16,818,392 9,404,107 2,138,152 218,770 1,952,579 1,760,632 16,528,216

1986 675018 San Pasqual Water Reclamation System Technology S 12,386,099 733,930 886,000 - - - - 10,766,169 1987 675018 South Bay Reclaimed Water Pipeline Misc. S 6,536,979 1,229,264 600,000 - - - - 4,707,715

1988 CWA Additional Aqueduct Right-of-Way Width New R 1,850,000 1,668,191 181,809 - - - - -

1989 CWA Aqueduct Alignment Corrections Upgrade R 355,000 228,429 26,571 100,000 - - - -

1990 CWA Aqueduct Security and Surveillance New R 725,000 - 615,500 109,500 - - - -

1991 CWA Aqueduct Protection Program Technology R 10,974,800 7,387,057 1,837,332 1,100,000 650,411 - - -

1992 CWA Bradley Park Relocation Pipelines 3 & 4 Mandated R 12,318,600 548,077 660,000 3,560,000 7,534,500 16,023 - - 1993 CWA Building Additions and Improvements Upgrade R 635,000 - 340,000 295,000 - - - -

1994 CWADiversion Structure Security Improvements and Satellite Facility

Upgrade R 3,870,000 - 870,000 3,000,000 - - - -

1995 CWA Escondido Maintenance Warehouse New R 800,000 720,000 80,000 - - - - -

1996 CWAESP - Diversion Structure Modifications(Phase I)

New R 1,530,242 1,515,242 15,000 - - - - -

1997 CWAESP - Planning and Support Services(Phase I, II, III, and IV)

Technology R 90,540,915 47,612,341 9,241,720 7,548,082 5,790,794 3,023,629 3,083,179 14,241,170

1998 CWAESP - Lake Hodges to Olivenhain Pipeline (Phase III)

New R 24,729,426 3,214,249 3,150,411 1,285,937 1,263,201 4,288,404 7,972,040 3,555,184

1999 CWAESP - Modifications to Valley Center Pump Station (Phase I)

Upgrade R 1,913,718 1,898,718 15,000 - - - - -

2000 CWAESP - Lake Hodges Pump Station / Inlet-Outlet (Phase III)

New R 41,653,794 142,225 300,000 1,130,261 1,784,073 11,372,425 18,884,152 8,040,658

2001 CWA ESP - Olivenhain Dam and Reservoir (Phase I) New R 202,259,084 114,367,734 72,670,000 13,600,000 1,404,084 95,000 92,266 30,000

2002 CWAESP - Olivenhain Pipelines and Interconnect (Phase I)

New R 33,000,000 32,583,946 141,054 275,000 - - - -

2003 CWA ESP - Olivenhain Pump Station (Phase I) New R 37,450,000 13,703,197 13,610,000 10,116,803 10,000 10,000 - -

2004 CWA ESP - Operations Center Upgrade (Phase II) Upgrade R 2,500,000 5,318 479,182 1,352,750 276,475 206,500 179,775 -

2005 CWAESP - Pump Station at Pipeline 3 and Interconnect (Phase III)

New R 6,500,000 - - 49,901 607,905 1,262,152 2,099,318 2,480,724

2006 CWA ESP - Pump Station at Pipeline 4 (Phase III) New R 4,666,701 - - 29,951 516,783 893,622 1,728,724 1,497,621

2007 CWA ESP - San Vicente Dam Raise (Phase IV) Upgrade R 96,000,000 - - 360,793 2,388,112 3,716,273 3,024,724 86,510,098

2008 CWAESP - San Vicente Pipeline and Aqueduct Interconnect (Phase II)

New R 199,233,001 4,058,671 7,758,918 21,219,844 52,630,131 52,630,131 60,727,027 208,279

2009 CWA ESP - San Vicente Pump Station (Phase II) New R 56,667,500 2,209,741 7,634,740 21,250,093 24,425,346 1,147,580 - -

131

Exhibit 9Water Capital Projects

ProjectNo.

Agency ID / Fund No.

Project Description Project TypeRegional (R) / Subregional

Total Project Cost Costs Prior to

FY 2003 FY 2003

CostsFY 2004Costs

FY 2005Costs

FY 2006Costs

FY 2007Costs

Costs After FY 2007

2010 CWAESP - San Vicente Recreation Facility (Phase IV)

Upgrade R 22,047,961 8 - - 56,569 698,598 1,055,821 20,236,965

2011 CWAESP - San Vicente/MLP Interconnect Pipeline (Phase I)

New R 4,234,800 537,992 10,854 2,607,452 995,140 83,362 - -

2012 CWA Fallbrook 3 / Rainbow 1 FCF Upgrade Upgrade R 1,359,000 378,139 - 130,000 840,000 10,861 - -

2013 CWAFallbrook 6 / DeLuz 1 FCF Throttling Valve Structures

Upgrade R 1,044,700 329,708 - 236,000 476,992 2,000 - -

2014 CWA FCF - Electrical/Mechanical Improvements Mandated R 661,500 - 157,500 126,000 126,000 126,000 126,000 -

2015 CWA Geographic Information Systems (GIS) Technology R 6,200,000 3,406,150 1,873,850 920,000 - - - -

2016 CWA Groundwater Storage and Recovery Project Technology R 3,890,000 2,210,086 1,679,914 - - - - -

2017 CWA Line Structure and Access Improvements Upgrade R 1,274,000 78,644 300,307 570,234 132,815 96,500 95,500 -

2018 CWA Miramar Pump Station Rehabilitation Upgrade R 1,690,000 98,248 - 157,002 653,255 781,495

2019 CWAMiramar Pump Station Valve and Meter Vaults

Upgrade R 872,200 522,192 - 350,008 - - -

2020 CWA Mitigation Program Green R 19,000,000 3,548,101 100,000 250,000 5,000,000 5,000,000 100,000 5,001,899

2021 CWA Moreno-Lakeside Pipeline New R 29,959,600 5,377,102 10,776,830 12,700,098 1,105,570 - - -

2022 CWA Moreno-Lakeside Pipeline and FCF New R 2,960,800 1,610,689 1,350,111 - - - - 2023 CWA Olivenhain 6 and 7 FCF New R 850,000 240,582 - 215,000 394,418 - - - 2024 CWA Olivenhain-Hodges Pumped Storage Upgrade R 28,500,000 - 475,000 2,139,000 2,139,000 7,825,000 11,203,200 4,718,800

2025 CWA Olivenhain 8 FCF New R 2,500,000 669,167 1,425,000 403,833 2,000 - - -

2026 CWA Pipeline 3 Transfer to City of San Diego Misc. R 265,000 17,508 - - 247,492 - - -

2027 CWA Pipeline 6 New R 121,900,000 3,128,302 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 118,696,698

2028 CWAPost-Construction Mitigation Monitoring Program

Technology R 1,206,100 154,538 46,000 32,544 29,881 20,575 16,000 906,562

2029 CWA Ramona Reservoir Bypass New R 400,000 55,891 - - 78,419 100,194 165,496 -

2030 CWARancho Penasquitos Pressure Control/Hydroelectric Facility

New R 21,992,142 8,004,439 12,435,620 1,552,083 - - - -

2031 CWARegional Colorado River Conveyance Feasibility Study

Technology R 5,330,631 4,372,255 737,944 220,432 - - - -

2032 CWA Regional Water Facilities Master Plan Technology R 4,250,000 2,451,879 1,164,986 633,135 - - - - 2033 CWA Replacement/Relining of PCCP Upgrade R 78,770,000 13,419,643 16,164,528 9,886,632 17,814,681 12,235,633 9,248,883 - 2034 CWA San Diego 17 Pump Station New R 100,000 38,384 - 30,000 31,616 - - - 2035 CWA San Diego 18 / 21 FCF New R 2,150,427 2,128,133 22,294 - - - -

132

Exhibit 9Water Capital Projects

ProjectNo.

Agency ID / Fund No.

Project Description Project TypeRegional (R) / Subregional

Total Project Cost Costs Prior to

FY 2003 FY 2003

CostsFY 2004Costs

FY 2005Costs

FY 2006Costs

FY 2007Costs

Costs After FY 2007

2036 CWA SR 125 Second Aqueduct Relocation Upgrade R 200,000 12,456 - 44,757 53,126 89,661 - -

2037 CWA System Modifications Upgrade R 10,260,000 6,424,364 300,029 362,000 382,000 382,000 382,000 2,027,607 2038 CWA Terminal Structure Modifications Upgrade R 1,050,000 154,695 - 139,000 756,305 - - -

2039 CWA Tri-Agencies Pipeline Turnout Replacement Mandated R 870,000 64,975 85,000 720,025 - - - -

2040 CWA Vallecitos 9 FCF New R 2,083,800 530,282 140,000 1,411,518 2,000 - - -

2041 CWA Vallecitos 10 FCF Upgrade R 376,800 76,765 300,035 - - - - -

2042 CWAValve and Venturi Meter Replacement Program

Upgrade R 3,008,500 - 962,000 640,500 561,750 326,550 281,400 236,300

466109 675018 6300 ALVARADO CT - ACC Upgrade S 238,000 - - - 238,000 - - - 709533 675018 FAY AVE REALIGNMENT W Upgrade S 691,200 - 691,200 - - - - - 730801 675018 GJ 796 S & W Upgrade S 355,400 - - - - - - 355,400 730802 675018 LINDA VISTA PGJ 106 W Upgrade S 1,450,000 - - - - - - 1,450,000 730803 675018 GJ 792 S & W Upgrade S 990,700 - - - - - - 990,700 730804 675018 GJ 807 W Upgrade S 1,289,000 - - - - - - 1,289,000 730805 675018 MANNING CANYON Upgrade S 750,900 - - - - - - 750,900 730806 675018 GJ 785 CANYON S & W Upgrade S 225,700 - - - - - - 225,700 730830 675018 GJ 803 S & W Upgrade S 1,735,000 - - - - - - 1,735,000 731951 675018 BONITA PIPELINE - ABANDONMENT Upgrade S 1,284,000 - - - - - - 1,284,000 732931 675018 I-15/40TH WATER RELOC. PH2 W Upgrade S 1,020,000 - 1,020,000 - - - - - 733094 675018 CHESTERTON STANDPIPE Upgrade S 535,000 535,000 - - - - - - 733098 675018 LOMITA VILLAGE STANDPIPE Upgrade S 564,200 564,200 - - - - - - 738343 675018 GJ 464A W & S Upgrade S 1,159,000 - 1,159,000 - - - - - 738361 675018 GJ 601 S & W Upgrade S 393,400 393,400 - - - - - - 738362 675018 GJ 490 W Upgrade S 913,900 913,900 - - - - - - 738365 675018 GJ 487 W & S Upgrade S 2,495,000 2,495,000 - - - - - - 738368 675018 GJ 486 W & S Upgrade S 1,444,000 1,444,000 - - - - - - 738370 675018 GJ 079 S & W Upgrade S 880,500 - - 880,500 - - - - 738371 675018 GJ 076 S & W Upgrade S 206,600 206,600 - - - - - - 738378 675018 GJ 090 S & W Upgrade S 592,400 - - 592,400 - - - - 738387 675018 GJ 500 W Upgrade S 1,444,000 1,444,000 - - - - - - 738388 675018 GJ 494 W & S Upgrade S 1,003,000 - - 1,003,000 - - - - 738390 675018 GJ 496 W Upgrade S 968,000 968,000 - - - - - - 738392 675018 GJ 501 W Upgrade S 2,427,000 - - - 2,427,000 - - - 738396 675018 GJ 606 W Upgrade S 1,145,000 1,145,000 - - - - - - 738399 675018 GJ 505 W & S Upgrade S 1,015,000 1,015,000 - - - - - - 738401 675018 GJ 605 S & W Upgrade S 558,400 - 558,400 - - - - - 738403 675018 GJ 517 W & S Upgrade S 1,435,000 1,435,000 - - - - - - 738405 675018 GJ 516 W & S Upgrade S 2,448,000 - - 2,448,000 - - - - 738409 675018 GJ 514 W & S Upgrade S 2,301,000 2,301,000 - - - - - - 738415 675018 GJ 515 W & S Upgrade S 1,340,000 1,340,000 - - - - - - 738421 675018 GJ 522 W Upgrade S - - - - - - - - 738423 675018 GJ 616 W Upgrade S 79,990 - - - - - - 79,990 738425 675018 GJ 527 W Upgrade S 1,755,000 1,755,000 - - - - - -

133

Exhibit 9Water Capital Projects

ProjectNo.

Agency ID / Fund No.

Project Description Project TypeRegional (R) / Subregional

Total Project Cost Costs Prior to

FY 2003 FY 2003

CostsFY 2004Costs

FY 2005Costs

FY 2006Costs

FY 2007Costs

Costs After FY 2007

738426 675018 GJ 639 S & W Upgrade S 434,600 - 434,600 - - - - - 738427 675018 GJ 620 S & W Upgrade S 1,226,000 - 1,226,000 - - - - - 738429 675018 GJ 615 W Upgrade S 1,266,000 - 1,266,000 - - - - - 738431 675018 GJ 489 W & S Upgrade S 1,004,000 - - 1,004,000 - - - - 738436 675018 GJ 521 W & S Upgrade S 2,796,000 - - - - - - 2,796,000 738442 675018 EL CAPITAN P/L-UNIV HTS SEC-TRES 11 Upgrade S 396,600 396,600 - - - - - - 738443 675018 GJ 519 W Upgrade S 2,750,000 - - - 2,750,000 - - - 738444 675018 GJ 520 W & S Upgrade S - - - - - - - - 738451 675018 GJ 529 W Upgrade S 2,491,000 2,491,000 - - - - - - 738452 675018 GJ 532 W Upgrade S 3,999,000 - - - - - - 3,999,000 738455 675018 GJ 533 W Upgrade S 2,366,000 - - - - - - 2,366,000 738458 675018 GJ 527A W Upgrade S 1,477,000 - 1,477,000 - - - - - 738461 675018 GJ 523 W Upgrade S 1,089,000 1,089,000 - - - - - - 738462 675018 GJ 640 W Upgrade S 194,900 - - - - - - 194,900 738464 675018 GJ 656 W Upgrade S 2,103,000 - - - 2,103,000 - - - 738470 675018 GJ 530 W Upgrade S 1,176,000 - - - - - - 1,176,000 738471 675018 GJ 530A W Upgrade S 1,388,000 - 1,388,000 - - - - - 738473 675018 HARBOR ISLAND WATER IMPROVEMENTS Upgrade S 1,811,000 - - - - - - 1,811,000 738475 675018 GJ 638 W Upgrade S 399,200 - 399,200 - - - - - 738476 675018 ACC-S PS 22 & W REHAB Upgrade S 51,960 51,960 - - - - - - 738478 675018 GJ 637 S & W Upgrade S 519,800 - - 519,800 - - - - 738479 675018 GJ 648 S & W Upgrade S 1,143,000 - - - - - 1,143,000 - 738481 675018 GJ 650 S & W Upgrade S 2,379,000 - - - - - - 2,379,000 738482 675018 GJ 651 W Upgrade S 115,400 - - - - - - 115,400 738484 675018 EL CAPITIAN P/L TRESTLE 12 W Upgrade S 508,900 - - 508,900 - - - - 738487 675018 GJ 658 W Upgrade S 188,700 - 188,700 - - - - - 738489 675018 GJ 661A S & W Upgrade S 333,500 333,500 - - - - - - 738490 675018 GJ 662 S & W Upgrade S 354,500 - - 354,500 - - - - 738491 675018 GJ 663 S & W Upgrade S 504,600 - - 504,600 - - - - 738497 675018 GJ 489A W Upgrade S 450,900 - 450,900 - - - - - 738498 675018 GJ 490A W Upgrade S 748,700 - 748,700 - - - - - 738499 675018 GJ 668 S & W Upgrade S 518,600 - - - - - - 518,600 738500 675018 GJ 667 W Upgrade S 755,800 - - - 755,800 - - - 738501 675018 GJ 669 S & W Upgrade S 454,400 - - 454,400 - - - - 738502 675018 GJ 666 S & W Upgrade S 748,800 - - - 748,800 - - - 738503 675018 GJ 670 S & W Upgrade S 1,251,000 - - - - 1,251,000 - - 738504 675018 GJ 660 S & W Upgrade S 301,500 - - 301,500 - - - - 738505 675018 GJ 473 W Upgrade S 1,871,000 - 1,871,000 - - - - - 738506 675018 GJ 673 S & W Upgrade S 1,593,000 - - 1,593,000 - - - - 738507 675018 GJ 674 S & W Upgrade S 469,400 - 469,400 - - - - - 738508 675018 GJ 671 S & W Upgrade S 477,200 - 477,200 - - - - - 738513 675018 GJ 675 S & W Upgrade S 2,062,000 - - - - 2,062,000 - - 738514 675018 GJ 679 W Upgrade S 571,300 - - - - - - 571,300 738515 675018 GJ 676 S & W Upgrade S 1,272,000 - - - - - - 1,272,000 738517 675018 GJ 682 S & W Upgrade S 1,497,000 - - - - - - 1,497,000 738519 675018 SUNCREST DR WATER Upgrade S 133,600 133,600 - - - - - -

134

Exhibit 9Water Capital Projects

ProjectNo.

Agency ID / Fund No.

Project Description Project TypeRegional (R) / Subregional

Total Project Cost Costs Prior to

FY 2003 FY 2003

CostsFY 2004Costs

FY 2005Costs

FY 2006Costs

FY 2007Costs

Costs After FY 2007

738520 675018 ARROYO SORRENTO ROAD W Upgrade S 992,400 - 992,400 - - - - - 738521 675018 GJ 535 W Upgrade S 3,114,000 - - 1,557,000 1,557,000 - - - 738522 675018 GJ 536 W & S Upgrade S 1,674,000 - - - - - - 1,674,000 738523 675018 GJ 537 W Upgrade S 2,260,000 - - - 2,260,000 - - - 738524 675018 GJ 538 W Upgrade S 1,700,000 - - - - - - - 738525 675018 GJ 539 W Upgrade S 3,214,000 - - 1,607,000 1,607,000 - - - 738526 675018 GJ 686 S & W Upgrade S 738,500 - - - 738,500 - - - 738527 675018 GJ 525D W Upgrade S 2,739,000 - - - - - 2,739,000 - 738528 675018 GJ 684A S & W Upgrade S 675,400 - - - - - 675,400 - 738529 675018 GJ 525A W Upgrade S 2,071,000 - - 2,071,000 - - - - 738530 675018 GJ 525B W Upgrade S 1,446,000 - - - - - - 1,446,000 738531 675018 GJ 525C W Upgrade S 1,500,000 - - - - - - 1,500,000 738532 675018 GJ 683 S & W Upgrade S 622,600 - - - - 622,600 - - 738533 675018 GJ 688 S & W Upgrade S 1,198,000 - - - 1,198,000 - - - 738534 675018 GJ 690 S & W Upgrade S 480,300 - - - 480,300 - - - 738535 675018 GJ 464B W Upgrade S 1,205,000 - - - - - - 1,205,000 738536 675018 GJ 464C W & S Upgrade S 1,145,000 - - - - 1,145,000 - - 738537 675018 GJ 694 S & W Upgrade S 310,300 - - - - - 310,300 - 738538 675018 GJ 691 W Upgrade S 105,100 - - - - - 105,100 - 738539 675018 GJ 693 S & W Upgrade S 298,100 - - - - - 298,100 - 738540 675018 GJ 695 S & W Upgrade S 505,900 - - - - - - 505,900 738542 675018 GJ 702 W Upgrade S 1,165,000 - - - 1,165,000 - - - 738544 675018 GJ 704 S & W Upgrade S 1,497,000 - - - - 1,497,000 - - 738545 675018 GJ 705 S & W Upgrade S 961,400 - - - - - 961,400 - 738546 675018 GJ 699 S & W Upgrade S 134,800 - - - 134,800 - - - 738547 675018 GJ 701 W Upgrade S 112,200 - - - - - - 112,200 738550 675018 GJ 703A S & W Upgrade S 1,180,000 - - - - - - 1,180,000 738551 675018 GJ 540A W Upgrade S 1,986,000 - - - - - - 1,986,000 738552 675018 GJ 541 W Upgrade S 3,415,000 - - - - - - 3,415,000 738553 675018 GJ 716 W Upgrade S - - - - - - - - 738555 675018 NORTH ENCANTO WATER MAIN IMPROVEMEN Upgrade S 1,473,000 - - - 1,473,000 - - - 738558 675018 GJ 711 W Upgrade S 907,800 - - - - 907,800 - - 738560 675018 GJ 717 W Upgrade S 919,100 - - - - - - 919,100 738561 675018 GJ 720 S & W Upgrade S 830,000 - - - - - - 830,000 738563 675018 EUCLID AVE WATER Upgrade S 179,700 179,700 - - - - - - 738564 675018 DOWNTOWN W IMPROV-PH I Upgrade S 1,102,000 1,102,000 - - - - - - 738565 675018 GJ 544 W & S Upgrade S 2,314,000 - - - - - - 2,314,000 738566 675018 GJ 545 W & S Upgrade S 1,470,000 - - - - 1,470,000 - - 738567 675018 GJ 546 W Upgrade S 2,235,000 - - - - - - 2,235,000 738574 675018 GJ 725 W Upgrade S 349,500 - - - - - - 349,500 738577 675018 GJ 550 W Upgrade S 1,419,000 - - - - - - 1,419,000 738578 675018 GJ 549 W Upgrade S 1,300,000 - - - - - - 1,300,000 738579 675018 GJ 723 S & W Upgrade S 407,000 - - - - - 407,000 - 738581 675018 GJ 661B S & W Upgrade S 356,400 - 356,400 - - - - - 738583 675018 GJ 697 S & W Upgrade S 57,290 - - - 57,290 - - - 738585 675018 GJ 553 W & S Upgrade S 1,700,000 - - - - - - 1,700,000

135

Exhibit 9Water Capital Projects

ProjectNo.

Agency ID / Fund No.

Project Description Project TypeRegional (R) / Subregional

Total Project Cost Costs Prior to

FY 2003 FY 2003

CostsFY 2004Costs

FY 2005Costs

FY 2006Costs

FY 2007Costs

Costs After FY 2007

738586 675018 GJ 605A W Upgrade S 86,140 - - 86,140 - - - - 738587 675018 GJ 644 S & W Upgrade S 250,000 - - - - - 250,000 - 738588 675018 GJ 554 W Upgrade S 2,150,000 - - - - - - 2,150,000 738590 675018 GJ 726 W Upgrade S 1,146,000 - - - - 1,146,000 - - 738591 675018 GJ 727 W Upgrade S 1,141,000 - - - - 1,141,000 - - 738592 675018 GJ 728 W Upgrade S 210,100 - - - - - 210,100 - 738593 675018 GJ 729 W Upgrade S 352,200 - - - - - - 352,200 738594 675018 GJ 730 S & W Upgrade S 315,000 - - - - - - 315,000 738595 675018 GJ 731 S & W Upgrade S 953,600 - - - - - 953,600 - 738596 675018 GJ 732 S & W Upgrade S 611,200 - - - - - 611,200 - 738597 675018 GJ 733 S & W Upgrade S 885,600 - - - - 885,600 - - 738598 675018 GJ 677 S & W Upgrade S 125,500 - - 125,500 - - - - 738599 675018 JAMACHA RD WATER REPLACEMENT Upgrade S 860,300 - - - 860,300 - - - 738602 675018 E LINDA VISTA TS PH 2 & W Upgrade S 286,800 - - - - - - 286,800 738603 675018 KNOXVILLE/BIANCA AVE Upgrade S 651,300 - - 651,300 - - - - 738605 675018 GJ 735 W Upgrade S 593,500 - - - - - - 593,500 738612 675018 GJ 687 W Upgrade S 82,380 - - - - - - 82,380 738614 675018 GJ 740 S & W Upgrade S 248,000 - - - - - 248,000 - 738615 675018 GJ 741 S & W Upgrade S 399,800 - - - - - 399,800 - 738616 675018 GJ 665 W Upgrade S - - - - - - - - 738617 675018 GJ 742B W Upgrade S 32,760 - - - - - - 32,760 738618 675018 GJ 743A W Upgrade S 36,260 - - - - - - 36,260 738619 675018 GJ 744A W Upgrade S 16,010 - - - - - - 16,010 738621 675018 GJ 746A W Upgrade S 24,910 - - - - - - 24,910 738622 675018 GJ 747 S & W Upgrade S 1,002,000 - - - - - 1,002,000 - 738623 675018 GJ 748A W Upgrade S 37,670 - - - - - - 37,670 738624 675018 GJ 749A W Upgrade S 52,280 - - - - - - 52,280 738625 675018 GJ 751 W Upgrade S 82,380 - - - - - - 82,380 738627 675018 GJ 753 S & W Upgrade S 659,500 - - - - - - 659,500 738628 675018 GJ 754 S & W Upgrade S 131,900 - - - - - - 131,900 738629 675018 GJ 718A W Upgrade S 1,129,000 - - - - - - 1,129,000 738630 675018 GJ 756 S & W Upgrade S 138,800 - - - - - - 138,800 738631 675018 GJ 758 S & W Upgrade S 98,430 - - - - - - 98,430 738633 675018 GJ 759 S & W Upgrade S 349,000 - - - - - 349,000 - 738634 675018 GJ 760 S & W Upgrade S 455,600 - - - - - 455,600 - 738635 675018 GJ 764 S & W Upgrade S 1,141,000 - - - - - - 1,141,000 738636 675018 GJ 765 S & W Upgrade S 1,080,000 - - - - - - 1,080,000 738637 675018 GJ 766 S & W Upgrade S 54,280 - - - - - - 54,280 738638 675018 GJ 761 S & W Upgrade S 546,900 - - - - - - 546,900 738639 675018 GJ 763 S & W Upgrade S 1,294,000 - - - - - - 1,294,000 738640 675018 GJ 685 S & W Upgrade S 596,600 - - - - - - 596,600 738641 675018 GJ 707 W Upgrade S 232,400 - - - - - - 232,400 738642 675018 GJ 768 S & W Upgrade S 601,900 - - - - - - 601,900 738643 675018 GJ 689 S & W Upgrade S 556,800 - - - - - - 556,800 738644 675018 GJ 764A S & W Upgrade S 817,300 - - - - - - 817,300 738645 675018 GJ 773 S & W Upgrade S 802,000 - - - - - - 802,000

136

Exhibit 9Water Capital Projects

ProjectNo.

Agency ID / Fund No.

Project Description Project TypeRegional (R) / Subregional

Total Project Cost Costs Prior to

FY 2003 FY 2003

CostsFY 2004Costs

FY 2005Costs

FY 2006Costs

FY 2007Costs

Costs After FY 2007

738646 675018 GJ 789 S & W Upgrade S 133,700 - - - 133,700 - - - 738648 675018 GJ 772 S & W Upgrade S 172,800 - - - - - - 172,800 738650 675018 GJ 785 S & W Upgrade S 958,200 - - - - - - 958,200 738655 675018 GJ 780 S & W Upgrade S 337,100 - - - - - - 337,100 738656 675018 GJ 781 S & W Upgrade S 663,100 - - - - - - 663,100 738657 675018 GJ 782 S & W Upgrade S 601,700 - - - - - - 601,700

TOTAL 3,026,254,969$ 670,313,581$ 453,421,342$ 321,063,439$ 310,585,550$ 242,160,456$ 227,449,588$ 772,014,652$

Source: Water agencies in San Diego County, FY 2002-03 Budgets and Capital Improvement Programs.Note: See Exhibit 2 for list of water agencies. See Exhibit 8 for summary of CIP expenditures by project type.

137

138

Exhibit 10 Regional Population Outpaces Growth in Water Demand

Projected Growth, 2003-2030

Population Increase, 30%

Increase in Water

Demand, 26%

Base Year 2003

-50%

0%

50%

2000 2010 2020 2030

Sources: SANDAG, 2030 Final Forecast; San Diego County Water Authority, Regional Water Facilities Master Plan (2003)

Note: Population in 2003 was 2,961,600; projected population in 2030 is 3,855,085. Water demand in 2002 was 686,529 ac-ft per year; projected water demand in 2030 is 872,400 ac-ft per year. Base year 2003 is assumed for population and water demand. 2003 numbers were linearly extrapolated from 2000 numbers.

IRIS TECHNICAL APPENDIX [A.3] WASTEWATER (SEWAGE COLLECTION,

TREATMENT AND DISCHARGE SYSTEM)

141

IRIS TECHNICAL APPENDIX [A.3] WASTEWATER (SEWAGE COLLECTION, TREATMENT AND DISCHARGE SYSTEM)

I. Introduction / Description of Infrastructure System

The sewage collection, treatment and discharge system (wastewater system) in the San Diego region consists of approximately 7000 miles of sewer main lines, twenty-four wastewater treatment/reclamation facilities, four ocean outfalls (South Bay, Point Loma, Encina, and Oceanside), and numerous pump stations. Furthermore, there are approximately eight wastewater treatment plants within the Camp Pendleton boundaries which are not available to the general public.

Investment in wastewater infrastructure supports the implementation of the Regional Comprehensive Plan (RCP) in two ways: (1) regional treatment capacity and (2) the collection and discharge of wastewater from homes and businesses in a local community. Regional infrastructure focuses on the overall capacity to service regional wastewater needs. The City of San Diego’s Point Loma Wastewater Treatment Plant, Encina Wastewater Authority’s Water Pollution Control Facility, and, with the exception of Oceanside, three out of the four ocean outfalls are examples of regional infrastructure. Sub-regional infrastructure focuses on service provision and collection. A sub-regional facility services or is used by a specific area, representing a small portion of the San Diego region. Wastewater pipelines that collect wastewater from homes and businesses, as well as various pump stations are examples of sub-regional wastewater infrastructure.1

In 2000, the wastewater treatment facilities in the San Diego region had primary treatment plant capacity of approximately 364 million gallons of wastewater per day (MGD), secondary treatment plant capacity of 124 MGD, and tertiary treatment plant capacity of 44 million MGD. Approximately 66 percent of the primary treatment capacity came from the City of San Diego’s Point Loma Treatment Plant, which has a capacity of 240 MGD for advanced primary treatment. The next largest facility in terms of capacity is the Encina Water Pollution Control Facility, which has a secondary treatment plant capacity of 36 MGD (see Exhibit 3).2

1 The City of Oceanside’s two wastewater treatment plants (San Luis Rey and La Salina) and the ocean outfall are considered sub-regional infrastructures because they treat the City of Oceanside, Rainbow Municipal Water District, and the City of Vista’s wastewater only.

2 Primary treatment involves screening the solids from the water and allowing a proportion of the suspended solids and organic matter to settle from the wastewater. Secondary treatment takes primary treated effluent and with the aid of biological processes breaks down a further proportion of the dissolved or suspended organic matter to a form that reduces its environmental impact if discharged. Disinfection by means of chlorination, ozonisation or UV radiation, is also often included to be part of the secondary treatment step. In tertiary treatment, the secondary treated effluent is further processed using various techniques including flocculation, coagulation, clarification, filtration and disinfection. The main aim is to disinfect (pathogens) and reduce turbidity.

142

Currently, approximately 250 MGD of wastewater is treated in the San Diego region (see Exhibit 4). Most of the treatment/reclamation plants use a combination of primary, secondary and tertiary level treatment. One exception to this is the Point Loma Wastewater Treatment Plant, which has been granted a waiver to continue with its advanced primary treatment method until 2008. In 1990, approximately 60 out of 16,000 sanitation agencies across the nation held permits with waivers. Today about 36 such permits remain. Other treatment plants still operating under this waiver are located in San Luis Obispo, California; Goleta, California; Maine; Massachusetts; Hawaii; New Hampshire as well as several other coastal states.3

With the waiver, the San Diego region has sufficient regional capacity for wastewater collection, treatment and discharge.

II. Responsibilities and Controlling Legislation

Agencies

Most cities in the San Diego region, such as the cities of San Diego, Oceanside, and Escondido, have a wastewater department or division that operates and maintains a sanitary sewer collection system. Some cities treat their own wastewater, while others transport their wastewater to treatment plants in other cities. There are also sanitation districts, municipal water districts and community service districts that provide wastewater services to various areas in the San Diego region.

The operation of the wastewater system in the San Diego region varies between cities and districts. There are 42 wastewater agencies in the San Diego region. There are 14 city wastewater departments, ten water or municipal water districts, eight sanitation or sanitation maintenance districts, five community service districts, and four other districts (including Camp Pendleton), and one public utility district (see Exhibit 2).

The City of San Diego’s Metropolitan Wastewater Department (MWWD) provides regional wastewater collection, treatment and disposal services for approximately two million people (two thirds of the total regional population). Residents living and working in the 16 local cities and districts that comprise the MWWD service area generate approximately 180 MGD. MWWD operates 85 pump stations, two ocean outfalls, and four treatment plants. The Point Loma Wastewater Treatment Plant, managed by the Operations and Maintenance Division, receives transported wastewater and provides advanced primary treatment. The treated wastewater is then discharged to the ocean through the Point Loma Ocean Outfall, which extends 4.5 miles off the coast. The organic solids, or sludge, resulting from the treatment process are piped to the Metropolitan Biosolids Center adjacent to the Miramar Landfill where they undergo further processing. In addition, the North City Water Reclamation Plant treats sewage and produces water that is used for non-potable purposes, such as irrigation, thus supplementing the region’s scarce water supply. Only five percent of the wastewater treated by MWWD is used as reclaimed water, due to the lack of a sufficient distribution system and storage capabilities in the San Diego region. However, the City of San Diego’s Water Department is implementing a plan to significantly expand the reclaimed water distribution system. The South Bay Water Reclamation Plant, recently made operational, provides local wastewater treatment services, disposal services through the South Bay Ocean Outfall, and

3 “Current 301(h) Waiver Recipients AND 301(h) Applications Pending Final Decision,” Environmental Protection Agency.

143

reclaimed water to the South Bay. Additionally, on a contractual basis, the City of San Diego’s MWWD treats wastewater generated by other cities, such as the cities of Chula Vista, Coronado and Del Mar (see Exhibit 4).

The Encina Wastewater Authority provides regulatory and wastewater services to over 250,000 north San Diego residents and industrial users. The Authority serves the Cardiff Sanitation District, Buena Sanitation District, Carlsbad Municipal Water District, City of Encinitas, City of Vista, Leucadia County Water District, and Vallecitos Water District. Encina’s facility is designed to treat wastewater to the secondary level. Most of the treatment plant’s highly treated wastewater is discharged into the ocean outfall to a point 1.5 miles off shore. The Encina Wastewater Authority treats approximately 25 MGD of wastewater. The Authority also has a 1.16 MGD rotating biological contactor water reclamation facility.

The County of San Diego’s Department of Public Works (DPW) Wastewater Management Section serves the unincorporated areas of Alpine, Julian, Lakeside, Spring Valley, Pine Valley, Campo, East Otay Mesa, and the Winter Gardens area. All of these areas (except Julian, Pine Valley and Campo) transmit their wastewater to the City of San Diego metro system for treatment and disposal. Julian, Pine Valley and Campo utilize “on-site” treatment and disposal systems. DPW operates and maintains six wastewater treatment facilities. These facilities serve as collection and treatment for final processing systems and do not transmit flow to the City of San Diego.

The City of Oceanside’s Wastewater Department collects, treats and disposes of all of the city’s sewage at the San Luis Rey Wastewater Treatment Plant and La Salina Wastewater Treatment Plant. It also treats wastewater from Rainbow Municipal Water District and the City of Vista.

Legislation

Wastewater treatment facilities must meet the requirements and standards of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, commonly referred to as the Clean Water Act, and are monitored by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board, the California Coastal Commission (CCC), and the Air Pollution Control Board.

The Clean Water Act embodies a philosophy of federal-state partnership in which the federal government sets the agenda and standards for pollution abatement, while states carry out day-to-day activities of implementation and enforcement. More specifically, the State Water Resources Control Board and the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board review discharger monitoring reports, conduct facility inspections, and respond to complaints, in order to comply with state and federal water quality laws. Furthermore, the California Coastal Commission is responsible for regulating coastal development to protect, maintain, enhance, and restore the overall quality of the coastal zone environment and its natural and manmade resources.

The Clean Water Act has been termed a technology-forcing statute because of its rigorous demands to achieve high levels of pollution abatement. Both industrial dischargers and municipal wastewater treatment plants were required to achieve secondary treatment of municipal waste by mid-1977

144

(Congress later allowed for extensions to mid-1988).4 In 1977, Congress added amendments which authorized the EPA to grant waivers from secondary treatment in the case of coastal communities which discharge their treated wastewaters through outfalls into marine or ocean waters. Certain environmental safeguards must be assured before EPA can approve a waiver. The purpose of this ocean discharge waiver was the avoidance of treatment for treatment's sake, particularly given the multi-million dollar cost of the additional margin of wastewater treatment capability that would otherwise be required at many municipal facilities.

The City of San Diego received a waiver from the secondary treatment requirements of the Clean Water Act in November 1995. Through a combination of factors, including industrial source control, advanced primary treatment of wastewater, a deep ocean outfall and comprehensive monitoring, the EPA and the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board agreed that the Point Loma Wastewater Treatment Plant fully protects the ocean. In April 2002, the California Coastal Commission voted six to one to oppose San Diego’s application to continue with primary treatment. City officials appealed the commission’s ruling to the U.S. Secretary of Commerce, who has the power to arbitrate and possibly overturn the ruling. In September 2002, the California Coastal Commission reconsidered its previous action and approved San Diego’s bid to renew a five-year federal waiver. The commission voted eight to one in favor of the waiver, which will allow San Diego to continue with its advanced primary treatment method until 2008.

The Point Loma Treatment Plant is one of the few and largest of the nation’s 16,000 sewage processors in the nation that continue to provide advanced primary treatment.

III. Operations and Maintenance (FY 2003)

As shown in Exhibits 5 through 7, the San Diego region’s operation and maintenance revenue for wastewater is approximately $480 million for fiscal year 2002-2003. Of that amount, 83 percent accounts from charges for services; 12 percent accounts from other local funds; and five percent accounts from interests and rents.

As shown in Exhibits 5 through 7, the San Diego region’s operation and maintenance expenditure for wastewater is approximately $476 million for fiscal year 2002-2003.5 Sixty percent of this is attributed to the operations and maintenance expenditure of the City of San Diego, which has approximately a $285 million budget. Of the total regional expenditures, 80 percent accounts from operations and maintenance, which includes general and administrative, contracts and services, and other O&M; 17 percent accounts from debt service; and almost two percent accounts from non-district operations.

Funding is provided primarily by sewer service charges. Most residential sewer bills include a sewer base fee, which is a fixed amount collected to offset the fixed costs of running the wastewater division, and a sewer service charge, which is an individualized sewer rate based upon the average water consumption rate of each household during the winter months. Commercial sewer service charges are based on the flow and strength of wastewater produced by businesses.

4 Secondary treatment is defined in EPA regulations by numerical values for conventional water quality parameters (biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), suspended solids, pH, fecal coliform, residual chlorine) and is generally considered to reflect 85 percent removal of incoming wastes.

5 Agencies and districts included for this O&M figure are shown in Exhibit 2.

145

Sewer service charges may be collected through the tax roll, the property’s water bill, or by a manual bill for payment. Placing the sewer charge on the property tax bill is one method for collecting the revenues. For example, the City of Encinitas and the City of Vista collect the fees through the residents’ annual property tax bill. The charge is based on the two lowest bi-monthly water readings taken in the winter months (December through May). The charge for commercial customers is based on an entire year’s water usage (readings from May through April).

Another method for collecting revenues is monthly or bi-monthly billing. The City of San Diego and the City of La Mesa are examples of this type of collection respectively. The City of La Mesa uses a winter based sewer rate. The sewer usage charge is based on the average amount of water used during the winter months (November through March). The averages are calculated each July and the bi-monthly amount remains the same for an entire year. The winter water usage billing method is designed to more fairly distribute the costs of operating the sewer system. Studies show that the water consumed during the wettest months of the year (November through March) approximates annual sewer flows because landscape irrigation should be at a minimum. Therefore, most water consumed is returned to the sewer.

IV. Capital Improvement Programs

As shown in Exhibits 10 and 11, the San Diego region’s capital improvement plan expenditure for wastewater is approximately $1.1 billion for the next five years (FY03-FY07).6 This figure reflects information collected from cities and districts’ capital improvement plans, as well as information from SANGIS for some of the City of San Diego’s wastewater projects. The projects from SANGIS were merged into the capital projects database and duplicate projects were removed.

Cities and agencies’ wastewater capital improvement programs contain a wide range of projects, including: installing a new sewer trunk line (from the City of Carlsbad’s downtown portion to the Encina Water Pollution Control Facility), replacing deteriorated pipelines, increasing pipe diameters, initiating a televised assessment program (City of San Diego), increasing use of reclaimed water by constructing a recycled water facility (City of Carlsbad) and expanding treatment plant capacities (City of Oceanside’s San Luis Rey Wastewater Treatment Facility). Most of the proposed sewage treatment facility upgrades are to increase secondary and tertiary treatment capacities and not primary treatment capacities. The capacities of the facilities, as well as pipe diameters, will need to expand in order to accommodate the increased flow volume and to arrest sewer overflows.

Water recycling is an important component of the wastewater system. There are numerous water recycling facilities in the San Diego region, in which wastewater entering the plant undergoes a series of treatment and disinfection steps. This recycled water is used for irrigation, landscaping, and industrial use. Capital improvement expenditures for water recycling are discussed in the water supply and delivery system technical appendix.

Revenues for capital improvement projects include sewer connection/capacity charges, which may be used for future expansion, however they cannot be used for the maintenance and operation of present sewer facilities. There are also annual service charges for some residents and commercial facilities, rather than a monthly service charge.

6 Agencies and districts included for this Capital Improvement Plan figure are shown in Exhibit 2. See Exhibits 10 and 11 for more detailed information.

146

V. Projected Long-Term Need

The City of San Diego, whose system serves approximately two-thirds of the region’s wastewater collection and treatment needs, has prepared a Wastewater Collection System Master Plan.7 The objectives of the master plan are to develop and implement processes to identify, analyze and prioritize CIP projects; formulate short- and long-term plans for sewer rehabilitation and replacement projects; formulate plans to provide adequate sewer capacity for future growth; and provide budgeting projections, scheduling recommendations, and tracking of CIP projects. The master plan, updated on an annual basis, is intended to be an on-going capital improvement and planning process, rather than a one-time report.

The City of San Diego also prepares a Metropolitan Wastewater Plan, which outlines the long term plans and wastewater treatment plant capacities. The Draft Plan (August 2003) states projections of average annual daily flow (AADF) generated within the MWWD service area. This service area generates about 70 percent of wastewater flow in the western San Diego region.8 The original projection is based on the 2020 SANDAG forecast, but Exhibit 12 shows projected wastewater flow adjusted to SANDAG’s 2030 Final Forecast. This exhibit shows a comparison of projected growth in population and projected growth in total wastewater flow for the MWWD service area. Peak wet weather flow projections are required to anticipate hydraulic capacity limitations in the existing facilities and to determine design capacities for future facilities. The peak wet weather flows are approximately twice as much as the average flow.9

Most cities and districts in the San Diego region have some form of wastewater capital improvement plans, capital planning documents, or long-term master plans. But these plans, with the exception of the City of San Diego, are created without reference to a regional master plan.

Based on current plans and policies, it is estimated that the region will have approximately 422 MGD of primary treatment capacity available in 2020. This represents an increase of 16 percent from the 2000 capacity of 364 MGD. Secondary treatment capacity is projected to increase by 47 percent (from 124 to 182 MGD). However, the greatest increase in capacity will be in tertiary treatment, where the region is expected to add more than 225 percent to its capacity (from 44 MGD in 2000 to 98 MGD in 2020).10 These changes do not include plans to upgrade Point Loma’s primary advanced treatment to secondary or tertiary treatment capacity. If this occurs, the increase in secondary and tertiary treatment capacity will be substantially greater.

VI. Relationship of Facility Planning to Local General Plans and Land Use

Investment in wastewater infrastructure is closely tied to new development or redevelopment and patterns of land use. That is, the local jurisdiction’s general plan and its land use element provide the framework for infrastructure planning. If the general plan anticipates that future growth in housing and employment will occur in currently non-urbanized areas, then new facilities would be

7 The City of San Diego prepares separate master plans for the collection system and treatment of wastewater. 8 See Exhibit 4. 9 City of San Diego’s Metropolitan Wastewater Plan, Draft, August 2003, page 11. 10 “Southern California Comprehensive Water Reclamation and Reuse Study” by the U.S. Bureau of

Reclamation. See Exhibit 3 for more information.

147

constructed to serve such growth. If growth is anticipated to occur in currently urbanized areas, then additions to or reconstruction of existing infrastructure may be necessary.

Accordingly, major networks of facilities required to collect and treat wastewater from users are identified in the public facilities elements of local jurisdictions’ general or specific plans and in facility master plans of wastewater agencies, which are in turn coordinated with local general plans. New facilities are planned to meet the service demand of projected growth in housing and employment as outlined in the general plans.

Implementation of the goals of the RCP and smart growth may require changes to local general plans, their public facilities elements, or wastewater agencies’ facility master plans. However, the shift in emphasis from new development in currently non-urbanized areas to development or redevelopment of urbanized areas would not occur over night. For example, capital improvement projects are generally committed several years in advance of construction. This lag in implementation would provide an opportunity for the local jurisdictions and wastewater agencies to adjust, if necessary, their planning and capital improvement programs to reflect the goals of the RCP.

Construction of wastewater infrastructure facilities is generally funded on a pay-as-you-go basis, from fees collected at development approval or issuance of building permits, or the facilities may be required as part of development exaction and dedicated to a public agency for operation and maintenance. Major, particularly regional, infrastructure facilities may also be financed through issuance of bonds.

VII. Public Policy / Financing Issues and Strategies

The City of San Diego’s Metropolitan Wastewater Department is the agency most similar to a regional service provider: its service area encompasses approximately two thirds of the region’s population, its facilities treat a good portion of the region’s wastewater, and its budget makes up a majority of the regional total.

The City of San Diego’s Point Loma Wastewater Treatment plant is also one of the few remaining plants left in the nation to be using advanced primary treatment. In September 2003, the city was granted approval for its bid to renew a five-year federal waiver allowing the city to continue treatment at the advanced primary level.

San Diego city officials say the waiver is warranted because ten years of monitoring has not found any evidence that either the Point Loma kelp beds or creatures living on the ocean floor or in the open ocean are being harmed by the advance primary effluent. In a statement read to the commission by his senior policy adviser, San Diego Mayor Dick Murphy said: “Approval of the waiver will allow the city to fix its antiquated sewer pipe system, which is a greater threat to local beaches than bacteria-laden sewer effluent that is diluted by the ocean and doesn’t return to the shore.” Murphy pledged that the city will continue to improve its monitoring program to ensure that the environment is not being harmed.

Environmentalists indicated they still may challenge the waiver in court and may try to block the city from obtaining future waivers. Metropolitan Wastewater Department director Scott Tulloch said such an appeal would be counterproductive and divert the city’s attention from implementing

148

its tough urban runoff controls and upgrading leaky sewer pipes. Tulloch said those actions will do more to keep local beaches clean than an upgrade of sewage treatment.11

The City of San Diego has obtained a $6.1 million federal grant to construct a network of coastal storm drain diversion devices that will help prevent polluted runoff from contaminating more than two dozen local beaches.12 Urban runoff is water from rain, excess irrigation or other random sources that picks up oil, fertilizers and other pollutants as it flows across land to the ocean. Storm drains are not connected to the wastewater systems and treatment plants in the San Diego region. The untreated water and the pollutants it carries, flow directly to the ocean. For more information on urban runoff, please refer to Appendix A.4 – Storm Water Management.

The city will have to apply for another waiver in 2007. While the extension may be approved at that time, future waivers may be more difficult to attain. At some point, it may become necessary to upgrade the Point Loma Wastewater Treatment Plant to the secondary level.

Wastewater Section Exhibits

1) Wastewater Service Districts 2) Wastewater Agencies in San Diego County 3) Wastewater Treatment Plant Capacities 4) Wastewater Treatment Capacity and Flow in San Diego County, 2002 5) City of San Diego Metropolitan Wastewater District, Operations and Maintenance Revenues

and Expenditures, FY 2003 6) Wastewater Agencies Excluding Metropolitan Wastewater, Operations and Maintenance

Revenues and Expenditures, FY 2003 7) Wastewater Operations and Maintenance Revenues and Expenditures in San Diego County, FY

20038) Wastewater Infrastructure Distribution of Subregional CIP Expenditures, FY 2003 9) Cities and Community Planning Areas 10) Summary of Capital Improvement Programs, Wastewater Collection and Treatment, FY 2003

to 2007 11) Wastewater Capital Projects, FY 2003 and Later 12) Growth in Population and Wastewater Flow, 2003-2030

11 “San Diego wins sewage waiver renewal,” San Diego Union Tribune, September 10, 2002. 12 “S.D. gets $6.1 million grant for urban runoff” San Diego Union Tribune, July 19, 2003.

149

Wastewater Service Districts

0 5 10 152.5Miles

150

Exhibit 2 Wastewater Agencies in San Diego County

MAP AGENCY ID/ O&M CIP ID NO. FUND NO. DISTRICT DATA DATA

2 212500 Spring Valley Sanitation District X 3 697700 Lemon Grove Sanitation District X 4 665521 Otay Water Imp Dist No 14 - Sewer - Debt Service X 5 210900 Pine Valley Sanitation District X 6 210200 Alpine Sanitation Maintenance District X 7 667700 Padre Dam Municipal Water District X X 8 210500 Lakeside Sanitation Maintenance District X 9 246000 Winter Gardens Sewer Maintenance District X 12 693000 Whispering Palms Community Services District 13 681000 Borrego Springs Park Community Service District 14 624000 Fallbrook Public Utility District X X 15 667000 Rainbow Municipal Water District X 16 669000 Valley Center Municipal Water District X 17 657000 Vallecitos Water District X X 19 694000 Buena Sanitation District X X 21 653500 Leucadia County Water District X X 22 695000 Cardiff Sanitation District X X 23 687000 Rancho Santa Fe Community Services District 24 667300 Ramona Municipal Water District X X 25 686000 Pauma Valley Community Services District 26 210400 Julian Sanitation Maintenance District X 28 682500 Fairbanks Ranch Community Services District 29 665000 Olivenhain Municipal Water District X X 90 1 Carlsbad Municipal Water District X X 91 651000 Cochella Valley Water District 92 292100 County Service Area No 121 Bonita Mesa Sewer 93 641500 Borrego Water District (Sewer) 100 675132 Pendleton Military Reservation 102 2 City of Chula Vista X X 103 3 City of Coronado X X 104 4 City of Del Mar X X 105 5 City of El Cajon X X 106 6 City of Encinitas X X 107 7 City of Escondido X X 108 8 City of Imperial Beach X X 109 9 City of La Mesa X X 111 11 City of National City X X 112 12 City of Oceanside X X 113 13 City of Poway X X 114 14 City of San Diego X X 117 17 City of Solana Beach X X 118 18 City of Vista X X

X indicates that budget data is included in this report.

Exhibit 3Wastewater Treatment Plant Capacities

Agency Treatment Plant Name Location (City) Plant Capacity (MGD) AverageEffluent

WastewaterDisposal

2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 TDS (mg/l)P S T P S T P S T P S T P S T

City of Carlsbad (CMWD)

Encina WPCF/Carlsbad WRP

Carlsbad 32.0 32.0 0.0 32.0 32.0 2.0 32.0 32.0 4.0 32.0 32.0 4.0 36.0 36.0 4.0 1300.0 Ocean

City of Escondido Hale Avenue RRF/WRP Escondido 18.0 18.0 0.0 18.0 18.0 4.5 18.0 18.0 9.0 18.0 18.0 9.0 18.0 18.0 9.0 1000.0 Ocean

City of Ocenaside La Salina WWTP Oceanside 5.5 5.5 0.0 5.5 5.5 0.0 5.5 5.5 0.0 5.5 5.5 0.0 5.5 5.5 0.0 897.0 OceanSan Luis Rey WWTP Oceanside 10.7 10.7 0.7 12.1 12.1 2.0 13.5 13.5 5.0 15.5 15.5 5.0 17.4 17.4 5.0 874.0 Ocean

City of San Diego1 North City WRP San Diego 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 30.0 1100.0 OceanPoint Loma WWTP San Diego 240.0 0.0 0.0 240.0 0.0 0.0 240.0 0.0 0.0 240.0 0.0 0.0 240.0 0.0 0.0 1850.0 OceanSan Pasqual WRP San Diego 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1020.0 OceanSouth Bay WRP San Diego 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 1000.0 OceanSouth Bay WWTP San Diego 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 21.0 21.0 0.0 1100.0 Ocean

City of Vista Shadowridge WRP Vista 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.6 1.6 1.6 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.5 2.5 2.5 898.0 Ocean

Fairbanks Ranch Com. Services District

Fairbanks Ranch WPCF Fairbanks Ranch 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 960Percolation

Ponds

Fallbrook Public Utilities District

Fallbrook Plant #1 Fallbrook 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 720 Ocean

Leucadia County Water District

Gafner WRF Carlsbad 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1300 Ocean

Olivenhain MWD 4S Ranch WWTP Rancho Bernardo 0.3 0.3 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 925.0 Ocean

Otay Water Distrct Ralph W. Chapman WRF Spring Valley 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 850.0 Ocean

Padre Dam Municipal Water District

Padre Dam WRF Santee 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 900.0 Ocean

Ramona Municipal Water District

Santa Maria WPCF Ramona 0.8 0.8 0.4 1.1 1.1 0.4 1.5 1.5 0.4 1.5 1.5 1.0 1.5 1.5 1.5 867.0 Stream

San Vicente WWTP Ramona 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 612.0 Stream

Rancho Santa Fe Com. Services District

Rancho Santa Fe WPCF Rancho Santa Fe 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.6 0.6 0.0 0.8 0.8 0.0 0.8 0.8 0.0 0.8 0.8 0.0 900.0Percolation

Ponds

San Elijo Joint Powers Authority

San Elijo WPCF/WRP Encinitas 5.3 5.3 0.0 5.3 5.3 2.5 5.3 5.3 2.5 5.3 5.3 2.5 5.3 5.3 2.5 1151.0 Ocean

Vallecitos Water District

Meadowlark WRF Carlsbad 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.5 2.5 2.5 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 1000.0 Ocean

Valley Center Municipal Water District

Lower Moosa Canyon WRF

Valley Center 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.7 0.7 0.7 1.0 1.0 1.0 1000Percolation

Ponds

Skyline Ranch Country WTP

Valley Center 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 1000.0Percolation

Ponds

Whispering Palms Com. Services District

Santa Fe Valley WRF Rancho Santa Fe 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 925.0Percolation

Ponds

United States Marine Corps.

Camp Pendleton WWTPs Camp Pendleton 8.0 8.0 0.7 9.0 9.0 3.0 10.0 10.0 5.0 10.0 10.0 8.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 1,030.0 Stream

TOTAL CAPACITY 363.5 123.5 43.6 384.7 144.7 75.5 391.8 151.8 91.1 394.4 154.4 96.3 421.8 181.8 98.3

Abbreviations: WRF - Water Reclamation Facility P - Primary Treatment TDS - Total Dissolved SolidsWRP - Water Reclamation Plant S - Secondary Treatment mg/l - Milligrams per Liter WWTP - Wastewater Treatment Plant T - Tertiary Treatment WPCF - Water Pollution Control FacilityRRF - Resource Recovery Facility

Source: “Southern California Comprehensive Water Reclamation and Reuse Study” by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation1 The treatment plant capacities for North City WRP, San Pasqual WRP, and South Bay facilities have been updated, per the City of San Diego MWWD.

151

152

Exhibit 4 Wastewater Treatment Capacity and Flow in San Diego County, 2002

Wastewater Districts Treatment Facility

District'sCapacity at Treatment

Facility (MGD)1

Average Sewage Flow

(MGD)

Buena Sanitation District Encina WPCF 2.3 1.2 City of Carlsbad (Carlsbad Municipal Water District)

Encina WPCF 9.2 6.7

City of Chula Vista Point Loma WWTP 19.8 15.2

City of Coronado Point Loma WWTP 3.1 2.2

City of Del Mar Point Loma WWTP 0.8 0.7

City of El Cajon Point Loma WWTP 10.3 8.3

Encina WPCF 1.8 1.0 City of Encinitas (Encinitas Sanitary Division &Cardiff Sanitation District) San Elijo WPCF/WRP 1.0 1.0 City of Escondido Hale Avenue RRF/WRP 18.0 15.6 City of Imperial Beach Point Loma WWTP 3.6 2.2 City of La Mesa Point Loma WWTP 6.6 4.8 City of Lemon Grove (Lemon Grove Sanitation District)

Point Loma WWTP 2.9 2.3

City of National City Point Loma WWTP 7.1 5.2 La Salina WWTP 5.5 3.9

City of Oceanside San Luis Rey WWTP 10.7 9.6

City of Poway Point Loma WWTP 5.6 3.7 Point Loma WWTP 156.4 118.8 North City WRP 30.0 NA South Bay WRP 15.0 NA South Bay WWTP - NA

City of San Diego

San Pasqual WRP - NA City of Solana Beach San Elijo WPCF/WRP 2.6 1.4

Encina WPCF 6.9 6.5 City of Vista

Shadowridge WRP 1.2

County of San Diego (Lakeside Sanitation, Spring Valley Sanitation District, Wintergardens, Alpine)

Point Loma WWTP 16.6 10.2

Fairbanks Ranch Community Services District

Fairbanks Ranch WFCF 0.3 0.2

Fallbrook Public Utilities District Fallbrook Plant #1 2.7 NA Encina WPCF 7.1 4.0

Leucadia County Water District Gafner WRF 1.0 NA 4S Ranch WWTP 2.0 0.4

Olivenhain Municipal Water DistrictSan Elijo WPCF/WRP 1.6 0.7 Ralph W. Chapman WRF 1.3 1.3

Otay Water District Point Loma WWTP 1.2 0.4 Point Loma WWTP 5.9 3.3

Padre Dam Municipal Water District Padre Dam WRF 2.0 2.0

153

Wastewater Districts Treatment Facility

District'sCapacity at Treatment

Facility (MGD)1

Average Sewage Flow

(MGD)

Pauma Valley Community Services District Padre Dam WRF NA NA

Rainbow Municipal Water District San Luis Rey WWTP 1.0 0.7 Santa Maria WPCF 1.0 0.7

Ramona Municipal Water DistrictSan Vicente WWTP 0.8 0.6

Rancho Santa Fe Community Services District

Rancho Santa Fe WPCF 0.5 NA

U.S. Marine Corps, Camp Pendleton 5 Treatment Plants 8.0 8.0 Encina WPCF 7.5 5.8

Vallecitos Water DistrictMeadowlark WRF 2.0 Lower Moosa Canyon WRF 0.5 0.2

Valley Center Municipal Water District Skyline Ranch Country WTP 0.0 0.0

Whispering Palms Community Services District Santa Fe Valley WRF 0.0 NA

TOTAL 383.6 248.8

MGD - million gallons per day NA - Not Available

1 Guaranteed capacity at the treatment facility allocated to the local wastewater district. Source: City of San Diego's Exhibit B to the "Regional Wastewater Disposal Agreement between the City of San Diego and the

Participating Agencies in the Agencies in the Metropolitan Sewerage System" (1998); Communication with other districts and cities

154

Exhibit 5 City of San Diego Metropolitan Wastewater Department

Operations and Maintenance Revenues and Expenditures, FY 2003

O&M Revenues O&M Expenditures

$284.9 Million $284.9 Million

Source: City of San Diego, Proposed FY 2003 Budget; see also Exhibit 5.

Note: Revenues and expenditures exclude bond and operating reserves.

Debt Service, 27.0%

Other O&M, 50.9%

General & Admin., 22.0%

Interest, Rents, 5.1%

Charges for Services, 84.7%

Other Local Revenues,

10.3%

155

Exhibit 6 Wastewater Agencies Excluding Metropolitan Wastewater

Operations and Maintenance Revenues and Expenditures, FY 2003

O&M Revenues O&M Expenditures

$194.8 Million $191.2 Million

Source: Cities, water agencies, and special districts, FY 2003 budgets.

General & Admin., 10.0%

Capital Cost, Depreciation,

0.7%

Non-district O&M, 4.2%

Contracts & Services, 36.7%

Other O&M, 45.7%

Debt Service, 2.5%

Taxes and Assessments,

0.5%

Interest, Rents, 4.6%

Charges for Services, 79.6%

Other Local Revenues,

15.2%

156

Exhibit 7 Wastewater Operations and Maintenance

Revenues and Expenditures in San Diego County, FY 2003 (Million)

Total Districts Other Than

MetropolitanWastewater Percent

MetropolitanWastewater -

City ofSan Diego Percent

Total Districts Percent

Operating Revenues (FY 2003)

General tax (e.g., property tax, sales tax) $ 1.0 0.5% $ 0.0 0.0% $ 1.0 0.2%Charges for services 155.2 79.6% 241.2 84.7% 396.3 82.6%Interests, rents 9.0 4.6% 14.5 5.1% 23.5 4.9%Other local funds (incl. continuing appropriations) 29.6 15.2% 29.2 10.3% 58.8 12.3%

Total Annual Revenues $ 194.8 100.0% $ 284.9 100.0% $ 479.7 100.0%

Operating Expenditures (FY 2003)Operations and maintenance

General & administrative 19.2 10.0% 62.7 [2] 22.0% 81.9 17.2%Contracts & services 70.3 36.7% 0.0 0.0% 70.3 14.8%Other O&M 87.5 45.7% 145.1 50.9% 232.6 48.9%

Subtotal O&M 176.9 92.5% 207.8 73.0% 384.7 80.8%

Non-district operations (paid to others) [1] 8.1 4.2% 0.0 0.0% 8.1 1.7%Capital costs & depreciation 1.4 0.7% 0.0 0.0% 1.4 0.3%Debt service 4.8 2.5% 77.0 27.0% 81.8 17.2%

Total Operating Expenditures $ 191.2 100.0% $ 284.9 100.0% $ 476.1 100.0% Source: Cities, water agencies, special districts, FY 2003 budget.

1. Payments to Metropolitan Wastewater Department for transmission and treatment. This item is not reported by all districts served by MWWD.

2. Includes contracts and services; excludes debt service and 45-day operating reserves.

157

19511951

19541954

19061906

19141914

19121912

19201920

19011901

19071907

19531953

19021902

19151915

19111911

14821482

203203

702702

204204

19031903

19521952

19091909705705

12021202

19191919

300300

14151415

14321432

13031303

704704

13021302

19551955

103103

14261426

18011801

14201420

101101

14411441

14061406

19091909

201201

15041504

19211921

18021802

14471447

102102

13011301

104104

12011201

14311431

14861486

14291429

503503

15011501

601601

703703

202202

14101410

14251425

19981998

14301430

14641464

501501

16011601

14441444

14211421

604604

14501450

902902

15021502

701701

14341434

14171417

603603

14681468

800800

14391439

11021102

502502

14191419901901

14571457

14691469

12031203

14561456

14071407

14121412

14401440

602602

11011101

14811481

14421442

14651465

14271427

10001000

16021602

15031503

16031603

14281428

14351435

12041204

17001700

14611461

14381438

14091409

14331433

14051405

1403140314621462

12051205

14041404

400400

1401140114831483

14581458

19181918

14631463

16041604

1414141414591459

14481448

1466146614491449

14081408

14231423

14021402 14911491

14241424

14851485

14181418

19991999

14881488

158

Exhibit 9 Community Infrastructure Planning Areas1

CIPA NO. JURISDICTION COMMUNITY PLANNING AREA

101 1 Carlsbad Carlsbad 1 102 1 Carlsbad Carlsbad 2 103 1 Carlsbad Carlsbad 3 104 1 Carlsbad Carlsbad 4 201 2 Chula Vista Chula Vista 1 202 2 Chula Vista Chula Vista 2 203 2 Chula Vista Chula Vista 3 204 2 Chula Vista Chula Vista 4 300 3 Coronado Coronado 400 4 Del Mar Del Mar 501 5 El Cajon El Cajon 1 502 5 El Cajon El Cajon 2 503 5 El Cajon El Cajon 3 601 6 Encinitas Encinitas 1 602 6 Encinitas Encinitas 2 603 6 Encinitas Encinitas 3 604 6 Encinitas Encinitas 4 701 7 Escondido Escondido 1 702 7 Escondido Escondido 2 703 7 Escondido Escondido 3 704 7 Escondido Escondido 4 705 7 Escondido Escondido 5 800 8 Imperial Beach Imperial Beach 901 9 La Mesa La Mesa 1 902 9 La Mesa La Mesa 2

1000 10 Lemon Grove Lemon Grove 1101 11 National City National City 1 1102 11 National City National City 2 1201 12 Oceanside Oceanside 1 1202 12 Oceanside Oceanside 2 1203 12 Oceanside Oceanside 3 1204 12 Oceanside Oceanside 4 1205 12 Oceanside Oceanside 5 1301 13 Poway Poway 1 1302 13 Poway Poway 2 1303 13 Poway Poway 3 1401 14 San Diego Balboa Park 1402 14 San Diego Barrio Logan 1403 14 San Diego Carmel Mountain Ranch 1404 14 San Diego Centre City 1405 14 San Diego Sabre Springs 1406 14 San Diego Clairemont Mesa 1407 14 San Diego East Elliott 1408 14 San Diego Greater Golden Hill

159

CIPA NO. JURISDICTION COMMUNITY PLANNING AREA 1409 14 San Diego Miramar Ranch North 1410 14 San Diego La Jolla 1412 14 San Diego Linda Vista 1414 14 San Diego Midway-Pacific Highway 1415 14 San Diego Mira Mesa 1417 14 San Diego Mission Bay Park 1418 14 San Diego Mission Beach 1419 14 San Diego Mission Valley 1420 14 San Diego Navajo 1421 14 San Diego Carmel Valley 1423 14 San Diego Ocean Beach 1424 14 San Diego Old San Diego 1425 14 San Diego Otay Mesa-Nestor 1426 14 San Diego Otay Mesa 1427 14 San Diego Pacific Beach 1428 14 San Diego Greater North Park 1429 14 San Diego Rancho Penasquitos 1430 14 San Diego Peninsula 1431 14 San Diego Rancho Bernardo 1432 14 San Diego San Pasqual 1433 14 San Diego San Ysidro 1434 14 San Diego Scripps Miramar Ranch 1435 14 San Diego Serra Mesa 1438 14 San Diego College Area 1439 14 San Diego Tijuana River Valley 1440 14 San Diego Torrey Pines 1441 14 San Diego University 1442 14 San Diego Uptown 1444 14 San Diego Skyline-Paradise Hills 1447 14 San Diego Tierrasanta 1448 14 San Diego Sorrento Hills 1449 14 San Diego Fairbanks Country Club 1450 14 San Diego Kearny Mesa 1455 14 San Diego Via De La Valle 1456 14 San Diego Mid-City:City Heights 1457 14 San Diego Mid-City:Eastern Area 1458 14 San Diego Mid-City:Kensington-Talmadge 1459 14 San Diego Mid-City:Normal Heights 1461 14 San Diego Del Mar Mesa 1462 14 San Diego Torrey Highlands 1463 14 San Diego Los Penasquitos Canyon Preserve 1464 14 San Diego Black Mountain Ranch 1465 14 San Diego Pacific Highlands Ranch 1466 14 San Diego NCFUA Subarea 2 1467 14 San Diego NCFUA Reserve 1468 14 San Diego Southeastern: Encanto Neighborhoods 1469 14 San Diego Southeastern: Southeastern San Diego 1481 14 San Diego Rancho Encantada

160

CIPA NO. JURISDICTION COMMUNITY PLANNING AREA 1482 14 San Diego Miramar Air Station 1483 14 San Diego Lindbergh Field 1485 14 San Diego Scripps Reserve 1486 14 San Diego Harbor 1488 14 San Diego Flower Hill 1491 14 San Diego 32nd Street Naval Station 1501 15 San Marcos San Marcos 1 1502 15 San Marcos San Marcos 2 1503 15 San Marcos San Marcos 3 1504 15 San Marcos San Marcos 4 1601 16 Santee Santee 1 1602 16 Santee Santee 2 1603 16 Santee Santee 3 1604 16 Santee Santee 4 1700 17 Solana Beach Solana Beach 1801 18 Vista Vista 1 1802 18 Vista Vista 2 1901 19 Unincorporated County Alpine 1902 19 Unincorporated County Central Mountain 1903 19 Unincorporated County Crest-Dehesa 1904 19 Unincorporated County Desert 1906 19 Unincorporated County Jamul-Dulzura 1907 19 Unincorporated County Lakeside 1908 19 Unincorporated County Mountain Empire 1909 19 Unincorporated County North County Metro 1911 19 Unincorporated County Otay 1912 19 Unincorporated County Pala-Pauma 1914 19 Unincorporated County Ramona 1915 19 Unincorporated County San Dieguito 1918 19 Unincorporated County Sweetwater 1919 19 Unincorporated County Valle De Oro 1920 19 Unincorporated County Valley Center 1921 19 Unincorporated County Spring Valley 1922 19 Unincorporated County Julian 1951 19 Unincorporated County North Mountain 1952 19 Unincorporated County Bonsall 1953 19 Unincorporated County Fallbrook 1954 19 Unincorporated County Pendleton-De Luz 1955 19 Unincorporated County Rainbow 1998 19 Unincorporated County Barona 1999 19 Unincorporated County County Islands

1. Community infrastructure planning areas (CIPAs) are the same as community planning areas (CPAs) in the City of San Diego and the County of San Diego. CIPAs reflect comparable planning areas for the other cities.

161

Exhibit 10 Summary of Capital Improvement Programs

Wastewater Collection and Treatment, FY 2003 to FY 2007 ($ Million)

Percent FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 Total of Total Regional New $ 4.0 $ 0.3 $ 0.0 $ 0.0 $ 0.0 $ 4.3 4.5% Upgrade 14.0 25.2 22.6 19.5 7.0 88.3 92.0% Mandated 2.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 3.4 3.6% Total Regional 20.3 25.8 22.9 19.8 7.3 96.0 100.0% Subregional New 34.4 30.9 18.1 22.0 14.2 119.7 12.5% Upgrade 204.4 149.1 142.0 157.3 160.3 813.1 84.7% Technology 2.5 0.8 0.4 0.3 0.3 4.3 0.4% Mandated 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 1.0 0.1% Green 11.0 0.8 0.1 0.1 0.0 12.1 1.3% Other 3.3 2.5 1.6 1.2 0.6 9.2 1.0% Total Subregional 256.1 184.4 162.4 181.1 175.5 959.5 100.0% Total CIP $ 276.4 $ 210.1 $ 185.2 $ 200.9 $ 182.8 $ 1,055.5 Source: Cities, water agencies, and special districts in San Diego County, FY 2002-03 budgets.

Note: "New" projects refer to installation of new pipelines and other facilities; "upgrades" refer to renovation, reconstruction, or other improvements to existing facilities. "Mandated" projects are undertaken to satisfy federal or state requirements on safety and other issues. "Green" projects (which may also be mandated) refer to actions to mitigate impacts to or improve the natural environment. "Technology" projects improve overall productivity, such as system or control technologies.

Exhibit 11Wastewater Capital Projects, FY 2003 and Later

ProjectNo.

Agency ID /

Fund No.1Project Description Project Type

Regional (R) / Subregional

Total Project Cost Costs Prior to

FY 2003 FY 2003

CostsFY 2004Costs

FY 2005Costs

FY 2006Costs

FY 2007Costs

Costs After FY 2007

1 694000 Computerized Map Program Technology S 159,577 159,577 - - - - - -

2 694000 #228-238 Lobelia Sewer Upgrade S 35,000 35,000 - - - - - -

3 694000 #250-260 Lobelia Sewer Upgrade S 50,000 50,000 - - - - - -

4 694000 Buena/Shadowridge Pump Station Replacement Upgrade S 3,973,105 3,973,105 - - - - - -

5 694000 So. Santa Fe Ave. Phase III Upgrade S 830,000 240,000 590,000 - - - - -

6 694000 York Dr. Sewer Upgrade S 2,376,528 800,000 1,576,528 - - - - -

7 694000 Watson Way Sewer Upgrade S 276,706 139,420 - 137,286 - - - -

8 694000 Wastewater Building "D" Remodel Upgrade S 169,200 169,200 - - - - - -

9 694000 Buena Outfall Phase I Upgrade S 914,497 914,497 - - - - - -

10 694000 Buena Outfall Manhole Rehab. Upgrade S 750,000 100,000 650,000 - - - - -

11 694000 Sunkist Dr. Sewer Upgrade S 101,575 - 101,575 - - - - -

12 694000 Buena Outfall Phase II Upgrade S 1,675,272 - 1,675,272 - - - - -

13 694000 Mimosa, Juniper, Grand, Green Oak Sewers Upgrade S 923,480 321,000 602,480 - - - - -

14 694000 So. Santa Fe Ave. Sewer Phase I Upgrade S 175,000 - - - 175,000 - - -

15 694000 Buena Outfall Phase III New S 1,320,399 - - 1,320,399 - - - -

16 694000 Smilax Rd. Sewer Upgrade S 551,718 - - 551,718 - - - -

17 694000 So. Santa Fe Ave. Sewer Phase II Upgrade S 1,400,000 - - - 1,400,000 - - -

18 694000 Anna Ln. Sewer Upgrade S 40,000 - - - - 40,000 - -

19 694000 El Corto Dr. and Mira Sol Ln. Sewer Upgrade S 150,000 - - - - 150,000 - -

20 694000 Poinsettia Ave. Sewer Upgrade S 245,903 - - - - 245,903 - -

21 694000 Vehicle Maintenance Bldg. "B" Upgrade S 157,500 157,500 - - - - - -

22 695000 Share of CIP at San Elijo WRF Mandated R 1,367,095 266,738 174,357 231,500 231,500 231,500 231,500 -

23 665000 4S Ranch WWTP Expansion Upgrade S 4,612,000 1,682,000 2,930,000 - - - - -

24 667700 IPS Pump Modifications Upgrade S 450,000 - - 450,000 - - - -

25 667700 Forester Creek Utility Relocation Upgrade S 1,663,552 166,355 582,243 914,954 - - - -

26 667700 Sewer Main Replacement/Rehabilitation Upgrade S 5,838,769 - - 1,926,794 1,926,794 1,985,181 - -

27 667700 Sewer Manhole Rehabilitation Upgrade S 200,000 76,000 31,000 31,000 31,000 31,000 - -

28 667700 Carlton Oaks Sewer Main Replacement Upgrade S - - - - - - - -

29 667700 Sewer Force Main Replacement Upgrade S 2,633,103 2,132,813 500,290 - - - - -

30 667700 IPS Screening Improvement Project Upgrade S 900,000 - - 270,000 630,000 - - -

31 667700 Willow Grove Trunk Line Relief Upgrade S 2,577,948 77,876 2,500,072 - - - - -

32 667700 IPS Odor Control Facilities Green S 500,000 - - 500,000 - - - -

33 667700 Lakeside Interceptor Repair Upgrade S 355,000 177,500 177,500 - - - - -

34 667700 Magnolia Ave. South Relief Sewer - Seg. 1 Upgrade S 1,108,890 - - 221,778 887,112 - - -

35 667700 Cottonwood Diversion Structure Upgrade Upgrade S 300,000 - - 210,000 90,000 - - -

36 667700 IPS Transfer Switch New S 50,000 5,000 22,500 22,500 - - - -

37 667300 Construction of Pond No. 3 New S 3,213,875 118,000 3,095,875 - - - - -

38 667300 Golf Course Recycled Pipeline New S 150,000 50,000 100,000 - - - - -

39 667300 Barona Mesa Lift Station Upgrade S 170,000 10,000 70,000 90,000 - - - -

40 667300 Upgrade to Reverse Osmosis Units Upgrade S 250,000 1,000 249,000 - - - - -

41 667300 Centrifuge New S 40,000 40,000 - - - - - -

42 667300 I & I Pipeline Replacements to be Identified Upgrade S 40,000 40,000 - - - - - -

43 667300 EQ Basin Bypass & Headwork Renovations Upgrade S 35,000 35,000 - - - - - -

44 667300 San Pasqual Metro Plant Sewer Study Technology S 20,000 10,000 10,000 - - - - -

45 667300 Sprayfields Purchasing New S 20,000 - 20,000 - - - - -

46 667300 Interceptor Relocation Upgrade S 425,000 - 50,000 275,000 100,000 - - -

162

Exhibit 11Wastewater Capital Projects, FY 2003 and Later

ProjectNo.

Agency ID /

Fund No.1Project Description Project Type

Regional (R) / Subregional

Total Project Cost Costs Prior to

FY 2003 FY 2003

CostsFY 2004Costs

FY 2005Costs

FY 2006Costs

FY 2007Costs

Costs After FY 2007

47 667300 San Pasqual Metro Plant Sewer Study Technology S 10,000 - 10,000 - - - - -

48 667300 Upgrade Manhole Upgrade S 1,757 1,757 - - - - - -

49 667300 Interceptor Study Technology S 12,700 12,700 - - - - - -

50 667300 Interceptor Relocation Upgrade S 1,125,000 - 100,000 800,000 225,000 - - -

51 667300 Santa Maria Creek Armor Manholes Upgrade S 500,000 - 100,000 400,000 - - - -

52 667300 D Street Sewer Replacement Upgrade S 100,000 - 100,000 - - - - -

53 667300 I & I Pipeline Replacements to be Identified Upgrade S 240,000 40,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 - -

54 667300 District Participation in State/County/City Projects Misc. S 200,000 - 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 - -

55 657000 Sewer Pipe and Manhole Rehabilitation Upgrade S 250,000 - 250,000 - - - - -

56 657000 Emergency Response Trailer New S 38,500 - 38,500 - - - - -

57 657000 Meadowlark Injection Pump New S 8,000 - 8,000 - - - - -

58 657000 Hydrogen Sulfide Data Loggers Technology S 7,500 - 7,500 - - - - -

59 657000 Confined Space Blower/Evacuator Green S 3,100 - 3,100 - - - - -

60 657000 Encina Capitals Mandated R 350,700 - 350,700 - - - - -

61 657000 Meadowlark Plant Expansion Upgrade S 14,000,000 - 14,000,000 - - - - -

62 657000 Master Plan Facilities-Deersprings Pump Station Upgrade S 750,000 - 750,000 - - - - -

63 657000 South Lake Pump Station Upgrade S 525,000 - 525,000 - - - - -

64 657000 Larchwood Drive Sewer Line Upgrade S 50,000 - 50,000 - - - - -

65 657000 Via Allondra Sewer Line Extension New S 50,000 - 50,000 - - - - -

66 657000 GIS Continued Modifications Technology S 25,000 - 25,000 - - - - -

67 657000 Miscellaneous Sewer Projects Upgrade S 25,000 - 25,000 - - - - -

68 653500 La Costa Greens Trunk Sewer Upgrade S 1,082,000 1,082,000 - - - - - -

70 653500 Vulcan Avenue Trunk Sewer Upgrade S 494,000 - 494,000 - - - - -

71 653500 101 Trunk Sewer Upgrade S 367,000 - - - - - - 367,000

73 653500 South Green Valley Interceptor Upgrade S 2,531,000 - - - 2,531,000 - - -

74 653500 North Green Valley Interceptor Upgrade S 3,033,000 3,033,000 - - - - - -

75 653500 Occidental Pipeline Upgrade S 556,000 - - 556,000 - - - -

77 653500 Batiquitos PS Upgrade S 2,651,250 1,191,250 1,460,000 - - - - -

78 653500 Saxony PS Upgrade S 879,000 879,000 - - - - - -

79 653500 Village Park 5 PS Upgrade S 398,750 - - 398,750 - - - -

80 653500 Village Park 7 PS Upgrade S 398,750 - - - - 398,750 - -

81 653500 Leucadia PS Upgrade S 3,262,500 1,699,750 290,750 - - - 1,272,000 -

82 653500 La Costa/Encinitas Estates PS Upgrade S 1,050,000 1,050,000 - - - - - -

83 653500 Meadows 1 PS Upgrade S 420,500 - - 420,500 - - - -

84 653500 Meadows 3 PS Upgrade S 420,500 - - 420,500 - - - -

85 653500 Misc. Cap. Projects Upgrade S 1,500,750 300,150 150,075 150,075 150,075 150,075 150,075 450,225

86 653500 Leucadia FM - Phase 2 New S 430,000 430,000 - - - - - -

87 653500 Leucadia FM - Phase 3 New S 1,020,000 1,020,000 - - - - - -

88 653500 Leucadia FM - Phase 4 New S 2,300,000 2,300,000 - - - - - -

89 653500 Leucadia FM - Corrosion Protection Upgrade S 250,000 - - 250,000 - - - -

90 653500 Phase II I/I Study Technology S 250,000 250,000 - - - - - -

91 653500 Masterplan Update Technology S 450,000 - - 450,000 - - - -

92 653500 District Mapping/GIS/Scanning Plans Technology S 700,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000

93 653500 Abandon Gafner Upgrade S 750,000 - 750,000 - - - - -

94 653500 Building Expansion New S 500,000 - - - 500,000 - - -

163

Exhibit 11Wastewater Capital Projects, FY 2003 and Later

ProjectNo.

Agency ID /

Fund No.1Project Description Project Type

Regional (R) / Subregional

Total Project Cost Costs Prior to

FY 2003 FY 2003

CostsFY 2004Costs

FY 2005Costs

FY 2006Costs

FY 2007Costs

Costs After FY 2007

95 653500 SCADA Mandated S 835,000 835,000 - - - - - -

96 653500 Miscellaneous Pipeline Rehabilitation Upgrade S 2,450,000 350,000 350,000 350,000 350,000 350,000 350,000 350,000

97 653500 Emergency Pipeline Repair Upgrade S 600,000 - 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000

98 653500 Manhole Lining Upgrade S 600,000 - 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000

99 653500 Manhole Raising Upgrade S 600,000 - 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000

100 653500 Trailer Pump Vehicle New S 50,000 - - - 50,000 - - -

101 653500 Miscellaneous Equipment Upgrade S 900,000 - 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000

102 624000 Collection System Upgrade S 439,165 - 52,000 150,000 237,165 - - -

103 624000 Treatment Works Misc. S 863,000 - 623,000 160,000 80,000 - - -

104 624000 Minor System Improvements Upgrade S 60,000 - 20,000 20,000 20,000 - - -

105 624000 Developer Misc. S 200,000 - 80,000 60,000 60,000 - - -

106 624000 SCADA Technology S 115,000 - 75,000 20,000 20,000 - - -

107 624000 Laboratory Technology S 21,300 8,800 6,500 6,000 - - - -

108 624000 Misc. Misc. S - - - - - - - -

109 1 Building Improvements Upgrade S 1,787,249 693,314 1,093,935 - - - - -

110 1 Capital Acquistions - Unit I Upgrade S 3,415,037 624,444 124,050 124,050 124,050 124,050 124,050 2,170,343

111 1 Capital Planning/Services Technology S 1,910,023 502,969 112,099 112,099 112,099 112,099 52,101 906,557

112 1 Cogeneration Rehabilitation Mandated S 581,447 - - - - - - 581,447

113 1 Flow Equalization Project New S 8,189,252 2,775,530 2,542,735 - - - - 2,870,987

114 1 Phase IV Expansion - Debt Service New S 13,082,183 - 942,161 936,199 936,256 939,581 936,394 8,391,592

115 1 Phase V Expansion New S 11,692,762 789,859 - 7,467,810 - - - 3,435,093

116 1 Phase V Expansion - Interim Capacity New S 222,297 222,297 - - - -

117 1 Plant Rehabilitation Upgrade S 2,908,523 1,345,493 66,987 74,430 74,430 74,430 74,430 1,198,323

118 1 Pump Station Interfaces Technology S 59,662 42,649 17,013 - - - - -

119 1 Technology Master Plan Technology S 1,160,942 341,220 - - - - - 819,722

120 1 Avenida Encinas Gravity Sewer New S 175,000 - 175,000 - - - - -

121 1 Buena Vista Lift Station Upgrade S 502,132 502,132 - - - - - -

122 1 Buena Vista Lift Station Pump Addition Upgrade S 233,000 - - - - - - 233,000

123 1Carlsbad Trunk Sewer Reaches VCT1A, VCT1B, VCT1C

New S 455,000 - - - 100,000 355,000 - -

124 1 Chinquapin Lift Station New S 450,000 450,000 - - - - - -

125 1 El Camino Real Sewer - Chestnut to Tamarack New S 280,289 280,289 - - - - - -

125 1 El Camino Real Sewer - Chestnut to Tamarack New S 280,289 280,289 - - - - - -

126 1 Faraday Avenue - Orion to Melrose Sewer New S 110,200 110,200 - - - - - -

127 1 Forest Gravity Sewer New S 800,000 300,000 500,000 - - - - -

128 1 Foxes Sewage Lift Station Upgrade Upgrade S 2,185,000 2,185,000 - - - - - -

129 1 Home Plant Lift Station Upgrade S 285,000 - 35,000 250,000 - - - -

130 1 La Costa Meadows Sewer Extension New S 175,000 - - - 50,000 125,000 - -

131 1 La Golondria Sewer Extension New S 150,000 - - - 50,000 100,000 - -

132 1 Nightshade Gravity Sewer Extension New S 150,000 - - - 50,000 100,000 - -

133 1North Agua Hedionda Interceptor Rehab. - East Segment El Camino Real to Kelly Drive

Upgrade S 620,000 - 620,000 - - - - -

134 1 North Agua Hedionda Interceptor Rehab. Upgrade S 1,587,600 750,000 837,600 - - - - -

135 1 North Agua Hedionda Trunk Sewer Reach New S 1,533,200 - - 158,000 1,375,200 - - -

136 1 North Batiquitos Interceptor Rehabilitation New S 1,000,000 400,000 - 600,000 - - - -

137 1 North Batiquitos Sewage Lift Station Upgrades Mandated S 332,000 34,800 297,200 - - - - -

164

Exhibit 11Wastewater Capital Projects, FY 2003 and Later

ProjectNo.

Agency ID /

Fund No.1Project Description Project Type

Regional (R) / Subregional

Total Project Cost Costs Prior to

FY 2003 FY 2003

CostsFY 2004Costs

FY 2005Costs

FY 2006Costs

FY 2007Costs

Costs After FY 2007

138 1 Palmer Way Sewage Extension New S 125,000 125,000 - - - - - -

139 1Poinsettia Sewage Lift Station Odor/Noise Abatement

Green S 221,800 - 21,700 200,100 - - - -

140 1 Sewer Access Hole Rehabilitation Upgrade S 2,800,000 900,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 1,400,000

141 1 Sewer Connection Fee Update Technology S 15,000 15,000 - - - - - -

142 1 Sewer Lift Station Repairs and Upgrades Upgrade S 117,690 117,690 - - - - - -

142 1 Sewer Lift Station Repairs and Upgrades Upgrade S 117,690 117,690 - - - - - -

143 1 Sewer Line Refurbishments/Replacement Upgrade S 7,868,182 1,868,182 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 4,500,000

144 1 Sewer Master Plan Update Technology S 205,698 205,698 - - - - - -

145 1 Sewer Master Plan Update (part 2) Technology S 98,792 98,792 - - - - - -

146 1 Sewer Monitoring Program Technology S 587,138 207,138 - 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 300,000

147 1 S. Agua Hedionda Lift Station & Force Main New S 7,661,494 4,395,494 - - - - - 3,266,000

148 1 Vista/Carlsbad Interceptor - Pavement Overlay Upgrade S 695,880 695,880 - - - - - -

149 1Vista/Carlsbad Interceptor Agua Hedionda LiftStation

Upgrade S 6,250,000 350,000 - - 769,360 5,130,640 - -

150 1 Vista/Carlsbad Interceptor Reach VC11B Upgrade S 1,450,000 150,000 1,300,000 - - - - -

150 1 Vista/Carlsbad Interceptor Reach VC11B Upgrade S 1,450,000 150,000 1,300,000 - - - - -

151 1 Vista/Carlsbad Interceptor Reach VC13 to VC15 Upgrade S 5,100,000 - - 250,000 2,350,000 2,500,000 - -

151 1 Vista/Carlsbad Interceptor Reach VC13 to VC15 Upgrade S 5,100,000 - - 250,000 2,350,000 2,500,000 - -

152 1Vista/Carlsbad Interceptor Reach VC5A, 5B to VC11A

Upgrade S 12,919,313 12,919,313 - - - - - -

153 1Vista/Carlsbad Interceptor Reach VC5A, 5B to VC11A

Upgrade S 702,020 702,020 - - - - - -

154 1Vista/Carlsbad Interceptor Rehab Reaches 1 through 3

Upgrade S 188,538 163,538 25,000 - - - - -

154 1Vista/Carlsbad Interceptor Rehab Reaches 1 through 3

Upgrade S 188,538 163,538 25,000 - - - - -

155 2 CIP Project Expenditures Upgrade S 2,061,665 1,841,300 220,365 - - - - -

156 2 CIP Project Expenditures Upgrade S 3,725,000 3,725,000 - - - - - -

157 3 Wastewater Capital Improvement Program Upgrade S 13,350,000 - 1,375,000 925,000 6,900,000 975,000 1,000,000 2,175,000

158 4 Annual Wastewater Program New S 1,765,400 - 474,300 168,100 453,200 180,600 489,200 -

167 4 Wastewater System Telemetry Technology S 46,550 - 5,000 15,000 15,250 5,500 5,800 -

168 4 Demolition of Old Facilities Upgrade S 100,000 - 100,000 - - - -

169 4 Replacement of 21st Pump Station Upgrade S 300,000 - - 100,000 100,000 100,000 -

170 6 Share of CIPs at Batiquitos Pump Station Mandated S 900,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 -

171 6 Share of CIPs at Encina Mandated R 2,507,547 527,163 1,730,837 60,589 60,589 48,884 79,485 -

172 6 Regal Pump Station New S 150,000 - - 150,000 - - - -

173 6 Quail Gardens Dr. Sewer Upgrade S 130,000 130,000 - - - - - -

174 7 Lift Station #1 & Force Main New S 1,400,000 - 1,400,000 - - - - -

175 7 Midway/Valley Replacement Upgrade S 200,000 - 200,000 - - - - -

176 7 Reidy Creek New S 300,000 - - 300,000 - - - -

177 7 Land/Ocean Outfall Expansion Design New S - - - - - - - -

178 7 Midway to Citrus Expansion New S 600,000 - - - 600,000 - - -

179 7 Outfall Replacement Upgrade S - - - - - - - -

180 7 Lift Station 6 Force Main Reroute Upgrade S 600,000 - - - - 600,000 - -

181 8 Sewer Pump Station Alarms New S 37,249 9,467 27,782 - - - - -

182 8 Sewer P.S. 8&9 Force Main & C.C. New S 1,131,929 1,131,929 - - - - - -

183 8 Sewer Substation Landscape New S 3,000 - 3,000 - - - - -

165

Exhibit 11Wastewater Capital Projects, FY 2003 and Later

ProjectNo.

Agency ID /

Fund No.1Project Description Project Type

Regional (R) / Subregional

Total Project Cost Costs Prior to

FY 2003 FY 2003

CostsFY 2004Costs

FY 2005Costs

FY 2006Costs

FY 2007Costs

Costs After FY 2007

184 8 Sewer Revenue Program Upgrade Upgrade S 10,450 4,950 5,500 - - - - -

185 8 Sewer Pump Station #9 Construction New S 1,122,318 - 1,122,318 - - - - -

186 9 Grossmont Specific Plan Sewer Improvement New S 300,000 - 300,000 - - - - -

187 9 Backwater Valves and Grease Traps Upgrade S 40,000 30,000 10,000 - - - - -

188 9 Inflow/Infiltration Rehabilitation Phase 3 Upgrade S 85,400 35,400 50,000 - - - - -

189 9 Sewer System Capacity and Condition Ass. Technology S 80,000 - 80,000 - - - - -

190 9 Sewer Emergency Repairs Mandated S 46,400 46,400 - - - - - -

191 9 Spring Valley Sewer Replacement Project Upgrade S 99,360 99,360 - - - - - -

192 9 Sewer System Improvements at Various Locations Upgrade S 998,810 688,810 310,000 - - - - -

193 11 Sewer System Maintenance Misc. S 1,800,000 600,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 - -

194 11 Sewer Pump Station Alarm Replace Upgrade S 31,000 31,000 - - - - - -

195 12 Mission Lift Station Design & Relocation Upgrade S 2,245,890 - 2,245,890 - - - - -

196 12 Buena Vista Lift Station New S 3,936,507 - 696,507 3,240,000 - - - -

197 12 Oceanside Blvd. Sewer Lift Station Acquistion New S 2,900,000 - 400,000 300,000 2,200,000 - - -

198 12 Bandstand Lift Station New S - - - - - - - -

199 12 Pier Area S/L Relocation & Upgrade Upgrade S 500,000 - 500,000 - - - - -

200 12 Ocean Outfall Upgrade S 50,000 - 50,000 - - - - -

201 12 Geographic Information Systems Technology S 600,000 - 200,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 -

202 12 La Salina Energy Upgrade Upgrade S 2,491,200 - 1,491,200 1,000,000 - - - -

203 12 La Salina Secondary Effluent Pump Station Upgrade S 1,031,799 - 1,031,799 - - - - -

204 12 Scada Replacement and Upgrade Upgrade S 500,000 - 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 -

205 12 Roymar Lift Station Force Main Upgrade Upgrade S 196,728 - 196,728 - - - - -

206 12 North Valley Lift Station Upgrade Upgrade S 2,080,465 - 2,080,465 - - - - -

207 12 SLR WWTP Minor Improvements Upgrade S 1,250,000 - 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 -

208 12 Lift Station Upgrades Upgrade S 2,000,000 - 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 -

209 12 La Salina Minor Improvements Upgrade S 1,250,000 - 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 -

210 12 SLR WWTP Interim Expansion Upgrade S 54,402,350 - 44,402,350 - - - 10,000,000 -

211 12 Highway 76 S/L Relocation Upgrade S 600,000 - 600,000 - - - - -

212 12 Misc. Sewer Projects Misc. S 3,200,000 - 1,000,000 1,000,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 -

213 12 Land Outfall New S 10,800,000 - 200,000 600,000 - 10,000,000 - -

214 12 ECR Sewer Upgrade : Phase 4 Upgrade S 6,000,000 - 1,000,000 5,000,000 - - - -

215 12 Haymar Interceptor Sewer New S 900,000 - 900,000 - - - - -

216 12 Loma Alta Creek S/L - Private Property New S 500,000 - 500,000 - - - - -

217 12 Whelan Lake Mitigation New S 500,000 - 500,000 - - - - -

218 12 ECR Detention Basin S/L to 18-in New S 630,000 - 630,000 - - - - -

219 12 Harbor S/L Relocation & Upgrade Upgrade S - - - - - - - -

220 12 S/L Replacemtent Areas 1 & 13 Upgrade S 130,000 - - - - - 130,000 -

221 12 Buena Vista Force Main & Gravity Line New S 3,300,000 - - - 300,000 3,000,000 - -

222 12 Myers/Tait Street Sewer Line New S 3,600,000 - - - - - 3,600,000 -

223 12 S/L Replac Areas 4,5,6 Phase II Upgrade S 1,250,000 - - - - 1,250,000 - -

224 13 Sanitary Sewer System Inflow Reduction Technology S 180,000 - - - - - -

225 13 Neighborhood Loans Misc. S 50,000 20,560 - - - - - -

226 13 Midland Road Sewer New S 164,523 20,776 - - - - - -

227 13 Metro Sewer Capacity Mandated S 7,498,500 - - - - - - -

228 13 Sewer System Master Plan Update Technology S 51,759 51,759 - - - - - -

166

Exhibit 11Wastewater Capital Projects, FY 2003 and Later

ProjectNo.

Agency ID /

Fund No.1Project Description Project Type

Regional (R) / Subregional

Total Project Cost Costs Prior to

FY 2003 FY 2003

CostsFY 2004Costs

FY 2005Costs

FY 2006Costs

FY 2007Costs

Costs After FY 2007

229 13 Wastewater Collect. Access Manhole Rehab. Upgrade S 1,060,000 897,568 150,000 - - - - -

230 13Pomerado County Wastewater Treatment Plant Site Demolition and Cleanup

Upgrade S 200,000 - - - - - - -

231 13 Temple Way Sewer Easement New S 10,000 - - - - - - -

232 13 Materials Handling Yard New S 42,000 42,000 - - - - - -

235 14 OTAY MESA TRUNK SEWER Upgrade S 30,350,290 2,061,936 9,551,535 16,701,464 1,635,355 400,000 - -

238 14BRINE MANAGEMENT FORCE MAIN AND PUMP STATION

Upgrade S 11,165,603 1,847,521 7,871,077 1,447,006 - - - -

241 14SAN PASQUAL PROCESS REPLACEMENT PROJECT (SBR)

Upgrade S 6,610,734 444,137 3,611,681 2,554,917 - - - -

244 14ANNUAL ALLOCATION - PS 64, 65, PENASQUITOS & E. MISSION GORGE

Upgrade S 5,020,000 1,550,000 1,345,000 1,345,000 380,000 400,000 - -

245 14 TELEMETRY CONTROL - SCADA PHASE I & II Technology S 4,419,847 2,597,633 1,822,214 - - - - -

248 14SAN PASQUAL EFFLUENT DISPOSAL (San Elijo Outfall)

Upgrade S 4,000,000 - 4,000,000 - - - - -

250 14SEWER PUMP STATION #77 FORCE MAIN REPLACEMENT

Upgrade S 3,217,320 104,000 92,109 3,021,212 - - - -

256 14BEACH AREA LOW FLOW STORM DRAIN DIVERSION

New S 680,010 680,010 - - - - - -

259 14 WET WEATHER STORAGE FACILITY New S 48,050,783 7,885,287 19,496,380 12,914,316 6,669,214 1,085,586 - -

260 14WASTEWATER OPERATIONS MANAGEMENT NETWORK (COMNET)

New S 26,144,856 3,624,676 192,448 2,469,073 4,490,966 6,145,422 4,950,651 4,271,620

261 14 ANNUAL ALLOCATION-METRO BIOSOLIDS CENTER Upgrade R 17,000,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 6,000,000

262 14ANNUAL ALLOCATION-NORTH CITY WATER RECLAMATION PLANT

Upgrade R 17,000,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 6,000,000

263 14 POINT LOMA - GRIT PROCESSING IMPROVEMENTS Upgrade R 16,984,204 1,277,995 2,996,213 5,831,610 5,086,284 1,792,102 - -

264 14ANNUAL ALLOCATION-SOUTH BAY WATER RECLAMATION PLANT

Upgrade R 15,500,000 - 1,500,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 6,000,000

265 14ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING & TECHNICAL SERVICES LAB PHASE 1

Green S 15,360,863 4,534,879 10,825,984 - - - - -

266 14NCWRP PERMANENT DEMINERALIZA- TION FACILITY - PHASE 1

New R 15,021,566 10,728,542 4,020,461 272,563 - - - -

267 14 POINT LOMA-DIGESTER S1 AND S2 UPGRADES Upgrade R 14,452,929 - - 772,420 6,473,663 7,206,846 - -

268 14 NORTH METRO INTERCEPTOR - IIIB New S 13,186,857 - - - - - 4,239,855 8,947,002

269 14 OTAY RIVER PUMP STATION Upgrade R 10,527,747 10,111,747 416,000 - - - - -

270 14ANNUAL ALLOCATION - PT. LOMA TREATMENT PLANT & RELATED FACILITIES

Upgrade R 9,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 3,000,000

271 14 SOUTH METRO REHABILITATION Upgrade R 7,961,795 - 269,968 7,691,827 - - - -

272 14POINT LOMA - DIGESTER FACILITY UPGRADE AND EXPANSION

Upgrade R 7,148,461 6,961,261 187,200 - - - - -

273 14ANNUAL ALLOCATION-PUMP STATION 1 & PUMP STATION 2

Upgrade R 6,430,000 1,000,000 530,000 920,000 2,290,000 1,690,000 - -

274 14PUMP STATION 1 & 2 LARGE PUMPS IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

Upgrade R 6,430,275 416,000 919,360 1,574,810 1,725,541 1,794,564 - -

167

Exhibit 11Wastewater Capital Projects, FY 2003 and Later

ProjectNo.

Agency ID /

Fund No.1Project Description Project Type

Regional (R) / Subregional

Total Project Cost Costs Prior to

FY 2003 FY 2003

CostsFY 2004Costs

FY 2005Costs

FY 2006Costs

FY 2007Costs

Costs After FY 2007

275 14POINT LOMA FOURTH SLUDGE PUMP AND OTHER MODIFICATIONS

Upgrade R 4,292,570 62,400 2,814,479 1,415,691 - - - -

276 14 POOLED CONTINGENCY Misc. S 4,160,827 1,232,155 1,165,504 546,554 545,824 390,790 70,000 210,000

277 14 METRO BIOSOLIDS CENTER Upgrade R 3,248,100 3,248,100 - - - - - -

278 14 SOUTH BAY WATER RECLAMATION PLANT Upgrade R 2,622,920 2,622,920 - - - - - -

279 14METROPOLITAN OPERATIONS CENTER EXPANSION, PHASE II

Upgrade S 2,339,762 1,656,100 683,662 - - - - -

280 14 POINT LOMA - SITE IMPROVEMENTS Upgrade R 1,900,887 1,504,149 396,738 - - - - -

281 14 PUMP ENERGY RECOVERY PROJECT (PERP) Misc. S 1,500,000 1,500,000 - - - - - -

282 14 FIRP PUMP STATION Upgrade S 1,542,000 1,542,000 - - - - - -

283 14 POOLED CONTINGENCY Misc. S 1,226,692 131,890 112,396 403,943 139,595 48,393 125,088 265,387

284 14MISSION VALLEY WATER RECLAMATION PLANT ROAD IMPROVEMENTS

Upgrade R 1,200,000 1,200,000 - - - - - -

285 14PT. LOMA - HEADWORKS, ODOR CONTROL AND GRIT PROCESSING FACILITY

Green R 1,033,594 1,033,594 - - - - - -

286 14CLEAN WATER PROGRAM PREDESIGN AND ENGINEERING SUPPORT

Green S 672,118 124,099 129,063 134,224 139,554 145,178 - -

287 14 NORTH METRO INTERCEPTOR Upgrade S 594,454 594,454 - - - - - -

288 14 COMC CONTROL OF EMERGENCY GENERATORS Misc. S 486,000 486,000 - - - - - -

289 14SOUTH METRO DOWNTOWN TUNNEL REHABILITATION

Upgrade S 388,683 318,683 70,000 - - - - -

290 14 POINT LOMA - CHEMICAL FEED SYSTEMS UPGRADE Upgrade R 418,985 418,985 - - - - - -

291 14PT. LOMA - POWER GENERATION & DISTRIBUTION UPGRADE

Upgrade R 241,472 241,472 - - - - - -

292 14POINT LOMA - OPERATIONS BUILDING AND VISITOR CENTER

Upgrade R 217,906 217,906 - - - - - -

293 14METROPOLITAN OPERATIONS CENTER MOC II BUILD OUT

Upgrade S 162,040 162,040 - - - - - -

294 14 POINT LOMA - DIGESTER 9 Upgrade R 119,420 - - - - - - 119,420

295 14 POINT LOMA - NORTH ACCESS ROAD Upgrade R 79,757 79,757 - - - - - -

296 14 POINT LOMA - SOUTH ACCESS ROAD Upgrade R 72,773 72,773 - - - - - -

297 14SOUTH BAY PUMP STATION AND CONVEYANCE SYSTEM PHASE 1

New R 100,000 100,000 - - - - - -

298 14SOUTH BAY WATER RECLAMATION SEWER AND PUMP STATION

Upgrade R 79,710 79,710 - - - - - -

299 17 Eden Gardens Pump Station Modification Upgrade S 1,126,000 - 250,000 876,000 - - -

300 17 Solana Beach Force Main Upgrade S 1,600,000 - - - - - 1,600,000 -

301 17 Solana Beach Pump Station Upgrade S 1,000,000 - - - - 1,000,000 - -

302 17 Solana Beach Containment Pond Dredging Upgrade S 30,000 - 30,000 - - - - -

303 17 San Elijo Hills Pump Station Upgrade S 25,000 - 25,000 - - - -

304 17 Sanitary Sewer Pipeline Replacement Upgrade S 1,400,000 100,000 260,000 260,000 260,000 260,000 260,000 -

305 18 Buena Vista Jefferson Pump Station New S 5,051,600 5,051,600 - - - - - -

306 18 Vista Village Dr./Jefferson St. Upgrade S 20,000 20,000 - - - - - -

307 18 Vista Carlsbad Int. Phase I Upgrade S 3,285,385 1,295,000 1,990,385 - - - - -

308 18 Osborne OV6 Sewer New S 109,150 49,150 60,000 - - - - -

168

Exhibit 11Wastewater Capital Projects, FY 2003 and Later

ProjectNo.

Agency ID /

Fund No.1Project Description Project Type

Regional (R) / Subregional

Total Project Cost Costs Prior to

FY 2003 FY 2003

CostsFY 2004Costs

FY 2005Costs

FY 2006Costs

FY 2007Costs

Costs After FY 2007

309 18 Olive Ave. Sewers Upgrade S 977,702 977,702 - - - - - -

310 18 Computerized Map Program Technology S 203,000 203,000 - - - - - -

311 18 Vehicle Maintenance Bldg. "B" Upgrade S 554,100 554,100 - - - - - -

312 18 Vista Carlsbad Interceptor V5-16 Upgrade S 7,261,100 7,261,100 - - - - - -

313 18 Mass. Ave. and Citrus Ave. Sewer Upgrade S 1,840,886 218,612 - 1,622,274 - - - -

314 18 Avocado Dr. and Hwy 78 Sewer Upgrade S 30,000 30,000 - - - - - -

315 18 Hillway Dr. Sewer Upgrade S 75,000 30,000 45,000 - - - - -

316 18 Nancy Way and Sandra Circle Access New S 20,000 20,000 - - - - - -

317 18 Ocean View Dr. Sewer Upgrade S 63,393 63,393 - - - - - -

318 18 Raceway Pump Station Rehabilitation Upgrade S 43,500 43,500 - - - - - -

319 18 Anns Way Sewer Upgrade S 200,000 - 200,000 - - - - -

320 18 Benito Juarez Way Sewer Upgrade S 970,519 - 970,519 - - - - -

321 18 Monte Vista Dr./Valley Dr. Sewer New S 47,000 - 47,000 - - - - -

322 18 Raceway Pump Station Replacement Upgrade S 800,000 - 800,000 - - - - -

323 18 West Vista Way Sewer Upgrade S 1,333,805 - 1,333,805 - - - - -

324 18 Amador Ave. Sewer Upgrade S 345,737 - - 345,737 - - - -

325 18 Citrus Ave. and Uno Ct. Sewer Upgrade S 725,000 - - 725,000 - - - -

326 18 Highland Dr. and Maryland Dr. Sewer Upgrade S 77,441 - - 77,441 - - - -

327 18 Lexington Dr. and Beaumont Dr. Sewer Upgrade S 836,369 - - 836,369 - - - -

328 18 Escondido Ave. Sewer Upgrade S 730,975 - - - 730,975 - - -

329 18 Eucalyptus Ave. and Citrus Ave. Sewer Upgrade S 375,000 - - - 375,000 - - -

330 18 Pala Vista Dr. Sewer Upgrade S 707,754 - - - 707,754 - - -

331 18 Sunset Dr. Sewer New S 309,623 - - - 309,623 - - -

332 18 Franklin Ln. Sewer Upgrade S 341,388 - - - - 341,388 - -

333 18 Monte Vista Sewer Upgrade S 700,000 - - - - 700,000 - -

334 18 Vale View Sewer Upgrade S 554,821 - - - - 554,821 - -

335 18 Vista Carlsbad Interceptor Phase II (Reaches 1-3) Upgrade S 1,577,925 - - - - 1,577,925 - -

336 18 Vista Village Dr./East Broadway Sewer Upgrade S 399,758 - - - - 399,758 - -

337 18 Buena Outfall Phase I Upgrade S 138,040 138,040 - - - - - -

338 18 Buena Outfall Phase II Upgrade S 343,128 - 343,128 - - - - -

339 18 Buena Outfall Phase III New S 270,443 - - 270,443 - - - -

409102 14 Chollas Valley TS - Phase II (CH) Upgrade S 8,140,000 - 2,713,334 2,713,333 2,713,333 - -

409270 14 Centre City Sewer Improve - Ph I Upgrade S 883,300 883,300 - - - - - -

409280 14 South Pacific Highway TS & Wt Gp 535 Upgrade S 5,676,000 - 2,838,000 2,838,000 - - -

409290 14 Alvarado TS - Phase II (NV) Upgrade S 1,794,000 1,794,000 - - - - - -

409310 14 South Mission Valley Trunk Sewer Upgrade S 10,790,000 - - - 2,697,500 2,697,500 2,697,500 2,697,500

419230 14 Sewer PS 26 (LJ) Upgrade S 2,436,000 - 2,436,000 - - - - -

440001 14 Sewer & Water Group 792 (SE) (4400AD) Upgrade S 2,484,000 - - - - - - 2,484,000

440002 14 Sewer Group 806 (CA) (4400DB) Upgrade S 2,739,000 - - - - - - 2,739,000

441023 14 SEWER & WATER GROUP 601 (OT) (00) Upgrade S 1,224,000 - 1,224,000 - - - - -

441024 14 Water & Sewer Group 490 (LP) (99) Upgrade S 379,200 379,200 - - - - - -

441029 14 Water & Sewer Group 487 (LV) (98) Upgrade S 906,200 906,200 - - - - - -

441035 14 Water & Sewer Group 486 (UP) (98) Upgrade S 1,006,000 1,006,000 - - - - - -

441037 14 Sewer & Water Group 079 (GP) (98) Upgrade S 3,017,000 - - 3,017,000 - - - -

441050 14 Sewer & Water Group 090 (CA) (00) Upgrade S 1,967,000 - - 1,967,000 - - - -

169

Exhibit 11Wastewater Capital Projects, FY 2003 and Later

ProjectNo.

Agency ID /

Fund No.1Project Description Project Type

Regional (R) / Subregional

Total Project Cost Costs Prior to

FY 2003 FY 2003

CostsFY 2004Costs

FY 2005Costs

FY 2006Costs

FY 2007Costs

Costs After FY 2007

441063 14 Water & Sewer Group 496 (LJ) (99) Upgrade S 375,000 375,000 - - - - - -

441066 14 Sewer & Water Group 606 (NH) (99) Upgrade S 1,170,000 1,170,000 - - - - - -

441070 14 Water & Sewer Group 505 (KE) (99) Upgrade S 307,000 307,000 - - - - - -

441073 14 SEWER GROUP 530 (PN) (00) Upgrade S 908,000 - 908,000 - - - - -

441074 14 Water & Sewer Group 530A (OT) (99) Upgrade S 159,700 - 159,700 - - - - -

441075 14 Sewer Group 635 (UP) (99) Upgrade S 2,098,000 - 2,098,000 - - - - -

441076 14 Sewer Group 636 (GP) (99) Upgrade S 2,606,000 2,606,000 - - - - - -

441078 14 Sewer Group 638 (PN) (99) Upgrade S 1,735,000 - 1,735,000 - - - - -

441079 14 Sewer Group 653 (EN) (03) Upgrade S 1,836,000 - - - 1,836,000 - - -

441080 14 Sewer & Water Group 637 (PN) (99) Upgrade S 1,345,000 - - 1,345,000 - - - -

441081 14 Sewer & Water Group 648 (KE) (04) Upgrade S 3,423,000 - - - - - 3,423,000 -

441082 14 Sewer Group 649 (KE) (03) Upgrade S 2,644,000 - - - - 2,644,000 - -

441083 14 Sewer & Water Group 650 (KE) (05) Upgrade S 1,689,000 - - - - - - 1,689,000

441084 14 Sewer Group 651 (KE) (02) Upgrade S 3,120,000 - - - 3,120,000 - - -

441085 14 Sewer Group 652 (KE) (01) Upgrade S 3,976,000 - 1,988,000 1,988,000 - - - -

441087 14 SEWER GROUP 655 (OB1) (00) Upgrade S 2,255,000 2,255,000 - - - - - -

441088 14 Sewer Group 656 (OB2) (00) Upgrade S 1,554,000 - 1,554,000 - - - - -

441089 14 Sewer Group 657 (PN) (00) Upgrade S 1,416,000 1,416,000 - - - - - -

441090 14 Sewer & Water Group 658 (OB4) (00) Upgrade S 1,556,000 - 1,556,000 - - - - -

441091 14 SEWER GROUP 659 (OB5) (00) Upgrade S 1,549,000 - - 1,549,000 - - - -

441092 14 Sewer Group 646 (MP) (98) Upgrade S 703,500 - 703,500 - - - - -

441093 14 Sewer & Water Group 660 (OT1) (00) Upgrade S 2,014,000 - - 2,014,000 - - - -

441094 14 SEWER & WATER GROUP 661B (OT2) (00) Upgrade S 2,302,000 - 2,302,000 - - - - -

441095 14 Sewer & Water Group 662 (OT3) (00) Upgrade S 1,547,000 - - 1,547,000 - - - -

441096 14 Sewer & Water Group 663 (OT4) (00) Upgrade S 2,869,000 - - 2,869,000 - - - -

441097 14 Sewer Group 664 (OT5) (05) Upgrade S 1,050,000 - - - - - 1,050,000 -

441098 14 Sewer Group 665 (OT) (03) Upgrade S 2,608,000 - - - - - 2,608,000 -

442048 14 SEWER GROUP 626 (SE) (00) Upgrade S 1,860,000 - - 1,860,000 - - - -

442049 14 SEWER GROUP 627 (SE) (02) Upgrade S 2,328,000 - 2,328,000 - - - - -

442050 14 Sewer Group 524 (UP) (00) Upgrade S 828,400 828,400 - - - - - -

442100 14 Sewer & Water Group 644 (GP) (05) Upgrade S 2,413,000 - - - - - 2,413,000 -

442101 14 Sewer & Water Group 667 (OB2) (02) Upgrade S 2,173,000 - - - 2,173,000 - - -

442102 14 Sewer & Water Group 668 (PN3) (05) Upgrade S 2,707,000 - - - - - 2,707,000 -

442103 14 Sewer & Water Group 669 (PN) (01) Upgrade S 1,199,000 - - 1,199,000 - - - -

442104 14 Sewer & Water Group 666 (OB1) (04) Upgrade S 1,546,000 - - - 1,546,000 - - -

442105 14 Sewer & Water Group 670 (OB5) (03) Upgrade S 1,940,000 - - - - 1,940,000 - -

442106 14 Group 2000 - S Grp 633 (SE) (02) Upgrade S 2,497,000 - - 2,497,000 - - - -

442107 14 Water & Sewer Group 473 (GH) (99) Upgrade S 1,441,000 - 1,441,000 - - - - -

442112 14 Sewer Group 672 (UP) (02) Upgrade S 1,952,000 - - - 1,952,000 - - -

442113 14 Sewer & Water Group 673 (UP) (01) Upgrade S 2,339,000 - - 2,339,000 - - - -

442114 14 Sewer & Water Group 674 (UP) (99) Upgrade S 1,094,000 - 1,094,000 - - - - -

442115 14 Sewer & Water Group 671 (UP) (99) Upgrade S 964,800 - 964,800 - - - - -

442118 14 Stonehaven Sewer Relocation (CM) Upgrade S 951,300 - - 951,300 - - - -

442121 14 Sewer & Water Group 661A (UP2) (98) Upgrade S 248,900 248,900 - - - - - -

442122 14 Elliott/Curtis St. Sewer Relocation Upgrade S 774,500 - - 774,500 - - - -

442124 14 Sewer Repl - Contract A-1 Upgrade S 1,598,000 - 1,598,000 - - - - -

170

Exhibit 11Wastewater Capital Projects, FY 2003 and Later

ProjectNo.

Agency ID /

Fund No.1Project Description Project Type

Regional (R) / Subregional

Total Project Cost Costs Prior to

FY 2003 FY 2003

CostsFY 2004Costs

FY 2005Costs

FY 2006Costs

FY 2007Costs

Costs After FY 2007

442129 14 Sewer & Water Group 682 (BP5) (04) Upgrade S 8,018,000 - - - - 2,672,667 2,672,667 -

442130 14 Sewer & Water Group 677 (PN3) (01) Upgrade S 1,571,000 - - 1,571,000 - - - -

442131 14 Sewer & Water Group 675 (PN1) (02) Upgrade S 2,640,000 - - - - 2,640,000 - -

442132 14 Sewer & Water Group 676 (PN2) (03) Upgrade S 1,684,000 - - - - - - 1,684,000

442133 14 Sewer Group 678 (BP1) (06) Upgrade S 1,636,000 - - - - - - 1,636,000

442134 14 Sewer & Water Group 679 (BP2) (05) Upgrade S 782,700 - - - - - - 782,700

442135 14 Group 2001 - S Grp 681 (BP4) (02) Upgrade S 7,557,000 - - - 2,519,000 2,519,000 2,519,000 -

442136 14 Group 2001 - S Grp 680 (BP3) (03) Upgrade S 8,396,000 - - - 2,798,667 2,798,667 2,798,667 -

442139 14 Cather/Florey Sewer (UV) Upgrade S 1,176,000 - - 1,176,000 - - - -

442140 14 Suncrest Sewer & Water (GP) Upgrade S 502,500 502,500 - - - - - -

442142 14 SEWER GROUP 627B (SE) (02) Upgrade S 1,225,000 - - - 1,225,000 - - -

442145 14 SEWER GROUP 646A (KE) (99) Upgrade S 770,900 - 770,900 - - - - -

442148 14 SEWER GROUP 605A (CH) Upgrade S 2,012,000 - - 2,012,000 - - - -

442149 14 Sewer Group 683 (CH1) (03) Upgrade S 4,029,000 - - - 2,014,500 2,014,500 - -

442150 14 Sewer & Water Group 684A (CH2) (02) Upgrade S 4,770,000 - - - - 2,385,000 2,385,000 -

442151 14 Sewer & Water Group 685 (CH3) (04) Upgrade S 2,654,000 - - - - - - 2,654,000

442152 14 Sewer & Water Group 686 (CH4) (01) Upgrade S 2,701,000 - - - 2,701,000 - - -

442154 14 Sewer Group 687 (GP1) (02) Upgrade S 6,108,000 - - 2,036,000 2,036,000 2,036,000 - -

442155 14 Group 2000 - S&W Grp 690 (GP4) (01) Upgrade S 3,316,000 - - 1,658,000 1,658,000 - - -

442156 14 Sewer & Water Group 688 (GP2) (03) Upgrade S 1,814,000 - - - 1,814,000 - - -

442157 14 Sewer & Water Group 689 (GP3) (04) Upgrade S 2,240,000 - - - - - - 2,240,000

442158 14 Del Rey Sewer Main Repl (PB) Upgrade S 1,726,000 - - - 1,726,000 - - -

442162 14 18th & Palm - Accel (ON) (GRC1/1) Upgrade S 251,000 - - 251,000 - - - -

442164 14 Redwood & 31st Sewer Main (GP) Upgrade S 409,000 - 409,000 - - - - -

442167 14 Water & Sewer Group 464C (CC) Upgrade S 1,193,000 - - - - 1,193,000 - -

442168 14 Sewer Group 464B (CC) Upgrade S 795,800 - 795,800 - - - - -

442170 14 Sewer Group 647 (KE) Upgrade S 1,001,000 - 1,001,000 - - - - -

442171 14 Sewer Group 634B (PN) Upgrade S 2,677,000 - - 2,677,000 - - - -

442172 14 Sewer Group 683A (CH) Upgrade S 3,033,000 - - - - - - 3,033,000

442173 14 Sewer Group 623B (BL) Upgrade S 4,222,000 - - 2,111,000 2,111,000 - - -

442174 14 Water & Sewer Group 536 (CC) Upgrade S 334,300 - - - - - - 334,300

442175 14 FAY AVE. REALIGNMENT SEWER MAIN (LJ) Upgrade S 95,500 - 95,500 - - - - -

442178 14 Sewer & Water Group 726 (PN1) (04) Upgrade S 2,668,000 - - - - 2,668,000 - -

442179 14 Sewer & Water Group 727 (PN2) (05) Upgrade S 2,214,000 - - - - 2,214,000 - -

442180 14 Sewer & Water Group 728 (PN4) (DEF) Upgrade S 2,340,000 - - - - - 2,340,000 -

442181 14 Sewer & Water Group 729 (PN3) (06) Upgrade S 1,682,000 - - - - - - 1,682,000

442182 14 Sewer & Water Group 730 (PN5) (05) Upgrade S 1,134,000 - - - - - - 1,134,000

442183 14 Sewer & Water Group 731 (PN6) (DEF) Upgrade S 1,322,000 - - - - - 1,322,000 -

442184 14 Sewer & Water Group 732 (PN7) (DEF) Upgrade S 1,319,000 - - - - - 1,319,000 -

442185 14 SEWER & WATER GROUP 733 (PN8) (04) Upgrade S 1,327,000 - - - - 1,327,000 - -

442186 14 ARDATH RD/LA JOLLA SHORES DR SEWER Upgrade S 977,000 - - 977,000 - - - -

442187 14 Water & Sewer Group 545 (OB102) Upgrade S 1,173,000 - - - - 1,173,000 - -

442188 14 Sewer Group 734 (SE1) (04) Upgrade S 1,426,000 - - - - - - 1,426,000

442189 14 Water & Sewer Group 544 (OB101) Upgrade S 1,114,000 - - - - - 1,114,000 -

442190 14 Sewer Group 735 (PN5) Upgrade S 1,814,000 - - - - - 1,814,000 -

442191 14 Sewer Group 737 (CA3) (DEF) Upgrade S 1,535,000 - - - - - 1,535,000 -

171

Exhibit 11Wastewater Capital Projects, FY 2003 and Later

ProjectNo.

Agency ID /

Fund No.1Project Description Project Type

Regional (R) / Subregional

Total Project Cost Costs Prior to

FY 2003 FY 2003

CostsFY 2004Costs

FY 2005Costs

FY 2006Costs

FY 2007Costs

Costs After FY 2007

442192 14 Sewer Group 697A (SE) Upgrade S 296,300 - - - 296,300 - - -

442194 14 Sewer & Water Group 740 (OB2VC) Upgrade S 2,140,000 - - - - - 2,140,000 -

442195 14 Sewer Group 739 (OB1VC) Upgrade S 1,854,000 - - - - - 1,854,000 -

442196 14 Sewer & Water Group 741 (GP13VC) Upgrade S 2,760,000 - - - - - 2,760,000 -

442198 14 Sewer Group 742 (LJ20VC) Upgrade S 5,016,000 - - - - 2,508,000 2,508,000 -

442199 14 Sewer Group 743 (MB43VC) Upgrade S 2,985,000 - - - - - 2,985,000 -

442200 14 Sewer Group 744 (BL24VC) Upgrade S 6,376,000 - - - 2,125,333 2,125,333 2,125,333 -

442201 14 Sewer Group 745 (BL25VC) Upgrade S 5,843,000 - - - - 2,921,500 2,921,500 -

442202 14 Sewer Group 746 (CH10VC) Upgrade S 3,153,000 - - - - 1,576,500 1,576,500 -

442203 14 Sewer & Water Group 747 (CC30VC) Upgrade S 3,014,000 - - - - 1,507,000 1,507,000 -

442204 14 Sewer Group 748 (SE34VC) Upgrade S 4,047,000 - - - - 2,023,500 2,023,500 -

442205 14 Sewer Group 749 (CH37VC) Upgrade S 2,857,000 - - - - - 2,857,000 -

442206 14 Sewer Group 687A (GP) (05) Upgrade S 4,426,000 - - - - 2,213,000 2,213,000 -

442207 14 Sewer Group 738 (GP) Upgrade S 1,685,000 - - - - - - 1,685,000

442209 14 Sewer Group 750 (CA1) (DEF) Upgrade S 1,827,000 - - - - - 1,827,000 -

442210 14 Sewer Group 751 (MH12) (DEF) Upgrade S 2,057,000 - - - - - 2,057,000 -

442211 14 Sewer Group 752 (LJ18VC) Upgrade S 2,947,000 - - - - - - 2,947,000

442212 14 Sewer & Water Group 753 (CC33VC) Upgrade S 1,674,000 - - - - - - 1,674,000

442213 14 Sewer & Water Group 754 (MB42VC) Upgrade S 1,883,000 - - - - - - 1,883,000

442214 14 Sewer & Water Group 756 (CM47VC) Upgrade S 2,510,000 - - - - - - 2,510,000

442215 14 Sewer Group 757 (LV46VC) Upgrade S 1,584,000 - - - - - - 1,584,000

442216 14 Sewer & Water Group 758 (MH22VC) Upgrade S 1,485,000 - - - - - - 1,485,000

442217 14 Sewer & Water Group 759 (OB103) Upgrade S 559,800 - - - - - 559,800 -

442219 14 Sewer & Water Group 760 (CA) Upgrade S 628,000 - - - - - 628,000 -

442221 14 Sewer & Water Group 764 (PN) Upgrade S 3,242,000 - - - - - 1,621,000 1,621,000

442222 14 Sewer & Water Group 765 (SL) Upgrade S 5,884,000 - - - - - - 5,884,000

442223 14 Sewer Group 767 (NH) Upgrade S 4,080,000 - - - - - 2,040,000 2,040,000

442224 14 Sewer & Water Group 768 (SE) Upgrade S 6,023,000 - - - - - - 6,023,000

442225 14 Sewer & Water Group 761 (CC) Upgrade S 2,576,000 - - - - - - 2,576,000

442226 14 Sewer Group 762 (SL) Upgrade S 4,993,000 - - - - - 2,496,500 2,496,500

442227 14 Sewer & Water Group 763 (LV) Upgrade S 3,334,000 - - - - - 1,667,000 1,667,000

442228 14 Sewer & Water Group 766 (OT) Upgrade S 2,806,000 - - - - - - 2,806,000

442229 14 Sewer Group 900 Upgrade S 126,800 - - 126,800 - - - -

442230 14 Sewer Group 901 Upgrade S 341,200 - - 341,200 - - - -

442231 14 Sewer Group 902 Upgrade S 265,000 - - 265,000 - - - -

442232 14 Sewer Group 903 Upgrade S 444,500 - - 444,500 - - - -

442233 14 Sewer Group 904 Upgrade S 391,100 - - 391,100 - - - -

442234 14 Sewer & Water Group 773 (CA2) (DEF) Upgrade S 1,202,000 - - - - - 1,202,000

442235 14 SEWER GROUP 742A (LJ) Upgrade S 206,800 - - 206,800 - - - -

442236 14 Sewer Group 747A (CC) Upgrade S 1,591,000 - - - 1,591,000 - - -

442237 14 Sewer & Water Group 772 (KE) Upgrade S 1,559,000 - - - - - - 1,559,000

442238 14 Sewer Group 784 (EA) Upgrade S 4,763,000 - - - - - - 4,763,000

442239 14 Sewer Group 788 (EA) Upgrade S 2,264,000 - - - - - - 2,264,000

442240 14 Sewer & Water Group 764A (PN) Upgrade S 5,540,000 - - - - - - 5,540,000

442241 14 Sewer & Water Group 789 (LV) Upgrade S 3,719,000 - - - - - 1,859,500 1,859,500

442242 14 Sewer Group 783 (EA) Upgrade S 2,880,000 - - - - - - 2,880,000

172

Exhibit 11Wastewater Capital Projects, FY 2003 and Later

ProjectNo.

Agency ID /

Fund No.1Project Description Project Type

Regional (R) / Subregional

Total Project Cost Costs Prior to

FY 2003 FY 2003

CostsFY 2004Costs

FY 2005Costs

FY 2006Costs

FY 2007Costs

Costs After FY 2007

442243 14 Prospect Street Sewer Replacement Upgrade S 462,600 - - - - 462,600 - -

442245 14 Sewer & Water Group 785 (CM) Upgrade S 2,188,000 - - - - - - 2,188,000

442247 14 Sewer Group 774 (CH12VC) Upgrade S 2,504,000 - - - - - - 2,504,000

442248 14 Sewer Group 775 (CH8VC) Upgrade S 1,967,000 - - - - - - 1,967,000

442249 14 Sewer Group 776 (EA52VC) Upgrade S 1,996,000 - - - - - - 1,996,000

442250 14 Sewer Group 778 (EN57VC) Upgrade S 1,334,000 - - - - - - 1,334,000

442251 14 Sewer & Water Group 780 (CA) Upgrade S 2,298,000 - - - - - - 2,298,000

442252 14 Sewer & Water Group 781 (CH) Upgrade S 2,309,000 - - - - - - 2,309,000

442253 14 Sewer & Water Group 782 (CH) Upgrade S 1,935,000 - - - - - - 1,935,000

442254 14 Sewer Group 777 (EN55VC) Upgrade S 1,661,000 - - - - - - 1,661,000

442255 14 Sewer & Water Group 787 (CH) Upgrade S 2,061,000 - - - - - - 2,061,000

442256 14 Sewer Group 793 (SE) Upgrade S 1,557,000 - - - - - - 1,557,000

442257 14 Sewer Group 794 (SE) Upgrade S 1,358,000 - - - - - - 1,358,000

442258 14 Sewer Group 795 (CM) Upgrade S 1,657,000 - - - - - - 1,657,000

442259 14 Sewer & Water Group 796 Upgrade S 2,574,000 - - - - - - 2,574,000

442260 14 Sewer Group 797 (LJ) Upgrade S 1,774,000 - - - - - - 1,774,000

442261 14 Sewer Group 798 (LJ) Upgrade S 2,535,000 - - - - - - 2,535,000

442263 14 Sewer Group 802 (ON) Upgrade S 2,080,000 - - - - - - 2,080,000

442264 14 Sewer & Water Group 803 (OB) Upgrade S 2,962,000 - - - - - - 2,962,000

442265 14 Sewer Group 804 (PN) Upgrade S 1,556,000 - - - - - - 1,556,000

442266 14 Sewer & Water Group 785 Canyon (CM) Upgrade S 444,900 - - - - - - 444,900

442268 14 NTC Sewer (PN) Upgrade S 1,586,000 - - - - - - 1,586,000

442269 14 Sewer Group 807 (CA) Upgrade S 3,594,000 - - - - - - 3,594,000

442270 14 Sewer Group 805 (SL) Upgrade S 4,473,000 - - - - - 2,236,500 2,236,500

443021 14 Water & Sewer Group 464A (CC) (99) Upgrade S 1,024,000 - 1,024,000 - - - - -

443036 14 SEWER & WATER GROUP 605 (NH) (99) Upgrade S 1,576,000 - 1,576,000 - - - - -

443038 14 Sewer & Water Group 615 (BP) (99) Upgrade S 2,185,000 - 2,185,000 - - - - -

443045 14 Water & Sewer Group 514 (GP) (99) Upgrade S 393,000 393,000 - - - - - -

443046 14 Sewer Group 630 (SE) (00) Upgrade S 2,122,000 - 2,122,000 - - - - -

443051 14 SEWER GROUP 623 (SE) (99) Upgrade S 1,104,000 - 1,104,000 - - - - -

443056 14 Sewer Group 634A (PN) (99) Upgrade S 1,744,000 1,744,000 - - - - - -

443058 14 WATER & SEWER GROUP 516 (OB) (ND) Upgrade S 468,200 - - 468,200 - - - -

443059 14 Sewer Group 616 (UP) (02) Upgrade S 3,737,000 - - - 1,868,500 1,868,500 - -

443061 14 SEWER & WATER GROUP 639 (UP) Upgrade S 1,265,000 - 1,265,000 - - - - -

443062 14 SEWER GROUP 619 (UP) (99) Upgrade S 2,341,000 - - - - 2,341,000 - -

443063 14 Sewer & Water Group 620 (UP) (99) Upgrade S 1,235,000 - 1,235,000 - - - - -

443066 14 Water & Sewer Group 517 (OB) (99) Upgrade S 406,300 406,300 - - - - - -

443068 14 Water & Sewer Group 489 (KE) (01) Upgrade S 1,093,000 - - 1,093,000 - - - -

443074 14 Water & Sewer Group 521 (CC) Upgrade S 222,700 - - - - - - 222,700

443077 14 Alvarado Trunk Sewer Realignment Upgrade S 2,943,000 - 2,943,000 - - - - -

443085 14 Water & Sewer Group 529 (PN) (98) Upgrade S 1,576,000 1,576,000 - - - - - -

443089 14 Water & Sewer Group 515 (GH) (99) Upgrade S 486,800 486,800 - - - - - -

443092 14 Water & Sewer Group 494 (LV) (01) Upgrade S 371,100 - - - 371,100 - - -

443094 14 Water & Sewer Group 523 (CA) (00) Upgrade S 414,000 414,000 - - - - - -

443095 14 SEWER GROUP 641 (LJ) (99) Upgrade S 3,843,000 1,921,500 1,921,500 - - - - -

443096 14 Sewer Group 640 (GH) (02) Upgrade S 5,172,000 - - - 2,586,000 2,586,000 - -

173

Exhibit 11Wastewater Capital Projects, FY 2003 and Later

ProjectNo.

Agency ID /

Fund No.1Project Description Project Type

Regional (R) / Subregional

Total Project Cost Costs Prior to

FY 2003 FY 2003

CostsFY 2004Costs

FY 2005Costs

FY 2006Costs

FY 2007Costs

Costs After FY 2007

443097 14 GROUP 2000 - S GRP 632 (SE) (00) Upgrade S 5,019,000 - 2,509,500 2,509,500 - - - -

443098 14 Sewer Group 626A (SE) (02) Upgrade S 1,293,000 - - - 1,293,000 - - -

443101 14 Sewer Group 691 (GP1) (04) Upgrade S 1,717,000 - - - - - 1,717,000 -

443102 14 Sewer Group 692 (GP2) (02) Upgrade S 2,453,000 - - - 2,453,000 - - -

443103 14 Sewer & Water Group 693 (GP3) (05) Upgrade S 1,913,000 - - - - - 1,913,000 -

443104 14 Sewer & Water Group 694 (GP4) (03) Upgrade S 3,256,000 - - - - 1,628,000 1,628,000 -

443105 14 Sewer & Water Group 695 (GP6) (06) Upgrade S 2,125,000 - - - - - - 2,125,000

443106 14 Sewer Group 725 (CA4) (02) Upgrade S 4,936,000 - - - 2,468,000 2,468,000 - -

443107 14 Sewer & Water Group 697 (BL1&2) (01) Upgrade S 2,611,000 - - - 2,611,000 - - -

443108 14 Sewer Group 698 (BL3) (04) Upgrade S 3,539,000 - - - - - 1,769,500 1,769,500

443109 14 Group 2000 - S&W Grp 699 (UP4) (01) Upgrade S 3,938,000 - - 1,969,000 1,969,000 - - -

443110 14 Sewer Group 700 (UP5) (03) Upgrade S 1,619,000 - - - - - 1,619,000 -

443111 14 Sewer & Water Group 701 (UP6) (05) Upgrade S 2,075,000 - - - - - - 2,075,000

443112 14 Sewer & Water Group 702 (PN10) (01) Upgrade S 756,400 - - - 756,400 - - -

443113 14 Sewer Group 703 (KE1) (03) Upgrade S 3,436,000 - - - 1,718,000 1,718,000 - -

443114 14 Sewer & Water Group 704 (KE2) (02) Upgrade S 1,725,000 - - - - 1,725,000 - -

443115 14 Sewer & Water Group 705 (KE3) (04) Upgrade S 1,353,000 - - - - - 1,353,000 -

443116 14 Sewer Group 706 (NH4) (02) Upgrade S 1,321,000 - - - 1,321,000 - - -

443117 14 Sewer Group 707 (NH5) (03) Upgrade S 2,565,000 - - - - 2,565,000 - -

443118 14 Sewer Group 708 (NH6) (01) Upgrade S 1,941,000 - - 1,941,000 - - - -

443119 14 Water & Sewer Group 539 (CC2) (02) Upgrade S 2,805,000 - - - 2,805,000 - - -

443120 14 Euclid Av Sewer & Water (KE) (JOC2) Upgrade S 271,900 271,900 - - - - - -

443122 14 Sewer Group 714 (LJ1) (03) Upgrade S 2,491,000 - - - - - 2,491,000 -

443123 14 Sewer Group 715 (LJ2) (04) Upgrade S 3,051,000 - - - - 1,525,500 1,525,500 -

443124 14 Sewer Group 716 (LJ3) (02) Upgrade S 4,923,000 - - - - 2,461,500 2,461,500 -

443127 14 Sewer & Water Group 711 (CC5) (02) Upgrade S 1,234,000 - - - - 1,234,000 - -

443130 14 Sewer Group 718 (OB2) (03) Upgrade S 2,131,000 - - - - 2,131,000 - -

443131 14 Sewer Group 719 (OB3) (02) Upgrade S 4,434,000 - - - - 4,434,000 - -

443132 14 Sewer & Water Group 720 (OB4) (05) Upgrade S 1,570,000 - - - - - - 1,570,000

443133 14 Sewer Group 721 (OB5) (06) Upgrade S 4,138,000 - - - - - 2,069,000 2,069,000

443134 14 Sewer Group 623A (BL) Upgrade S 1,010,000 - 1,010,000 - - - - -

443138 14 Sewer & Water Group 703A (KE) (05) Upgrade S 2,810,000 - - - - - - 2,810,000

443140 14 Sewer Group 722 (PN30) (03) Upgrade S 2,127,000 - - - 2,127,000 - - -

443141 14 Sewer & Water Group 723 (MH11) (04) Upgrade S 2,853,000 - - - - - 2,853,000 -

459360 14 Sewer System Canyon Access Upgrade S 50,800,000 - 10,160,000 10,160,000 10,160,000 10,160,000 10,160,000 -

460721 14 Catalina Blvd TS-Ph 2 (PN) Upgrade S 1,795,000 - - 1,795,000 - - - -

460722 14 Catalina Blvd TS-Ph 2 (PN) (Accel) Upgrade S 766,200 - 766,200 - - - - -

461068 14 SEWER PS 04 (PN) Upgrade S 3,302,000 - - 3,302,000 - - - -

461360 14 Carmel Valley Trunk Sewer e/o I-5 Upgrade S 8,776,000 - - - - 2,925,333 2,925,333 2,925,333

461391 14 Home Ave TS - Ph I (Contract II) Upgrade S 3,549,000 3,549,000 - - - - - -

461392 14 HOME AVE TS - PH I (CONTRACT III) Upgrade S 4,823,000 2,411,500 2,411,500 - - - - -

461420 14 Sewer PS 24 (LJ) Upgrade S 5,326,000 - 2,663,000 2,663,000 - - - -

461531 14 I-15/40th St Sewer Reloc - Ph II Upgrade S 632,900 - 632,900 - - - - -

461605 14 Sewer PS 22 & Water Rehab (LJ) Upgrade S 2,572,000 2,572,000 - - - - - -

461621 14 EAST LINDA VISTA TS - PH II Upgrade S 2,880,000 - - - 2,880,000 - - -

461942 14 LJ/PB TS -Chelsea Reloc. (GRC1/6) Upgrade S 10,410,000 - 2,602,500 2,602,500 2,602,500 2,602,500 - -

174

Exhibit 11Wastewater Capital Projects, FY 2003 and Later

ProjectNo.

Agency ID /

Fund No.1Project Description Project Type

Regional (R) / Subregional

Total Project Cost Costs Prior to

FY 2003 FY 2003

CostsFY 2004Costs

FY 2005Costs

FY 2006Costs

FY 2007Costs

Costs After FY 2007

461944 14 LJ/PB TS - Manhole Rehab (LJ) Upgrade S 2,562,000 - - 2,562,000 - - - -

461946 14 Carrol Canyon Trunk Sewer Repair Upgrade S 580,300 - - 580,300 - - - -

461947 14 Powderhouse Canyon Trunk Sewer Upgrade S 1,457,000 - - 1,457,000 - - - -

461950 14 Belt Street Trunk Sewer (BL) Upgrade S 5,838,000 - - - 2,919,000 2,919,000 - -

461952 14 Balboa Terrace Trunk Sewer (CM) Upgrade S 1,244,000 - - - - - 1,244,000 -

461953 14 Pacific Highway Trunk Sewer (MH) Upgrade S 3,553,000 - - - - 1,776,500 1,776,500 -

461955 14 Alvarado Trunk Sewer Ph III (NV) Upgrade S 2,613,000 - - - - - 2,613,000 -

461959 14 Crown Point Trunk Sewer (PB) Upgrade S 6,000,000 - - - - 3,000,000 3,000,000 -

461965 14 Palm City TS (ON) Upgrade S 1,059,000 - - - - - 1,059,000 -

461967 14 Penasquitos Views TS (RP) Upgrade S 1,715,000 - - - - - 1,715,000 -

461968 14 Barnett Avenue Trunk Sewer (MH) Upgrade S 989,200 - - 989,200 - - - -

461970 14 Sorrento Valley Trunk Sewer (SH) Upgrade S 11,180,000 - - 2,795,000 2,795,000 2,795,000 2,795,000 -

461973 14 Hillside Sewer (Techite) (GP) Upgrade S 316,600 - - - - - - 316,600

461975 14 Sunset Cliffs Trunk Sewer (OB) Upgrade S 4,448,000 - - - - - 2,224,000 2,224,000

461978 14 Grantville TS (TS#16) (NV) Upgrade S 7,142,000 - - - - - 2,380,666 4,761,334

461980 14 UCSD Trunk Sewer (UV) Upgrade S 2,434,000 - - - - 2,434,000 - -

461990 14 WEST LINDA VISTA TS - PH II (LV) Upgrade S 1,351,000 - 1,351,000 - - - - -

462000 14 Sewer PS 30A - Alternative (LJ) Upgrade S 8,330,000 - 2,776,666 2,776,667 2,776,667 - - -

462050 14 Harbor Drive Trunk Sewer (BL) Upgrade S 4,263,000 - - - - - - 4,263,000

462062 14 4TH & WASHINGTON SEWER (CC) (GRC1/8) Upgrade S 444,900 - - 444,900 - - - -

462064 14 Sewer Repl - Contract A-2 (CA) Upgrade S 1,651,000 - 1,651,000 - - - - -

462065 14 Sevan Court Sewer Repl (SM) Upgrade S 1,329,000 - - 1,329,000 - - - -

462066 14 Santa Clara Place Sewer Repl (MB) Upgrade S 161,600 161,600 - - - - - -

462067 14 Dove Canyon Sewer Repl (UP) Upgrade S 870,700 - - - 870,700 - - -

462068 14 Morena Bl Sewer Main (MR) Upgrade S 772,000 - - - - - 772,000 -

466001 14 Sewer PS 61 Improvements (SM) Upgrade S 2,722,000 - - 2,722,000 - - - -

466013 14 Sewer PS 27 Restoration (LJ) Upgrade S 4,595,000 - - 2,297,500 2,297,500 - - -

466016 14 Sewer PS 45 (TP) Upgrade S 11,840,000 - 2,960,000 2,960,000 2,960,000 2,960,000 - -

466018 14 Sewer PS 18 Rehab & Repl (PB) Upgrade S 4,461,000 - - - 2,230,500 2,230,500 - -

466019 14 Sewer PS 19 Rehab & Repl (LJ) Upgrade S 5,207,000 - - - 2,603,500 2,603,500 - -

466020 14 Sewer PS 41 Rehab (MP) Upgrade S 3,782,000 - - - - - 1,891,000 1,891,000

466021 14 Sewer PS 21 Rehab (LJ) Upgrade S 1,988,000 - - - - 1,988,000 - -

466022 14 Sewer PS 27 2nd Force Main (LJ) Upgrade S 1,909,000 - - - 1,909,000 - - -

466023 14 Sewer PS 35 (PN) Upgrade S 1,230,000 - - - 1,230,000 - - -

466024 14 Sewer PS 08 (SY) Upgrade S 903,000 - - - 903,000 - - -

466025 14 Sewer PS 6 & 7 Improvements (CC) Upgrade S 1,362,000 - - - - 1,362,000 - -

466027 14 Sewer PS 34 Demo, PS 05 Upgrade (BL) Upgrade S 2,131,000 - - - 2,131,000 - - -

466028 14 Sewer PS 36 (SY) Upgrade S 842,500 - - - 842,500 - - -

466029 14 Sewer PS 68 (CM) Upgrade S 787,100 - - - 787,100 - - -

466030 14 Sewer PS 49 (MV) Upgrade S 1,461,000 - - - - - 1,461,000 -

466031 14 Sewer PS 39 (PN) Upgrade S 955,400 - - - - 955,400 - -

466032 14 Sewer PS 59 (UV) Upgrade S 1,206,000 - - 1,206,000 - - - -

466034 14 Sewer Force Mains 33 to 58 (MP) Upgrade S 1,233,000 - - - - - 1,233,000 -

466035 14 Sewer PS 62 (SH) Upgrade S 4,071,000 - - - - 2,035,500 2,035,500 -

466036 14 Sewer PS 42 (LJ) Upgrade S 2,035,000 - - - - 2,035,000 - -

466037 14 Sewer PS 50 (PN) Upgrade S 1,781,000 - - - - 1,781,000 - -

175

Exhibit 11Wastewater Capital Projects, FY 2003 and Later

ProjectNo.

Agency ID /

Fund No.1Project Description Project Type

Regional (R) / Subregional

Total Project Cost Costs Prior to

FY 2003 FY 2003

CostsFY 2004Costs

FY 2005Costs

FY 2006Costs

FY 2007Costs

Costs After FY 2007

466038 14 Sewer PS 03 to 23 Upgrades (CC) Upgrade S 1,467,000 - - - - 1,467,000 - -

466040 14 Sewer PS 63 (MM) Upgrade S 1,418,000 - - - - - - -

466041 14 Sewer PS 25 to 40 Upgrades (LJ) Upgrade S 1,064,000 - - - - 1,064,000 - -

466042 14 Cottontail Lane Sewer Repl II (LJ) Upgrade S 1,085,000 - - - - - 1,085,000 -

466081 14 Macouba Pl Sewer Repl (TS) (GRC1/2) Upgrade S 181,000 - 181,000 - - - - -

466082 14 COTTONTAIL LANE SEWER REPL I (LV) Upgrade S 1,253,000 - - - - 1,253,000 - -

466084 14 Hensley St. Accel Sewer Repl (SE) Upgrade S 741,300 - 741,300 - - - - -

466085 14 S 28th & Harbor Dr Accel (GRC 1/4) Upgrade S 343,800 - 343,800 - - - - -

466086 14 MORENA BL SLUICE GATE (GRC 1/7) Upgrade S 331,100 - 331,100 - - - - -

466087 14 Manning St. Accel Sewer (GRC 1/12) Upgrade S 119,500 - - 119,500 - - - -

466088 14 Archer / Alta Vista Accel (GRC 1/3) Upgrade S 171,900 171,900 - - - - - -

466089 14 Winship Lane Sewer - Accel (RV) Upgrade S 268,000 - - - - 268,000 - -

466090 14 Sewer PS 50 Force Main - Accelerated Upgrade S 68,760 68,760 - - - - - -

466091 14 University & Alamo - Accel (GRC 1/5) Upgrade S 193,400 193,400 - - - - - -

466092 14 32nd & Thorn Accelerated (GP) Upgrade S 554,700 - - 554,700 - - - -

466093 14 Morena Blvd Sewer Rehab - Accel (CM) Upgrade S 127,500 127,500 - - - - - -

466094 14 Bayside Walk/Ostend Court Accel (MB) Upgrade S 392,300 - - 392,300 - - - -

466095 14 Fairmount Ave TS - Accel (CH) Upgrade S 876,300 - - - 876,300 - - -

466096 14 Hillcrest & Mission Hills Accel (UP) Upgrade S 1,317,000 - - - - 1,317,000 - -

466097 14 North Harbor Dr. Accel (PN) Upgrade S 495,000 - - 495,000 - - - -

466098 14 Cape May Ave/Pl - Accel (GRC 1/10) Upgrade S 225,800 - 225,800 - - - - -

466099 14 28th & C - Accel (GH) Upgrade S 550,500 - - 550,500 - - - -

466100 14 738 Rosecrans St - Accel (PN) Upgrade S 57,000 - - 57,000 - - - -

466101 14 Castellana Rd. - Accel (LJ) Upgrade S 44,800 44,800 - - - - - -

466102 14 31st & C St. - Accel (GH) Upgrade S 793,500 - - - 793,500 - - -

466103 14 Kurtz St. & Smith St. - Accel (MH) Upgrade S 338,800 - - - 338,800 - - -

466104 14 Via Las Cumbres - Accel (LV) Upgrade S 277,300 - - - 277,300 - - -

466106 14 El Camino del Teatro - Accel (LJ) Upgrade S 3,134,000 - - - 1,567,000 1,567,000 - -

466107 14 Manning Canyon (LV) Upgrade S 1,315,000 - - - - - 1,315,000 -

466108 14 Palm Ave. - Accel (ON) Upgrade S 1,095,000 - - - - - 1,095,000 -

TOTAL 1,495,064,987$ 198,291,356$ 276,381,611.53$ 210,125,324$ 185,233,929$ 200,913,801$ 182,821,095$ 229,133,085$

Source: Cities, water agencies, and special districts in San Diego County, FY 2002-03 Budgets and Capital Improvement Programs.1 See Exhibit 2 for list of cities, water agencies, and special districts.

See Exhibit 10 for summary of CIP expenditures by project type.

176

177

Exhibit 12 Growth in Population and Wastewater Flow, 2003-2030

Population Increase, 30%

Base Year 2003

Wastew ater Flow (MGD),

24%

-25%

25%

75%

2000 2010 2020 2030

Source: City of San Diego, Metropolitan Wastewater Department Metropolitan Wastewater Plan (Draft, 2003),

Note 1. This is a comparison of projected growth in population and projected growth in total wastewater flow for the MWWD service area. This area generates approximately 70 percent of all wastewater flow treated in western San Diego County (see Exhibit 4).

Note 2. Population in 2003 is 2,961,600; projected population in 2030 is 3,855,085. MWWD's system wide wastewater flow in 2003 is 202 million gallons per day (mgd); projected flow in 2030 is 250 mgd, after adjustment for 2030 population forecasts.

IRIS TECHNICAL APPENDIX [A.4] STORM WATER MANAGEMENT

181

IRIS TECHNICAL APPENDIX [A.4] STORM WATER MANAGEMENT

I. Introduction / Description of Infrastructure System

Storm water and storm drains are an important issue for the San Diego region because polluted urban runoff is a significant source of coastal water pollution. Beach closures adversely affect recreation activities, marine life, and the region’s visitor industry.

The primary function of a storm drain is to serve as a catch basin in the street, directing rainwater away from developed areas to prevent flooding. Storm drains also catch pollutants, such as oil from cars, chemicals from landscaping and swimming pools and a variety of other pollutants that wash down the street and into the storm drain. The water that goes into the storm drains flows directly into San Diego creeks, lagoons, and the ocean, mostly without any form of treatment. Most storm drains are not connected to wastewater systems or treatment plants.

The polluted storm water that reaches the ocean requires time and distance to fully mix with saltwater. Longer dilution time is required because the temperature and density of storm water are different from those of sea water. A dry weather spill does not quickly mix with the sea, but meanders in a plume. Eventually, the plume will become fully diluted, but until this occurs, anything that comes in contact with the plume will be exposed to storm water pollutants, with relatively little dilution. During wet weather, the volume of storm water flow at very large drains is such that the salinity of the ocean near the shore can be temporarily reduced, negatively impacting the coastal ecosystem.

In recent years, water pollution from point sources like industrial waters from factories has been greatly reduced. The majority of water pollution now occurs from non-point sources, such as cars leaking oil, fertilizers from farms and gardens, failing septic tanks, pet waste and residential car washing, flowing into storm drains and ultimately into waterways and the ocean.1

Storm water flow and quality are a function of many different factors in addition to the amount of rainfall. Vacant, undeveloped land allows urban runoff to percolate into the soil, replenishing groundwater sources. Developed land and paved areas, on the other hand, do not percolate and instead divert a majority of the urban runoff into storm drains.

Highly impervious areas are associated with urban development and the absence of natural habitat. Current research indicates that imperviousness (percentage of impermeable surface area) in excess of 10 percent adversely impacts downstream ecology.2 The increased storm water volume and flow rate cause streams to undercut their banks, creating erosion problems and destroying habitat for wildlife.

Beach closures are another symptom of storm water problems. Coliform bacteria are indicator organisms that are routinely measured by monitoring agencies and wastewater treatment plants to

1 http://www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us/cserv/storm.html2 California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Diego Region.

182

assess the levels of bacteria in the water. When coliform bacteria concentration increases beyond a specific threshold and indicates a threat to human health, a beach is “posted” or closed to the public. Rules for beach closures continue to evolve, and the pollution thresholds and jurisdictional responses required by regulators vary across California. Although sewage spills are also a contributing cause to beach closures, they are preventable and are addressed through wastewater infrastructure improvements (refer to Wastewater appendix). As San Diego Mayor Dick Murphy stated, “While most people believe sewer spills are the leading cause of beach closures, the real culprit is polluted urban runoff.”3

Records indicate that years with greater rainfall result in more beach closures. On average, less than four percent of “beach miles” are closed. A beach mile is a standardized reporting unit representing one linear mile of shoreline. The San Diego region had approximately 1,332 reported closures and advisories in 2002, down from 1,409 in 2001.4 However this improvement reflects changes in the County of San Diego’s Department of Environmental Health’s monitoring frequency and sampling sites. Samples that used to be taken close to streams entering the beach are now taken 25 yards “down current”5 where bacterial concentrations may be diluted. Monitoring revealed elevated bacteria levels in 75 percent of the closures and advisories; over half of the closures were of unknown origin.6

Regional infrastructure focuses on the overall supply and capacity of a facility or service. Urban runoff is a regional phenomenon, occurring in watersheds that cross multiple jurisdictions (see Exhibit 1). At this time, urban runoff is dealt with on a jurisdiction by jurisdiction basis, and there are no regional stormwater facilities or treatment plants for urban runoff coming from multiple jurisdictions (see Exhibit 2 for a list of jurisdictions and agencies). Sub-regional infrastructure focuses on facilities for local storm water management. Despite some levels of regional collaboration, the infrastructure in place to collect and discharge urban runoff and storm water is primarily subregional in nature. Individual jurisdictions are responsible for operating, maintaining, and developing new capital projects to address the stormwater issues in their area.

II. Responsibilities and Controlling Legislation

Agencies

Local jurisdictions play an important role in urban runoff and storm water management. Storm water permits are issued to municipalities because they discharge water from point sources to rivers, bays, the ocean, and other bodies of water. Parts of the system through which pollutants and increased flows are conveyed, and ultimately discharged into San Diego’s natural receiving waters, are owned and operated by the local governments. Local governments are also able to implement regulatory programs to protect storm water and to regulate new land uses. Local governments have some control over each of the three major stages in the urbanization process: development planning, construction, and the use or operational stage. Required projects and actions for meeting

3 “S.D. gets $6.1 million grant for urban runoff,” San Diego Union Tribune, July 19, 2003.4 San Diego County Beach Closure Report – 3 Year Summary (2000-2002). 5 Down current refers to the area south of the storm water outfall. 6 “Beach Closures and Advisories Up Again Nationwide and in California,” Natural Resources Defense Council

Website.

183

stormwater and runoff needs are typically easiest to implement during the early stages of the urbanization and development process.

The 18 incorporated cities, the County and the San Diego Unified Port District, each owns or operates a municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) through which it discharges urban runoff into public waters in the San Diego region (see Exhibit 2). Examples of receiving waters include lakes, drinking water reservoirs, rivers, streams, creeks, bays, estuaries, coastal lagoons, and the Pacific Ocean.

The City of San Diego operates one of the largest storm drain systems in the region, with more than 25,000 storm drain structures and 636 miles of drainage pipe. The city’s Street Division is responsible for the inspection and maintenance of the storm drain system, including repairing grates, clearing blocked drain pipes and cleaning debris from storm drain structures. The drains are designed to handle normal water flow, but occasionally during heavy rain, flooding will occur. The city maintains 84 miles of concrete and dirt drainage channels and ditches. The channels are designed to handle water flow from storm drains and canyon runoff and channel the water into a bay or ocean. The City Manager recently increased the prominence of the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program by creating its own division in the General Services Department. The new division leads the City’s urban runoff efforts and focuses on five areas: investigation, pollution abatement, education, enforcement, and identification of additional funding sources.

The San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) is a key storm water regulatory agency. The mission of the RWQCB is to develop and enforce water quality objectives and implementation plans, which will best protect the beneficial uses of the State’s waters. The RWQCB develop “basin plans” for the San Diego hydrologic region, govern requirements, issue waste discharge permits, take enforcement action against violators, and monitor water quality.

Legislation

Under the federal Clean Water Act of 1972, each county and municipality throughout the nation is issued a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit for legally discharging wastewater into the United States’ waters. In 1987, the Clean Water Act was amended to include requirements for storm water discharges. In response to those requirements, the State of California issued a five-year NPDES permit for municipal storm water discharges to San Diego County in July 1990. The permit was then renewed and replaced by the new, more stringent, NPDES Permit Order 2001-01 issued on February 21, 2001, by the SRWQCB.

The new Municipal Permit (Order No. 2001-01) was issued to the 18 incorporated cities, county of San Diego, the San Diego Unified Port District, and the San Diego Regional Airport Authority, which are identified as “copermittees.”7 The new permit, which has a five-year life span, requires that the copermittees individually modify their land use approval processes to address storm water concerns within their respective watershed, but the permit does not address how the copermittees should go about doing so. The permit makes each copermittee ultimately responsible for everything in its storm drain system, including industrial and construction runoff. It mandates that all jurisdictions in the San Diego region pass new storm water ordinances to control discharges of urban runoff into the storm drain system and to implement the new NPDES permit. New development must

7 Recently the San Diego Regional Airport Authority has been added as a copermittee to the Municipal permit.

184

“minimize impervious coverage.” The municipal storm water permit requires that municipalities reduce pollutants entering their storm water conveyance systems to the Maximum Extent Practicable (MEP).8

If the cities fail to comply with the new NPDES permit, they are subject to monetary penalties. The penalties that may be assessed administratively by the SDCWQCB range from $3,000 per day for failure to submit required monitoring reports to $10,000 per day of violation for permit violations. The SDCWQCB can also request that the Attorney General pursue monetary penalties in Superior Court. Penalties imposed by the Court can be as high as $25,000 per day of violation for permit violations.9

There are three key documents for organizing storm water management within the San Diego region. First, each copermittee must develop and implement a Jurisdictional Urban Runoff Management Program (JURMP). The JURMP describes all the activities that the copermittee has undertaken, is undertaking, or will undertake, to reduce discharges of pollutants and urban runoff flow to the municipal separate storm sewer system to the maximum extent practicable. The three major phases of urban development addressed by this program are the planning, construction, and existing development or existing use phases. The JURMP is a comprehensive program that addresses runoff from city facilities, new and redevelopment construction sites, residential areas, and commercial and industrial facilities. In addition, the JURMP specifies how the city will conduct inspections, issue fines and enforce compliance.

Second, copermittees must also collaborate with other copermittees within their watershed(s) to develop and implement a Watershed Urban Runoff Management Program (WURMP), which identifies and addresses the highest priority water quality issues/pollutants in their respective watershed(s). WURMPs must articulate a plan of action that specifically describes a watershed-based education program, a mechanism for facilitating watershed-based land use planning, and more generally that identifies other recommended activities to be implemented by copermittees in addressing high priority problems. There is a WURMP for every watershed in the San Diego region.10

Finally, the municipal permit requires development and implementation of a Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) to reduce the negative impacts to receiving waters from development runoff. The SUSMP identifies a number of permanent Best Management Practices (BMPs) requirements which apply to public and private new development or significant redevelopment projects in order to protect and enhance the water quality of the region’s surface waters.11

The copermittees belong to one or more watersheds. There are a total of 11 major watersheds or hydrologic units in the San Diego Hydrologic region encompassing a land area of nearly 3,000 square miles. Exhibit 3 shows a summary of the watershed management areas and copermittees involved. Watershed management planning involves the identification of issues and concerns that are related more to the watershed in which they occur, rather than the municipality in which they are found. This type of planning is based on the recognition that problems that originate upstream are generally carried down-stream by the flow of water. This existing watershed structure provides

8 California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Diego Region. 9 California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Diego Region. 10 These plans are available at the County of San Diego’s Project Clean Water website. 11 http://www.thinkbluesd.org/brochures/SUSMP.pdf

185

an adequate framework for integration. Regional cooperation on a watershed basis can help to ensure that local government tools are deployed more effectively, to address the most important issues affecting water quality in each watershed. The municipal permit requires the copermittees to develop “a mechanism to facilitate collaborative ‘watershed-based’ land use planning with neighboring local governments in the watershed.”12

In February 2003, the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board won a landmark court ruling upholding its authority to impose the new permit, one of the nation’s toughest permits to curb urban runoff pollution. The Building Industry Association, joined by several other development groups and the cities of San Marcos and Santee, sued state and regional water quality officials claiming that the new storm water regulations were overly burdensome and onerous.

III. Operations and Maintenance (FY 2003)

As shown in Exhibits 4 and 5, the San Diego region’s operation and maintenance revenue for storm water is approximately $20.8 million for fiscal year 2002-2003.13 Of this amount, 55 percent is from local sources such as the general fund; 38 percent from charges for services; three percent from federal and state government grants; three percent from taxes and assessments; and one percent from interest and rent.

The San Diego region’s operation and maintenance expenditure for storm water is approximately $20.8 million for fiscal year 2002-2003 (see Exhibits 4 and 5).14 Of this amount, 70 percent is for general operation costs; 16 percent for contracts and services, including engineering consultants, dry/wet weather monitoring, outside lab testing and/or cleanup activities for illegal dumping/sewer spills; two percent for debt service; one percent for general and administrative; and one percent for capital costs. Accounting methods for storm water operation and maintenance expenditures are not uniform because some cities include storm water expenditures in their street and transportation, water, or wastewater operating budgets. As the region progresses towards full permit implementation, storm water’s operation and maintenance expenditures will increase over time. A contributing factor to the increase is the lack of watershed based treatment BMPs that are strategically placed to maximize water quality treatment, but reduce maintenance costs.

The fiscal implications of the requirements of the new NPDES Permit are significant and as an unfunded state and federal mandate, it presents the San Diego region with a financial challenge. Typically, most cities and the Port of San Diego fund their storm drain costs (operations and maintenance, educational outreach and administrative expenditures) largely through their general fund. Some cities, such as the City of Carlsbad, also fund their capital expenditures from developer fees generated from the city’s adopted Local Drainage Area Fee program. New drainage facilities or repairs and/or rehabilitation of existing drainage facilities are also funded from other road-related funding resources such as the Gas Tax or TransNet sales tax revenues.15

Some jurisdictions in the San Diego region have storm drain fees. For example, the City of San Diego began collecting storm drain fees from water and sewer utility customers in 1990 to reimburse the

12 The Unified Watershed Urban Runoff Management Program, Introduction section. 13 Jurisdictions included for this O&M figure are shown in Exhibit 2. 14 Jurisdictions included for this O&M figure are shown in Exhibit 2. 15 City of Carlsbad’s Jurisdictional Urban Runoff Management Plan, Executive Summary E-5.

186

general fund for costs associated with storm drain maintenance. The revenue collected is expended for operation and maintenance of storm drains, construction of capital projects and the general management of the storm drain system, including monitoring the system for silt, toxic material and related pollutants. The City of San Diego’s Storm Drain Fund, where storm drain fees are deposited, was budgeted at $5.9 million in FY 2002. The fee has not been increased since it was set in August 1996 at $0.95 cents per single-family residence meter per month and $0.06 cents per hundred cubic feet per month for all other meters. There is some discussion as to whether the fee should be increased. However any adjustments to the fee will require a significant revision because “the current fee structure fails to conform to the proportionality (equity) requirement of Proposition 218, and thus must be revised before any increase is considered.”16

When the storm drain fees were first implemented, there was no evaluation of proportionality or equity issues, which is now required by Articles XIIIC and XIIID of the California State Constitution (Proposition 218). User fees must be proportional to the service used by each customer, similar to wastewater. However, storm drain fees cannot be based on water consumption, but on the use of the storm drain utility, or on the quantity of runoff generated by the property each year. The fee can be calculated based on parcel size and total impervious area. Any increase to the City of San Diego’s storm drain fees must not only account for the proportionality requirement, but must also meet the balloting requirements of Proposition 218. According to Proposition 218, if rates are property-related, any proposed increase must be approved by majority vote in the general election, or by 2/3 vote of all property owners. However, the city may assert that the proposed utility fees are not property-related, but rather based on consumption of the storm drain utility (like sewer rates), and therefore not subject to Proposition 218 balloting requirements.

IV. Capital Improvement Programs

Most cities’ capital improvement programs also address storm water. The San Diego region’s expenditure for storm water is approximately $60.2 million for the next 5 years (FY03-FY07).17 Of that amount, 16 percent is spent on new projects, 79 percent on upgrades to existing infrastructure, four percent on technology projects, and one percent on mandated projects. The one percent figure on mandated projects is somewhat confusing, because almost all stormwater projects are, in one way or another, a response to mandated requirements from the state or federal government. For the purposes of this report, all storm water capital improvements are considered to be subregional projects (see Exhibits 8 and 9). Many cities’ storm water projects are for flood or runoff control (curbs/gutters, catch basins, storm drains, flood control channels, etc.) and have nothing to do with water quality improvement. In FY 2003, these projects total $21 million (see Exhibit 6 for distribution of these expenditures).

The City of San Diego has recently obtained a $6.1 million federal grant to construct a network of coastal storm drain diversion devices that will help prevent polluted runoff from contaminating the more than two dozen local beaches. Diverters are similar to small dams constructed within storm drains that reroute low flows of urban runoff – as much as 400 gallons per minute – into the sewer system. Without such devices, bacteria-laden runoff ends up at beaches where it puts public health at risk. The diversion devices automatically shut down during inclement weather to prevent the city’s

16 City of San Diego’s Urban Runoff Management Program, Chapter 1.8.1 17 Districts included for this Capital Improvement figure are shown in Exhibit 2.

187

sewage system from being overwhelmed by storm water. City officials said diversion devices have prevented 80 percent of the sewer spills in the last four years in La Jolla from reaching the beaches.

V. Projected Long-Term Need

The County of San Diego Board of Supervisors initiated Project Clean Water’s Strategic Plan in July 2000 to develop a framework to guide solutions to shared water quality issues and concerns. Project Clean Water is a stakeholder-driven approach to developing and implementing consensus strategies for protecting San Diego’s environment and economy while meeting regulatory requirements. In general, it consists of policy level planning, technical guidance and support, and legal review. The plan outlines some key goals, such as strengthening coordination to improve the effectiveness of local water quality activities, assimilating science and technology into management practices, and supporting efforts to assure water quality and compliance with laws and regulations.

Another strategic planning document is the Copermittee’s Unified Watershed Urban Runoff Management Program, which establishes a programmatic framework for the continued development and implementation of various programs and activities that meet or exceed the regulatory obligations established under the Municipal Storm Water Permit Order 2001-01. The Unified WURMP is an integration of the individual watershed plans. The Unified WURMP, as well as the individual Watershed URMPs, describes the copermittees’ intended approach for meeting their watershed-related Municipal Permit obligations.

Although these strategic plans establish a framework for development and implementation of various programs, they do not outline or refer to any capital improvement plans to meet these goals. Furthermore, they do not identify a regional need or capacity requirement for storm water and urban runoff. In the absence of an adopted plan, agreed upon need, and regionally accepted strategy, it is difficult to quantify capacity requirements or to determine the cost of meeting the region’s goals.

Furthermore, there are a variety of potential approaches available to address the region’s needs. However, due to the lack of a regional, implementable strategy, it is difficult to determine if the expenditures represented in the region’s capital improvement programs adequately work towards addressing a long term vision for storm water. The possible solutions range from a minimal effort such as maintaining the existing drainage structure with slight modifications to a larger overhaul of the system that would include treatment of all runoff and require new development to mitigate for any potential runoff from the site. However, without an agency in the region that is responsible for ensuring the implementation of a long term vision, it is difficult to assess the adequacy of current expenditure levels. The different strategies have different price tags and would provide different levels of benefits and advantages to the region. For example, treating urban runoff might help reduce the amount of treatment required to desalinate ocean water, or could be combined with improvements to wastewater treatment facilities. As a result of limited regional planning, there are no reliable estimates of long-term need or cost.

VI. Relationship of Facility Planning to Local General Plans and Land Use

Cities and counties plan in order to identify important community issues, project future demand for services, anticipate potential problems, and to establish goals and policies for directing and

188

managing growth. Individual jurisdictions use a variety of tools in the planning process including the general plan and land use policies and regulations (e.g. zoning, subdivision, grading, etc.).

An objective of San Diego region’s watershed plans is to incorporate common principles into land use planning. The objective closely follows the requirement under Section J.2.f of the Municipal Permit, which requires a mechanism to facilitate collaborative “watershed-based” land use planning with neighboring local governments in the watershed.

Most general plans specify that new development be designed to protect water quality and provide watershed protection; that new development and redevelopment minimize the amount of impervious surfaces; and that they implement pollution prevention methods and incorporate structural and non-structural Best Management Practices (BMPs). Some jurisdictions also have amended their general plans to address storm water issues and incorporate programs as required by the NPDES permit for storm water discharge.

The County of San Diego, in cooperation with the City of San Diego, are in the process of developing a manual, “The Stormwater Quality and Watershed Protection Manual – Looking at Alternative Development Practices,” to help with storm water education and outreach. The Manual will provide land use professionals with a big picture overview of water quality problems associated with excessive pollution discharge, emphasize the need for more watershed-based design solution, and offer examples of specific site design tools and techniques.

VII. Public Policy / Financing Issues and Strategies

Storm-drain runoff is the single largest source of pollution ending up in the streams, lagoons and the ocean in Southern California.18 Unlike discharge from the sewer system, storm water remains full of toxins, bacteria, fertilizer, dirt, metals and filth that wash directly into the region’s water supply and natural marine habitat. The question of how to manage urban runoff is becoming increasingly important as the region grows, requiring attention from city officials and developers in the San Diego region.

Despite preliminary efforts such as the watershed plans, an effective regional storm water management strategy is yet to be formulated. The region is without a working blueprint when compared to implementation approaches in other infrastructure areas such as water and transportation. In those areas, the region has adopted long range goals and a strategy, accompanied by capital improvement programs for implementation. Expenditures can be linked to the long range vision, enabling the region to assess whether or not the short term expenditures are working towards the long term needs identified in the strategy. The first step toward developing such an approach for storm water is to identify the group or agency most responsible for developing a long range plan. Then, efforts can be made to quantify and articulate the steps required for carrying out the region’s vision for storm water.

Funding storm water management is also an issue. Currently, there is no specifically dedicated source of revenue for storm water at the regional level. Compounding this problem is the fiscal implication of the requirements of NPDES Order 2001-01. “Local governments have a vested interest in identifying funding alternatives that don’t harm other activities such as police, fire, library, and

18 “County to remain lead agency on stormwater rules,” North County Times, April 10, 2003.

189

park programs.”19 Currently, $5 million of the County of San Diego’s general fund money, $4.5 million of TransNet tax money, $2.1 million of Sanitary District fees and $5.5 million of flood control funds are being spent on storm drain management. San Diego County is examining a list of options that include charging fees to homeowners, creating a Stormwater Management District (Joint Powers Authority), or assessing charges to county residents through the Flood Control Districts or the San Diego County Water Authority’s charges.20 The County is considering a $52 maximum annual fee per homeowner.21 An adequate funding mechanism is required to consistently support various monitoring, educational outreach, and planning programs.

19 “Stormwater Financing” MuniFinancial E-Newsletter July/Aug. 2002 http://www.muni.com/enewsletter/july_02.htm

20 “County searching for ways to fund water cleanup,” North County Times, December 12, 2002. 21 Communication, Cid Tesoro, County of San Diego, October 2003.

190

Storm Water Section Exhibits

1) San Diego Region Watersheds 2) Jurisdictions and Agency Responsible for Storm Water Planning 3) Major Watersheds in the San Diego Region 4) Storm Water Management Programs in San Diego County, Operations and Maintenance

Revenues and Expenditures FY 2002-03 5) Storm Water Management Programs in San Diego County, Operations and Maintenance

Revenues and Expenditures FY 2002-03 6) Storm Water Management Infrastructure Distribution of Subregional CIP Expenditures FY 2003 7) Cities and Community Planning Areas 8) Summary of Capital Improvement Programs, Storm Water Management, FY 2003 to 2007 9) Storm Water Capital Projects, FY 2003 and Later

191

192

Exhibit 2 Jurisdictions and Agency Responsible for Storm Water Planning

O&M CIP AGENCY

ID JURISDICTION DATA DATA

1 CITY OF CARLSBAD X X 2 CITY OF CHULA VISTA X X 3 CITY OF CORONADO X 4 CITY OF DEL MAR X X

5 CITY OF EL CAJON1 X 6 CITY OF ENCINITAS X X 7 CITY OF ESCONDIDO X X 8 CITY OF IMPERIAL BEACH X

9 CITY OF LA MESA – –2 X 10 CITY OF LEMON GROVE X

11 CITY OF NATIONAL CITY – –2 X 12 CITY OF OCEANSIDE X X 13 CITY OF POWAY X X 14 CITY OF SAN DIEGO X X 15 CITY OF SAN MARCOS X X 16 CITY OF SANTEE X X 17 CITY OF SOLANA BEACH X X 18 CITY OF VISTA X X 19 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO X X

PORT SAN DIEGO UNIFIED PORT DISTRICT3

AIRPORT SAN DIEGO COUNTY REGIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY

X indicates that budget data is included in this report. 1 City of El Cajon reflects FY 2002 O&M costs. 2 Storm water management O&M costs for these cities are included in the wastewater budget. 3 Storm water management O&M costs for the San Diego Unified Port District are included in the Port's

Recreation and Environmental Services budget. See appendix section on Parks and Open Space for this information.

193

Exhibit 3 Major Watersheds in the San Diego Region1

WATERSHEDMANAGEMENT AREAS RESPONSIBLE COPERMITTEES LEAD COPERMITTEE

Santa Margarita River County of San Diego County of San Diego City of Escondido San Luis Rey River City of Oceanside City of Oceanside City of Vista County of San Diego City of Carlsbad City of Encinitas City of Escondido Carlsbad City of Oceanside City of Encinitas City of San Marcos City of Solana Beach City of Vista County of San Diego City of Del Mar City of Escondido San Dieguito River City of Poway City of San Diego City of San Diego City of Solana Beach County of San Diego City of Del Mar Penasquitos City of Poway City of San Diego City of San Diego County of San Diego City of El Cajon City of La Mesa San Diego River City of Poway City of San Diego City of San Diego City of Santee County of San Diego Mission Bay City of San Diego City of San Diego City of Chula Vista City of Coronado City of Imperial Beach City of La Mesa San Diego Bay2 City of Lemon Grove Unified Port District City of National City City of San Diego County of San Diego Unified Port District3 City of Imperial Beach Tijuana River City of San Diego City of Imperial Beach County of San Diego

Source: The Unified Watershed Urban Runoff Management Program, Introduction Section, page 11 1 For the San Diego Hydrologic Region, excludes Colorado Hydrologic Region. 2 San Diego Bay watershed is comprised of three sub-watersheds: the Pueblo San Diego sub-watershed, the Sweetwater sub-watershed, and the Otay sub-watershed. 3 In 2002, the San Diego County Regional Airport Authority was created as a separate agency.

194

Exhibit 4 Storm Water Management Programs

Operations and Maintenance Revenues and Expenditures, San Diego Region, FY 2002 – FY 2003

O&M Revenues O&M Expenditures $20.8 M $20.8 M

Source: Cities FY 2003 budgets. See Exhibit 2 for list of cities. 1 Other Local Revenues include funds from jurisdictions' general fund. 2 Other O&M includes salaries and benefits.

Other O&M2

70%

Contracts & Services

16%

General & Administrative

11%

Debt Service2%

Capital Costs1%

Charges for Services

38%

Federal and State Grants

3%

Other Local Revenues1

55%

Taxes and Assessments

3%

Interest, Rents1%

195

Exhibit 5 Storm Water Management Programs

Operations and Maintenance Revenues and Expenditures, San Diego Region FY 2002 – FY 2003

Total Districts Percent

Operating Revenues (FY 2003)Special taxes and assessments $ 0.7 3.3%Charges for services 7.9 37.9%Interests, rents 0.2 1.2%Other local funds1 (incl. continuing appropriations) 11.3 54.7%Transfers from federal / state 0.6 3.0%

Total Annual Revenues $ 20.8 100.0%

Operating Expenditures (FY 2003)Operations and maintenance

General & administrative 2.3 10.8%Contracts & services 3.3 15.7%Other O&M2

14.7 70.9%Subtotal O&M 20.3 97.4%

Capital costs & depreciation 0.1 0.5%Debt service 0.4 2.1%

Total Operating Expenditures $ 20.8 100.0% Source: Cities FY 2003 budgets. See Exhibit 2 for list of cities. 1 Other Local Funds include funds from jurisdictions' general fund. 2 Other O&M includes salaries and benefits.

196

197

Exhibit 7 Community Infrastructure Planning Areas1

CIPA NO. JURISDICTION COMMUNITY PLANNING AREA

101 1 Carlsbad Carlsbad 1 102 1 Carlsbad Carlsbad 2 103 1 Carlsbad Carlsbad 3 104 1 Carlsbad Carlsbad 4 201 2 Chula Vista Chula Vista 1 202 2 Chula Vista Chula Vista 2 203 2 Chula Vista Chula Vista 3 204 2 Chula Vista Chula Vista 4 300 3 Coronado Coronado 400 4 Del Mar Del Mar 501 5 El Cajon El Cajon 1 502 5 El Cajon El Cajon 2 503 5 El Cajon El Cajon 3 601 6 Encinitas Encinitas 1 602 6 Encinitas Encinitas 2 603 6 Encinitas Encinitas 3 604 6 Encinitas Encinitas 4 701 7 Escondido Escondido 1 702 7 Escondido Escondido 2 703 7 Escondido Escondido 3 704 7 Escondido Escondido 4 705 7 Escondido Escondido 5 800 8 Imperial Beach Imperial Beach 901 9 La Mesa La Mesa 1 902 9 La Mesa La Mesa 2

1000 10 Lemon Grove Lemon Grove 1101 11 National City National City 1 1102 11 National City National City 2 1201 12 Oceanside Oceanside 1 1202 12 Oceanside Oceanside 2 1203 12 Oceanside Oceanside 3 1204 12 Oceanside Oceanside 4 1205 12 Oceanside Oceanside 5 1301 13 Poway Poway 1 1302 13 Poway Poway 2 1303 13 Poway Poway 3 1401 14 San Diego Balboa Park 1402 14 San Diego Barrio Logan 1403 14 San Diego Carmel Mountain Ranch 1404 14 San Diego Centre City 1405 14 San Diego Sabre Springs 1406 14 San Diego Clairemont Mesa 1407 14 San Diego East Elliott 1408 14 San Diego Greater Golden Hill

198

CIPA NO. JURISDICTION COMMUNITY PLANNING AREA 1409 14 San Diego Miramar Ranch North 1410 14 San Diego La Jolla 1412 14 San Diego Linda Vista 1414 14 San Diego Midway-Pacific Highway 1415 14 San Diego Mira Mesa 1417 14 San Diego Mission Bay Park 1418 14 San Diego Mission Beach 1419 14 San Diego Mission Valley 1420 14 San Diego Navajo 1421 14 San Diego Carmel Valley 1423 14 San Diego Ocean Beach 1424 14 San Diego Old San Diego 1425 14 San Diego Otay Mesa-Nestor 1426 14 San Diego Otay Mesa 1427 14 San Diego Pacific Beach 1428 14 San Diego Greater North Park 1429 14 San Diego Rancho Penasquitos 1430 14 San Diego Peninsula 1431 14 San Diego Rancho Bernardo 1432 14 San Diego San Pasqual 1433 14 San Diego San Ysidro 1434 14 San Diego Scripps Miramar Ranch 1435 14 San Diego Serra Mesa 1438 14 San Diego College Area 1439 14 San Diego Tijuana River Valley 1440 14 San Diego Torrey Pines 1441 14 San Diego University 1442 14 San Diego Uptown 1444 14 San Diego Skyline-Paradise Hills 1447 14 San Diego Tierrasanta 1448 14 San Diego Sorrento Hills 1449 14 San Diego Fairbanks Country Club 1450 14 San Diego Kearny Mesa 1455 14 San Diego Via De La Valle 1456 14 San Diego Mid-City:City Heights 1457 14 San Diego Mid-City:Eastern Area 1458 14 San Diego Mid-City:Kensington-Talmadge 1459 14 San Diego Mid-City:Normal Heights 1461 14 San Diego Del Mar Mesa 1462 14 San Diego Torrey Highlands 1463 14 San Diego Los Penasquitos Canyon Preserve 1464 14 San Diego Black Mountain Ranch 1465 14 San Diego Pacific Highlands Ranch 1466 14 San Diego NCFUA Subarea 2 1467 14 San Diego NCFUA Reserve 1468 14 San Diego Southeastern:Encanto Neighborhoods 1469 14 San Diego Southeastern:Southeastern San Diego 1481 14 San Diego Rancho Encantada

199

CIPA NO. JURISDICTION COMMUNITY PLANNING AREA 1482 14 San Diego Miramar Air Station 1483 14 San Diego Lindbergh Field 1485 14 San Diego Scripps Reserve 1486 14 San Diego Harbor 1488 14 San Diego Flower Hill 1491 14 San Diego 32nd Street Naval Station 1501 15 San Marcos San Marcos 1 1502 15 San Marcos San Marcos 2 1503 15 San Marcos San Marcos 3 1504 15 San Marcos San Marcos 4 1601 16 Santee Santee 1 1602 16 Santee Santee 2 1603 16 Santee Santee 3 1604 16 Santee Santee 4 1700 17 Solana Beach Solana Beach 1801 18 Vista Vista 1 1802 18 Vista Vista 2 1901 19 Unincorporated County Alpine 1902 19 Unincorporated County Central Mountain 1903 19 Unincorporated County Crest-Dehesa 1904 19 Unincorporated County Desert 1906 19 Unincorporated County Jamul-Dulzura 1907 19 Unincorporated County Lakeside 1908 19 Unincorporated County Mountain Empire 1909 19 Unincorporated County North County Metro 1911 19 Unincorporated County Otay 1912 19 Unincorporated County Pala-Pauma 1914 19 Unincorporated County Ramona 1915 19 Unincorporated County San Dieguito 1918 19 Unincorporated County Sweetwater 1919 19 Unincorporated County Valle De Oro 1920 19 Unincorporated County Valley Center 1921 19 Unincorporated County Spring Valley 1922 19 Unincorporated County Julian 1951 19 Unincorporated County North Mountain 1952 19 Unincorporated County Bonsall 1953 19 Unincorporated County Fallbrook 1954 19 Unincorporated County Pendleton-De Luz 1955 19 Unincorporated County Rainbow 1998 19 Unincorporated County Barona 1999 19 Unincorporated County County Islands

1. Community infrastructure planning areas (CIPAs) are the same as community planning areas (CPAs) in the City of San Diego and the County of San Diego. CIPAs reflect comparable planning areas for the other cities.

200

Exhibit 8 Summary of Capital Improvement Programs

Storm Water Management FY 2003 to FY 2007 ($ Million)

FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 Total Percent of Total

Subregional New $ 2.6 $ 3.9 $ 1.7 $ 0.7 $ 0.8 $ 9.7 16.2% Upgrade 17.1 15.1 5.2 6.0 4.2 47.6 79.0% Technology 1.0 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.4 3.9% Mandated 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.6 1.0% Green 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% Other 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% Total CIP $ 21.0 $ 20.5 $ 7.0 $ 6.7 $ 5.0 $ 60.3 100.0% Source: Cities in San Diego County, FY 2002-03 budgets. See Exhibit 2 for list of cities. Note: “New” projects refer to installation of new storm drains and other facilities; “upgrades” refer to renovation, reconstruction, or other

improvements to existing facilities. “Mandated” projects are undertaken to satisfy federal or state requirements on safety and other issues. “Green” projects (which may also be mandated) refer to actions to mitigate impacts to or improve the natural environment. “Technology” projects improve overall productivity, such as system or control technologies.

201

Exhibit 9 Storm Water Capital Projects

ProjectNo.

AgencyID1 Project Description Project Type

Regional (R) / Subregional

Total ProjectCost

Costs prior to FY 2003

FY 2003 Costs

FY 2004 Costs

FY 2005 Costs

FY 2006 Costs

FY 2007 Costs

Costs After FY

2007

1 1 Aviara Parkway Storm Drain Reimbursement (PLDA "C") Upgrade S 290,000 290,000 - - - - - -

2 1 Carlsbad Blvd. Storm Drain Replacement Upgrade S 40,000 - - 40,000 - - - -

2 1 Carlsbad Blvd. Storm Drain Replacement Upgrade S 40,000 - - 40,000 - - - -

3 1 College Blvd./Cannon Red. Reach 3 Drainage Facilities Upgrade S 2,600,000 - 2,600,000 - - - - -

4 1 College Blvd. Storm Drain (Reimb./PLDA "B")

Upgrade S 2,100,000 - - - - - - 2,100,000

5 1 Drainage Channel and Desiltation Basin/Cannon Rd.

Upgrade S 1,260,459 1,260,459 - - - - - -

6 1 Faraday/Melrose Drainage Facilities (PLDA "B") Upgrade S 1,200,000 1,200,000 - - - - - -

7 1 La Costa Avenue Storm Drain Replacement Upgrade S 128,500 128,500 - - - - - -

8 1 Master Plan Update Technology S 254,000 - 254,000 - - - - -

9 1 Miscellaneous Master Drainage Facilities Upgrade S 10,936,000 - - - - - - 10,936,000

10 1 Miscellaneous Road Subdrains Upgrade S 10,000 10,000 - - - - - -

11 1 Miscellaneous Road Subdrains Upgrade S 200,000 200,000 - - - - - -

12 1 Miscellaneous Road Subdrains Upgrade S 275,000 275,000 - - - - - -

13 1 Park Drive and Tamarack Ave. Storm Drain (PLDA "B") Upgrade S 500,000 - - - - - - 500,000

14 1 South Carlsbad Village Storm Drain New S 2,350,000 2,350,000 - - - - - -

14 1 South Carlsbad Village Storm Drain New S 2,350,000 2,350,000 - - - - - -

15 1 South Carlsbad Village Storm Drain New S 1,700,000 1,700,000 - - - - - -

15 1 South Carlsbad Village Storm Drain New S 1,700,000 1,700,000 - - - - - -

16 1 South Carlsbad Village Storm Drian New S 620,000 620,000 - - - - - -

16 1 South Carlsbad Village Storm Drain New S 620,000 620,000 - - - - - -

17 1 South Carlsbad Village Storm Drain (PLDS "B")

New S 580,000 580,000 - - - - - -

17 1 South Carlsbad Village Storm Drain (PLDS "B")

New S 580,000 580,000 - - - - - -

18 1 Tamarack & ECR Storm Drain & Silt.Basin (Reimb./PLDA "B")

Upgrade S 639,500 - - - - - - 639,500

18 1 Tamarack & ECR Storm Drain & Silt.Basin (Reimb./PLDA "B")

Upgrade S 639,500 - - - - - 639,500

19 1 Tamarack and Sunnyhill Drainage Modifications-

Upgrade S 30,000 30,000 - - - - - -

20 1 Torrejon Place Storm Drain Relining Upgrade S 80,000 80,000 - - - - - -

202

ProjectNo.

AgencyID1 Project Description Project Type

Regional (R) / Subregional

Total ProjectCost

Costs prior to FY 2003

FY 2003 Costs

FY 2004 Costs

FY 2005 Costs

FY 2006 Costs

FY 2007 Costs

Costs After FY

2007

21 2 Storm Drainage Improvement Program Upgrade S 28,644 - 28,644 - - - - -

22 4 Annual Street and Drainage Program Upgrade S 0 - - - - - - -

23 4 Annual Street and Drainage Program Technology S 41,500 - 20,600 20,900 - - - -

24 4 Annual Street and Drainage Program Technology S 15,600 - 10,000 5,600 - - - -

25 4 Annual Street and Drainage Program Upgrade S 315,000 - 215,000 100,000 - - - -

26 4 CDM Streetscape and Drainage Improvements Upgrade S 325,000 - - 325,000 - - - -

27 4 Coast Blvd. Streetscape and Drainage Improvements

Upgrade S 70,000 - - 70,000 - - - -

28 4 Storm Water Quality Improvements Upgrade S 400,000 - - - - 200,000 200,000 -

29 6 San Dieguito/Arden Drainage Project New S 1,313,000 485,000 400,000 428,000 - - - -

30 6 Storm Water Compliance Environmental Fund

Mandated S 155,000 155,000 - - - - - -

31 6 Neptune Avenue Drainage New S 660,000 395,000 - 265,000 - - - -

32 6 4th Street Storm Drain New S 183,000 - - - - 183,000 - -

33 6 Moonlight Beach Storm Drain Replacement Upgrade S 500,000 - - - - 500,000 - -

34 6 Lahoud Drive Curb and Gutter New S 25,000 - 25,000 - - - - -

35 7 La Honda Storm Drain Project Upgrade S 1,000,000 - 1,000,000 - - - - -

36 7 Cedar Street Storm Drain Upgrade S 100,000 - 100,000 - - - - -

37 7 Hamilton/Orange Storm Drain Upgrade S 63,615 - 63,615 - - - - -

38 7 Los Arboles III Storm Drain Upgrade S 62,714 27,682 35,032 - - - - -

39 7 Reidy Creek Desilting Upgrade S 90,505 - 90,505- - - - - -

40 7 Storm Drain Atlas Upgrade S 15,000 - 15,000 - - - - -

41 9 Storm Drain Inventory & Condition Assessment Technology S 80,000 80,000 - - - - - -

42 9 CMP Replacement Upgrade S 160,000 160,000 - - - - - -

43 9 CMP Replacement Upgrade S 60,000 60,000 - - - - - -

44 9 Street Repair & Storm Drain Improvements Upgrade S 99,000 99,000 - - - - - -

45 9 Storm Drain Projects (for 02-03) Upgrade S 110,000 - 110,000 - - - - -

46 11 Miscellaneous Storm Drains Upgrade S 250,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 - -

47 12 Loma Alta Creek at Pacific Street: Construct Bridge New S 8,700 - 8,700 - - - - -

48 12 Loma Alta Creek @ Garrison Creek: Detention Basins

New S 730,000 - 730,000 - - - - -

49 12 Loma Alta Creek @ El Camino Real: Detention Basins

New S 963,816 - - 963,816 - - - -

50 12 Loma Alta Creet Detention Basin @ RDO New S 1,500,000 - - - 1,500,000 - - -

51 12 Buena Vista Lagoon New S 420,000 - 420,000 - - - - -

52 12 Update Master Drainage Plan Technology S 55,823 - 55,823 - - - - -

203

ProjectNo.

AgencyID1 Project Description Project Type

Regional (R) / Subregional

Total ProjectCost

Costs prior to FY 2003

FY 2003 Costs

FY 2004 Costs

FY 2005 Costs

FY 2006 Costs

FY 2007 Costs

Costs After FY

2007

53 12 Pilgrim Creek Alignment/Phase I Upgrade S 561,282 - 561,282 - - - - -

54 12 College Blvd. @ Buena Vista Creek Upgrade S 460,000 - 460,000 - - - - -

55 12 Storm Water Pollution Compliance Mandated S 575,636 - 255,636 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 -

56 12 Land Acquisition: Loma Alta Creek New S 305,000 - 305,000 - - - - -

57 12 Capistrano Park Storm Drain New S 400,000 - 400,000 - - - - -

58 12 Oak Riparian Park Channel Improvements Upgrade S 317,872 - 317,872 - - - - -

59 12 Storm Drain; Douglas Drive @ ECR New S 900,000 - 100,000 800,000 - - - -

60 13 Hamburger Factory Boardwalk Drainage New S 15,000 15,000 - - - - - -

61 13 Springvale Channel Improvement North/South

Upgrade S 30,001 30,001 - - - - - -

62 13 FEMA - 1995 Floods Upgrade S 20,000 20,000 - - - - - -

63 13 Storm Drain Master Plan Update Technology S 100,000 100,000 - - - - - -

64 13 Construction of Brow Ditch and Curb Outlet

New S 58,000 58,000 - - - - - -

65 13 Drainage Improvements on Frame Road Upgrade S 9,000 9,000 - - - - - -

66 13 Citywide Storm Drain Assessment Project Technology S 100,000 100,000 - - - - - -

67 13 Powers/Frame Emergency Drainage Repairs Upgrade S 150,000 150,000 - - - - - -

68 13 Poway Creek Silt Removal New S 90,000 90,000 - - - - - -

69 13 Poway Creek Access Ramp New S 41,500 41,500 - - - - - -

70 13 Poway Creek Detention Basin New S 300,000 300,000 - - - - - -

71 13 Los Olivos Drainage New S 118,000 118,000 - - - - - -

72 13 Library Site Drainage Improvements Upgrade S 700,000 700,000 - - - - - -

73 13 Ilene Street Drainage Improvements Upgrade S 181,000 181,000 - - - - - -

74 13 Poway Creek Detention Basin New S 500,000 500,000 - - - - - -

75 13 100 Year Rattlesnake Creek New S 40,000 40,000 - - - - - -

76 14 San Diego River Water Quality Improvement Technology S 1,800,000 - 500,000 1,300,000 - - - -

77 14 Rose and Tecolote Creeks Water Quality Improvements

Upgrade S 3,700,000 3,700,000 - - - - - -

78 14 Beach Area Sewage Interception/Low Flow Storm Drain Diversion

Upgrade S 7,415,649 4,567,649 1,566,000 1,282,000 - - - -

79 14 Auburn Drive Channel Upgrade S 1,094,460 18,301 - - 175,000 901,159 - -

80 14 Campanile Way Storm Drain New S 276,004 47,524 - 228,480 - - - -

81 14 Cooperative Storm Drain Project Upgrade S 1,050,000 - 50,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 600,000

82 14 Copeland Avenue Drainage Reconstruction Upgrade S 203,345 7,505 - 195,840 - - - -

83 14 Emergency Drainage Projects Upgrade S 10,100,000 - 100,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 6,000,000

84 14 Madison Avenue and 56th Street Storm Drain Upgrade S 162,964 2,964 - 77,000 83,000 - - -

204

ProjectNo.

AgencyID1 Project Description Project Type

Regional (R) / Subregional

Total ProjectCost

Costs prior to FY 2003

FY 2003 Costs

FY 2004 Costs

FY 2005 Costs

FY 2006 Costs

FY 2007 Costs

Costs After FY

2007

85 14 Minor Drain and Seepage Problems Upgrade S 5,348,000 - 348,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 3,000,000

86 14 National Avenue Storm Drain between Sigsbee and 14th Streets New S 225,000 5,000 - 50,000 170,000 - - -

87 14 Oak Park Drain Channel - Phase II Upgrade S 999,998 186,102 - 813,896 - - - -

88 14 Poblado Court Drain Upgrade S 685,847 85,847 - 600,000 - - - -

89 14 Ransom Street and Darwin Way Storm Drain Upgrade S 661,946 661,946 - - - - - -

90 14 Replacement of Deteriorated Corrugated Metal Pipe Citywide

Upgrade S 10,000,000 - - 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 6,000,000

91 14 Replacement of Street Underdrains Citywide

Upgrade S 2,000,000 - - 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 1,200,000

92 14 Sorrento Creek Mitigation Technology S 1,216,317 1,113,517 36,500 40,800 25,500 - - -

93 14 Storm Drain Projects - Citywide Upgrade S 5,500,000 - - 550,000 550,000 550,000 550,000 -

94 14 Storm Station N Improvements Upgrade S 2,070,666 1,885,666 - 185,000 - - - -

95 14 Tia Juana River Valley 100-Year Flood Control New S 335,000 335,000 - - - - - -

96 14 Tia Juana River Valley Channel Study Technology S 100,000 - 100,000 - - - - -

97 14 Via Alicante Storm Drain Replacement Upgrade S 602,188 52,188 550,000 - - - - -

98 14 Walnut Avenue Drain - Brant Street to Albatross Street Upgrade S 117,513 86,913 - 30,600 - - - -

99 15 Las Posas Road Street and Drainage Improvements Upgrade S 11,700,000 4,575,000 6,200,000 925,000 - - - -

100 15 Bent Ave.: San Marcos Blvd. to Grand Ave. and Via Vera Cruz Storm Drain: San Marcos Blvd. to Boardwalk

Upgrade S 3,200,000 2,100,000 1,100,000 - - - - -

101 15 Chinaberry Lane Drainage Corridor Upgrade S 243,000 - - 243,000 - - - -

102 15 La Mirada Dr. Storm Drain: Pawnee St. to Las Posas Rd. Upgrade S 2,000,000 - - - 1,050,000 950,000 - -

103 15 Olive Dr. Drainage Corridor Improvements: Low Chaparral Dr. to Sycamore Dr.

New S 800,000 - - - - - 800,000 -

104 15 Mulberry Dr. Drainage Corridor Improvements: Cox Rd. to La Cienega Rd.

New S 500,000 - - - - 500,000 - -

105 15 Armorlite Dr. and Bingham Dr. Drainage Improvements Upgrade S 590,000 - - - - - 590,000 -

106 15 San Marcos Creek Flood Control A.D. 2-1986:Valpreda Rd. to Woodland Pkwy.

New S 10,000,000 - - - - - - 10,000,000

107 15 San Marcos Creek Flood Control A.D. 2-1988: Hwy. 78 to Twin Oaks Valley Road

New S 7,500,000 - - - - - - 7,500,000

108 16 Forester Creek Improvements Upgrade S 9,427,680 8,845,840 581,840 - - - - -

109 16 Blue Boy Drainage Improvements Upgrade S 60,000 60,000 - - - - - -

110 17 Minor Storm Drain Repairs/Replacement Upgrade S 203,883 33,883 70,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 -

111 17 Storm Water System - Santa New S 48,000 - 48,000 - - - - -

205

ProjectNo.

AgencyID1 Project Description Project Type

Regional (R) / Subregional

Total ProjectCost

Costs prior to FY 2003

FY 2003 Costs

FY 2004 Costs

FY 2005 Costs

FY 2006 Costs

FY 2007 Costs

Costs After FY

2007

Florencia/Rosita

112 18 Drainage Improvements Upgrade S 101,625 101,625 - - - - - -

113 18 Flood Insurance Map Revision Technology S 75,000 75,000 - - - - - -

114 19 Bancroft Drive Drainage - Spring Valley Upgrade S 181,000 181,000 - - - - - -

115 19 Casa De Oro Drainage, Phase II Upgrade S 1,795,000 195,000 50,000 1,550,000 - - - -

116 19 Casa De Oro Drainage, Phase III (Fondo Rd) Upgrade S 847,000 180,000 667,000 - - - - -

117 19 Fairway Drive Phase I Upgrade S 605,000 605,000 - - - - - -

118 19 Fairway Drive Phase II New S 590,000 - 131,000 459,000 - - - -

119 19 Fairway Drive Phase III - Brookside Upgrade S 459,000 - - - 459,000 - - -

120 19 Forrester Creek (SR 52) - Santee Upgrade S 3,000,000 - - 3,000,000 - - - -

121 19 Hart Drive Drainage Improvements - Bostonia

Upgrade S 1,121,000 1,121,000 - - - - - -

122 19 Sweetwater Lane Drainage Improvements - Spring Valley

Upgrade S 180,000 180,000 - - - - - -

123 19 Tavern Road Culvert Replacement - Alpine Upgrade S 418,000 400,000 18,000 - - - - -

124 19 Trophy Drive Drainage - Brookside New S 1,935,000 1,935,000 - - - - - -

125 19 Winter Gardens Drainage - Lakeside New S 975,000 157,000 74,000 744,000 - - - -

126 19 Woodside Storm Drain - Lakeside Upgrade S 3,000,000 600,000 200,000 2,200,000 - - -

TOTAL $164,716,252 $52,039,612 $21,022,049 $20,487,932 $6,967,500 $6,739,159 $5,045,000

Source: Cities in San Diego County, FY 2002-03 Budgets and Capital Improvement Programs. 1 See Exhibit 2 for list of cities.

Note: See Exhibit 8 for summary of CIP expenditures by project type.

IRIS TECHNICAL APPENDIX [A.5] SOLID WASTE COLLECTION, RECYCLING

AND DISPOSAL

209

IRIS TECHNICAL APPENDIX [A.5] SOLID WASTE COLLECTION, RECYCLING AND DISPOSAL

I. Introduction / Description of Infrastructure System

The solid waste management system in the San Diego region is serviced by seven operating landfills, seven transfer stations, nine household hazardous waste facilities, and numerous composting facilities, recycling facilities, and bin sites. Two of these landfills, Las Pulgas and San Onofre, are owned, operated, and used solely by the federal government (U.S. Marines) and are not available to the general public. The Miramar landfill is also owned by the Federal government (U.S. Marines). However, it is operated and used primarily by the City of San Diego. The remaining four landfills, Borrego Springs, Ramona, Otay/Otay Annex, and Sycamore, are privately owned and operated by Allied Waste Industries, Inc.

In July 1997, the San Diego County Board of Supervisors sold its landfills and other solid-waste assets to Allied Waste Industries, the fourth-largest U.S. solid waste management firm, completing California’s largest-ever privatization effort and one of the largest U.S. municipal-asset privatizations. The $184 million sale allowed the county to establish an environmental trust fund to continue managing the county’s solid-waste needs, create management reserves, and fund infrastructure investments. However, in exchange the county surrendered its ability to manage and plan the region’s solid waste collection and disposal operations.

In 2001, residents of San Diego generated about 6.9 million tons of waste; 3.7 million tons were landfilled in the region, 3.3 million tons were diverted, and the remaining was exported out of the region. Since 1997, the amount of locally generated waste disposed of in the region, increased from 88 percent to 95 percent in 2001 (see Exhibit 4). This increase of in-county disposal will lead to a rapid reduction in the number of years of estimated remaining landfill capacity in the San Diego region, but in turn could also reduce the potential transportation costs associated with delivering the waste.

In recent years, the importation and exportation of waste has become an important issue in the management of solid waste. The majority of hauler agreements allow waste to be disposed of in the contractor’s best professional judgment, either in-county, out-of-county, or out-of-state. Most of the franchised haulers for cities in the San Diego region use the five regional landfills to dispose of a majority of the waste. The City of Oceanside exports the majority of its waste out of the region (see Exhibit 4).

Many residents and businesses in the San Diego region are encouraged, but not required by their local governments to separate plastic, aluminum, glass, paper, cardboard, and yard waste products from their trash. Haulers or city services collect the recyclables and transport them to recycling collection points, such as material recovery facilities (MRFs), or composting facilities. Once recyclable materials arrive at a collection facility, they are segregated, baled, and sold to companies that

210

manufacture them into recycled products. Recycled materials can be incorporated into all kinds of products, ranging from trash bags to lawn furniture.

Investment in solid waste infrastructure supports the implementation of the Regional Comprehensive Plan (RCP) in two ways: (1) regional disposal capacity and (2) collecting solid waste from residents and businesses. For the purposes of the IRIS, “regional” infrastructure refers to the overall capacity of solid waste disposal facilities. The seven operating landfills and numerous transfer stations are examples of regional infrastructure. “Subregional” infrastructure refers to service provision and delivery. Solid waste haulers, trash collectors, and recycling operations are examples of subregional (or distribution) infrastructure.

II. Responsibilities and Controlling Legislation

Agencies

Jurisdictions in the San Diego region enter into contract agreements with private haulers to collect solid waste from their residents. Trash is collected by private haulers, such as Waste Management Inc., EDCO, Escondido Disposal, Pacific Waste, or by local jurisdictions, such as the City of San Diego, and taken to a landfill or recycling facility.1 If trash is not taken directly to a landfill for disposal, it is generally taken to a transfer station. It is then loaded into large tractor-trailers for more efficient hauling to local or out-of-county landfills and recycling facilities. Transfer stations are sometimes combined with MRFs, facilities that accept pre-sorted recyclables for transportation to recycling facilities.

Solid waste landfills in the San Diego region are regulated primarily by two agencies - the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) and, in all areas of the County except for the City of San Diego, the County Department of Environmental Health (DEH). Environmental issues related to water quality and air quality are regulated by the Regional Water Quality Control Board and the County of San Diego’s Air Pollution Control District. Solid Waste Local Enforcement Agencies have the primary responsibility for ensuring the correct operation and closure of solid waste facilities. They also have responsibilities for guaranteeing the proper storage and transportation of solid wastes. The County LEA has responsibility for all jurisdictions except the City of San Diego, which has its own LEA.

Solid waste management practices and programs are summarized in the Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan (CIWMP), prepared in response to AB 939 (see below). The Countywide Siting Element, which is part of the CIWMP, must demonstrate that 15 years of countywide or regional permitted solid waste disposal capacity are or will be available through existing or planned facilities or other strategies. The Siting Element assists local governments and private industry in planning for integrated waste management and the siting of solid waste disposal facilities. The Integrated Waste Management Act (IWMA) requires that the Siting Element be prepared by the county, and approved by the County Board of Supervisors and by a majority of the cities within the county. Currently, the County is updating the CIWMP and the plan is to be completed by 2004.

SANDAG is the region’s Integrated Waste Management Local Solid Waste Task Force (LTF). In that capacity, SANDAG is responsible for advising and assisting the region’s cities and the County of San

1 See Exhibit 5 for more information.

211

Diego in complying with AB 939. The Task Force consists of representatives from local jurisdictions, solid waste agencies, and cities.

Legislation

Assembly Bill 939 (AB 939) is the California Integrated Waste Management Act signed into law in 1989. AB 939 requires local governments within the State to divert from landfills 25 percent of the waste generated within their jurisdictions by 1995, and 50 percent by 2000. AB 939 also established the California Integrated Waste Management Board to oversee local compliance with the law, and specifies monetary fines of up to $10,000 per day for non-compliance.

It is estimated that the San Diego region may have up to 11 out of 19 jurisdictions failing to meet the requirements of the waste diversion law (AB 939), which requires each city and county in California to develop and implement plans to reduce the amount of waste they send to landfills by 50 percent no later than the year 2000. The eleven jurisdictions that have failed to meet the requirements of the diversion law, have either an approved time extension, approved “good faith effort”, or an approved alternative diversion goal.2

Jurisdictions that did not meet the 50 percent diversion requirement in 2000 may petition the CIWMB for one or more time extensions, for a maximum of five years. Alternatively, the Board can determine that a jurisdiction’s “good faith efforts” to implement comprehensive diversion programs have satisfied the requirement even if diversion levels are below 50 percent. To achieve the required diversion rates, jurisdictions have tailored new waste handling processes that incorporate programs such as curbside recycling, MRFs and composting operations. All of these approaches are supported by comprehensive waste prevention and public education. In addition, franchise fees and AB 939 fees (from private haulers) help jurisdictions attain the 50 percent diversion rate by providing funding for reuse and recycling efforts.3

Regional jurisdictions avoid penalties if they maintain compliance with the 15 year disposal capacity requirement. The Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan (CIWMP) includes a variety of capacity options, such as, expanding the Sycamore landfill, opening the Gregory Landfill for operation, increasing recycling through greater diversion rates, and shipping waste out of the region.

III. Operations & Maintenance (FY 2003)

Due to the privatization of the County of San Diego’s four landfills by Allied Waste Industries and the private ownership of residential and commercial haulers such as Waste Management Inc. and EDCO, budget and capital improvement plans (CIPs) are not available for review. Also, the County as the Local Enforcement Agency (LEA) was unable to provide CIP information. Thus, these companies are excluded from our inventory process and analysis. Most local jurisdictions contract their waste collection and disposal services to private firms, so their budget and CIP information is unavailable as well. Therefore, the focus of this discussion will be on the City of San Diego and the County of San Diego, who both have solid waste budgets and responsibilities in this area.

2 California Integrated Waste Management Board’s Countywide, Regionwide, and Statewide Jurisdiction Diversion Progress Report (for San Diego, Report Year: 2000).

212

The City of San Diego’s solid waste budget is approximately $84 million. Of this total, approximately $19 million is spent on “general and administration” which primarily includes expenditures on environmental programs such as household hazardous waste, community cleanups, code compliance, and waste reduction and diversion. Other significant O&M expenditures for the City include $20 million for operation and maintenance of the Miramar Landfill, $30 million on refuse collection and $15 million on curbside recycling and greenery collection (see Exhibit 6). The County of San Diego has a FY 2002-2003 solid waste budget of approximately $12.5 million, a detailed breakdown of expenditures is not provided.

Solid waste collection and disposal is funded by an array of fees including, tipping fees, franchise fees, and AB 939 fees. Landfill operators charge haulers and the general public “tipping fees” in order to dispose of waste in their landfills. Tipping fees in the San Diego region currently range from $22/ton to $41/ton, which is within the range of other regions in California. All jurisdictions (except the City of San Diego) charge their single-family residences monthly trash-collection fees to cover tipping fees. These fees may include transportation cost, curbside recycling costs, and green waste costs. The City of San Diego is restricted from charging its single-family households for residential trash collection services due to the People’s Ordinance, passed in 1919 by the City’s voters. As a result, the City pays for its single-family residential trash collection services from its general fund. However, the City of San Diego does not have a commercial refuse program and therefore charges for commercial trash collection services.

Jurisdictions in the San Diego region that award franchises to businesses for garbage collection and disposal receive a percentage of the collection fees, which are known as franchise fees. These fees are allocated to general funds or special solid waste management funds. Franchise fees are not a direct incentive for recycling, although they may be structured to encourage higher recycling efforts. The average franchise fee for commercial wastes in California ranges from 10 to 15 percent of gross receipts of billings.4 Most jurisdictions include a specific amount for franchise fees in their collection agreements. To provide more flexibility for local governments over time, a franchise agreement may reserve the right to adjust the franchise fee at any time, or at the time of any rate adjustments approved for the hauler. This enables the community to increase franchise fees to fund implementation of other recycling programs if needed.

AB 939 fees are collected by local governments to raise fees specifically for the costs of implementing their waste diversion programs to comply with the AB 939 law. Each jurisdiction uses the countywide AB 939 implementation fee monies to fund waste diversion and recycling programs. For the City of San Diego, AB 939 fees are collected from customers at the Miramar landfill and directly from franchised haulers.

IV. Capital Improvement Programs

Since solid waste collection and disposal is a privatized system (both landfill owners and haulers are run by private companies), capital planning, in the form of capital improvement plans (CIP) are unavailable for review. The only CIP data available is from the City of San Diego. The annual FY2003 CIP budget for the City of San Diego’s Environmental Services Department is $8.5 million. This amount includes: $2.1 million for Phase Two of the West Miramar Refuse Disposal Facility Project,

4 “Other Hauler Incentives: Local Government Incentives Case Study,” California Integrated Waste Management Board.

213

$2.0 million for the new Chollas Landfill Photovoltaic Project, $2.4 for the unclassified disposal site closure annual allocation, and $1.0 million for the future landfill and transfer facility (see Exhibit 8). However, these projects are not tied to a long-range regional strategy.

V. Projected Long-Term Need

State legislation (AB 939) requires that each county or regional agency in California produce a countywide waste management plan. The San Diego County’s Integrated Waste Management Plan: Countywide Siting Element provides a description of the existing solid waste facilities and outlines the strategies which will provide adequate disposal capacity over the next 15 years for all the jurisdictions within the county. The Siting Element incorporates a broad range of alternatives, such as additional waste diversion programs and the exportation of waste outside the region. The Siting Element serves as a policy manual, rather than a specific development program, providing strategies for meeting the County’s disposal needs.

A gradual increase in annual generation and disposal is projected for the region over time.5

Generation is expected to increase from 7.2 million tons in 2002 to 13.1 million tons in 2020 (see Exhibit 9). Assuming current generation rates continue, SANDAG projects that generation will increase to 16.4 million tons by 2030 (see Exhibit 11). Solid waste disposal is predicted to increase from 3.7 million tons in 2002 to 6.1 million tons in 2017. Assuming the current disposal and diversion rates continue, SANDAG projects that solid waste disposal in the region will increase to 8.1 million tons by 2030 (see Exhibit 11). Based on the 1995-2001 disposal tonnages, imported and exported tonnages, and a 50 percent diversion rate by 2005, it is estimated that the San Diego region will need to accommodate annual disposal capacity for over 5.6 million tons of solid waste in 2017 (see Exhibit 9).

Currently, there is not enough existing landfill capacity in the San Diego region to meet the requirement of 15 years of permitted disposal capacity. In May 2002, it was estimated that 62.9 million tons of existing permitted in-county physical capacity remained, excluding the San Onofre and Las Pulgas landfills (see Exhibit 2). If no additional in-county capacity is added, the county is projected to possibly run out of physical capacity in approximately 2016 (see Exhibit 10).

The Siting Element states two proposals to increase capacity: Sycamore Canyon landfill expansion and Gregory Canyon landfill. Allied Landfill Systems, Inc. has submitted a request to expand the Sycamore landfill to accommodate additional capacity when the Miramar landfill is retired (estimated closure date is 2011). The approval of the proposed expansion for the Sycamore Canyon landfill would add 116.6 million tons to the capacity in the county. The Gregory Canyon landfill, if permitted, would provide an additional 33.4 million tons of capacity. The additional capacity of both proposals would provide in excess of 140.8 million tons of capacity by 2017 (see Exhibit 10).

The Campo landfill, located at the Reservation of the Campo Band of Mission Indians, was scheduled to begin construction by fall 2003. Due to political opposition, the landfill being on federal land (and so technically out of county jurisdiction), and lacking one permit, it cannot be considered an operating landfill and has been removed from the Siting Element. Removal of the

5 Generation is calculated as follows: [Generation = Diversion + Disposal], from the Integrated Waste Management Plan, Countywide Siting Element (Final Draft, October 13, 2003).

214

Campo landfill puts even more pressure on the approval of the Sycamore landfill expansion and Gregory Canyon landfill, in order for the San Diego region to meet its 15-year capacity requirement.

The proposed landfill at Gregory Canyon was incorporated into the County of San Diego General Plan by a voter initiative on November 8, 1994 as a possible landfill site. The County of San Diego LEA recently reviewed and certified the Environmental Impacts Report. The future date of opening of Gregory Canyon landfill remains uncertain because of the opposition to the facility by concerned municipalities, agencies and private parties.

VI. Public Policy / Financing Issues and Strategies

Jurisdictions in the region want to reduce their dependence on landfilling. The Siting Element discusses some alternative strategies for disposing of solid waste that may not be handled by existing or new facilities. These strategies, in combination, could help the region meet the 15-year capacity requirement. These alternative strategies include: additional diversion, increased exportation of waste out-of-county, and increased permitted landfill acceptance tonnages. The rate at which solid waste may enter the landfills is restricted by annual and/or daily traffic and tonnage limits, even though there may be sufficient physical capacity. The permitted daily and annual disposal tonnages are specified in the Solid Waste Facility Permit (SWFP) for the facility. These limits are for traffic control and health and welfare protection.

The California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 originally mandated that all jurisdictions reach 50 percent diversion by 2000. The region has made progress and in 2002 the countywide diversion rate reached 48 percent. Increasing diversion would extend landfill capacity. At the current landfill capacity, reaching 55 percent diversion in 2005 could give the county an additional 2 years of capacity. Each 10 percent increase of diversion could give the county between 4 and 6 additional years of landfill capacity. At 75 percent diversion, the region would not need any new or expanded facilities during the 15-year capacity requirement.6 Some jurisdictions in the state have adopted diversion goals of up to 75 percent (see below).

New technologies in waste reduction and diverse disposal options can preserve landfill capacity. Technologies can be applied to better manage existing capacity at landfills by using waste compression and more efficient landfill management practices. The siting of more composting, resource recovery, and construction and demolition processing facilities in the region could provide alternatively safe alternatives to disposal. In 2001, the region disposed of approximately 300,000 tons of construction and demolition material at the Miramar landfill. If a mixed construction and demolition processing facility were to be sited in the region, the amount of solid waste disposed could be reduced by at least 10 percent. The siting of new composting operations could divert additional significant tonnage because organic materials compose 40 percent of the region’s waste stream. This could be accomplished by local ordinances to control generator based source separation of compostable materials from landfills such as yard trimmings, paper, and food.7

Furthermore, recycling construction debris could help cities meet the state’s mandate. The debris is heavy, and cities’ recycling efforts are measured in tons.8

6 Integrated Waste Management Plan, Countywide Siting Element (Final Draft, October 13, 2003). 7 Ibid. 8 “Builders urged to lay off the landfill,” San Diego Union Tribune, October 13, 2003.

215

Most of the solid waste currently generated by residents and businesses is disposed locally, at a landfill of the hauling contractor’s choice. However there is some solid waste that is exported out of the region. In 1997, the region exported 13 percent of its waste compared to 5 percent in 2001.9 The continued availability of out-of-county disposal sites is not known, and other disposal sites may become available in the future. If the Sycamore Canyon landfill expansion and the proposed Gregory Canyon landfill are approved, the region may need to export 7 percent of its waste in 2017 to meet the region’s disposal need of 6.1 million tons. If neither landfill proposal is approved, the region may need to export 55 percent of its waste in 2017.10

The combined physical capacity of existing and proposed landfills could provide sufficient disposal capacity for the region, if the current daily and annual limits on traffic and amounts of solid waste allowed into the facilities were increased, under the current Solid Waste Facility Permits (SWFPs).

Other regions in California, such as Alameda County and the City of San Francisco, have implemented successful waste reduction programs in their areas. Model programs range from low-cost options to those requiring specialized expertise and significant investment. The diverse range of programs includes source reduction, reuse and construction and demolition programs. An option for the San Diego region would be to model our local diversion programs after those in another successful area, such as Alameda County. The 1990 Alameda County Waste Reduction and Recycling Initiative Charter Amendment (Measure D) includes a long term waste diversion goal of 75 percent for Alameda County.11

Identifying a specific strategy is important and significant to the San Diego region. For example, by increasing the diversion rate to 75 percent, the region would not need any new or expanded facilities during the 15-year capacity requirement. If the region cannot attain this ambitious goal, a new landfill or expansion (other than the Gregory Canyon landfill and Sycamore landfill expansion) may be necessary in order to have enough landfill capacity within the region to 2030. As well, increasing the amount of exportation of solid waste could be another consideration.

Solid Waste Section Exhibits

1) Solid Waste Landfills 2) List of Existing Landfills in San Diego County 3) Landfill Disposal Tonnages in San Diego County, 2001 4) Disposal Tonnage and Location, 1997 and 2001 5) Solid Waste Haulers in San Diego County 6) City of San Diego’s Environmental Services, Operations and Maintenance Revenues and

Expenditures, FY 2002-03 7) Solid Waste Operation and Maintenance Expenditures in San Diego County, FY 2003 8) Solid Waste Capital Projects 9) Projected Rate of Disposal in San Diego County 10) Physical Landfill Capacity Projection in San Diego County 11) SANDAG Estimate of Growth in Population and Solid Waste Generation, 2003-2030

9 See Exhibit 4 for more information. 10 Integrated Waste Management Plan, op.cit. 11 Alameda County voters approved this initiative in November 1990. Measure D was the groundbreaking local

initiative that included a voter-approved surcharge of $6 per ton on trash landfilled in the county, a long term waste diversion goal of 75% for Alameda County, and prohibition of incineration of refuse in unincorporated areas of Alameda County.

216

217

Exhibit 2 Existing Landfills in San Diego County

DISTRICT OWNER OPERATOR

CURRENT REMAININGCAPACITY

(MILLION TONS)1

1 RAMONA LANDFILL ALLIED WASTE INDUSTRIES, INC. RAMONA LANDFILL, INC. 0.3

2 BORREGO SPRINGS LANDFILL ALLIED WASTE INDUSTRIES, INC. BORREGO LANDFILL, INC. 0.1

3 OTAY LANDFILL ALLIED WASTE INDUSTRIES, INC. OTAY LANDFILL, INC. 31.3

4 WEST MIRAMAR SANITARY LANDFILL UNITED STATES NAVY CITY OF SAN DIEGO 13.8

5 SYCAMORE SANITARY LANDFILL ALLIED WASTE INDUSTRIES, INC. SYCAMORE LANDFILL, INC. 17.3

6 SAN ONOFRE LANDFILL US MARINE CORPS US MARINE CORPS 0.6

7 LAS PULGAS LANDFILL US MARINE CORPS US MARINE CORPS 5.4

TOTAL ALL LANDFILLS 68.9

SAN ONOFRE & LAS PULGAS 6.0

REMAINING CAPACITY 62.9

1 San Diego County Integrated Waste Management Plan, Siting Element (Final Draft, 10/13/03). Capacity figures as of May 2002.

218

Exhibit 3 Landfill Disposal Tonnages in San Diego County, 2001

Jurisdiction Borrego Miramar Otay Ramona Sycamore All Landfills

Tons % Tons % Tons % Tons % Tons % Tons % Carlsbad 0 0% 4,039 3% 125,944 94% 0.4 0% 3,664 3% 133,647 100%

Chula Vista 0 0% 3,410 2% 189,358 98% 0 0% 644 0% 193,412 100%

Coronado 0 0% 15,840 37% 27,338 63% 0 0% 150 0% 43,328 100%

Del Mar 0 0% 13,793 92% 262 2% 0 0% 952 6% 15,007 100%

El Cajon 0 0% 3,588 3% 68,353 64% 1 0% 35,648 33% 107,590 100%

Encinitas 0 0% 13,432 18% 41,361 57% 2 0% 18,379 25% 73,174 100%

Escondido 0 0% 3795 3% 222 0% 2,064 1% 143,592 96% 149,673 100%

Imperial Beach 0 0% 1,097 6% 13,591 73% 21 0% 3,807 21% 18,516 100%

La Mesa 0 0% 1,790 3% 53,832 89% 0.46 0% 4,536 8% 60,158 100%

Lemon Grove 0 0% 685 3% 18,184 70% 0.4 0% 6,965 27% 25,834 100%

National City 0 0% 8,183 13% 52,555 81% 0 0% 4,444 7% 65,182 100%

Oceanside 0 0% 1,774 14% 6,394 51% 89 1% 4,371 35% 12,628 100%

Poway 0 0% 24,952 44% 112 0% 18,430 32% 13,248 23% 56,742 100%

San Diego 0 0% 1,166,013 62% 447,650 24% 24 0% 267,500 14% 1,881,187 100%

San Marcos 0 0% 2,956 3% 5,171 6% 42 0% 85,033 91% 93,202 100%

Santee 0 0% 895 2% 24,783 44% 4 0% 30,771 55% 56,453 100%

Solana Beach 0 0% 15,425 89% 1,666 10% 0 0% 325 2% 17,416 100%

Vista 0 0% 3,849 4% 14,737 14% 0 0% 88,399 83% 106,985 100%

Unincorporated 4,625 1% 41,642 10% 142,286 33% 47,365 11% 197,265 46% 433,183 100%

TOTAL (Tons) 4,625 0% 1,327,158 37% 1,233,799 35% 68,043 2% 909,693 26% 3,543,318 100% San Onofre 1,323 Las Pulgas 37,105

Source: Integrated Waste Management Board

219

Exhibit 4 Disposal Tonnage and Location, 1997 and 2001

Jurisdiction

Local Waste Tons Disposed of in San

Diego region (1997)

Local Waste Tons Disposed of in San

Diego region (2001)

Local Waste Tons Exported Out of

the region (1997)

Local Waste Tons Exported Out of

the region(2001)

TOTALWASTE

DISPOSAL (1997)

TOTALWASTE

DISPOSAL (2001)

Total Percent Total Percent Total Percent Total Percent

Carlsbad 79,418 100% 133,647 100% 0 0% 580 0% 79,418 134,227

Chula Vista 117,005 100% 193,412 100% 298 0% 571 0% 117,303 193,983

Coronado 62,195 98% 43,328 100% 1,076 2% 8 0% 63,271 43,336

Del Mar 15,502 100% 15,007 100% 0 0% 4 0% 15,502 15,011

El Cajon 24,093 21% 107,590 99% 88,099 79% 1,226 1% 112,192 108,816

Encinitas 59,366 100% 73,174 99% 240 0% 483 1% 59,606 73,657

Escondido 12,592 11% 149,673 99% 99,903 89% 1,327 1% 112,495 151,000

Imperial Beach 17,883 100% 18,516 100% 0 0% 3 0% 17,883 18,519

La Mesa 45,429 99% 60,158 100% 529 1% 245 0% 45,958 60,403

Lemon Grove 19,267 97% 25,834 100% 550 3% 21 0% 19,817 25,855

National City 69,505 99% 65,182 99% 869 1% 378 1% 70,374 65,560

Oceanside 5,722 5% 12,628 9% 106,278 95% 127,861 91% 112,000 140,489

Poway 40,449 100% 56,742 99% 67 0% 300 1% 40,516 57,042

San Diego 1,451,359 99% 1,881,187 100% 14,457 1% 2,841 0% 1,465,816 1,884,028

San Marcos 57,423 95% 93,202 99% 3,032 5% 764 1% 60,455 93,966

Santee 24,965 69% 56,453 97% 11,127 31% 1,791 3% 36,092 58,244

Solana Beach 14,817 100% 17,416 97% 13 0% 472 3% 14,830 17,888

Vista 64,896 98% 106,985 100% 1,396 2% 284 0% 66,292 107,269

Unincorporated 290,753 93% 433,183 88% 22,713 7% 57,307 12% 313,466 490,490

TOTAL (Tons) 2,472,639 88% 3,543,318 95% 350,647 13% 196,466 5% 2,823,286 3,739,7841

1 Total Waste Disposal (2001) excludes diverted waste of 3.3 million tons.

Source: Integrated Waste Management Board

220

Exhibit 5 Solid Waste Haulers in San Diego County

Jurisdiction Hauler

Carlsbad Coast Waste Management, Inc.

Chula Vista Pacific Waste Services

Coronado EDCO

Del Mar Coast Waste Management, Inc.

El Cajon Waste Management, Inc.

Encinitas EDCO

Escondido Escondido Disposal Inc.

Imperial Beach EDCO

La Mesa EDCO

Lemon Grove EDCO

National City EDCO

Oceanside Waste Management of North County

Poway EDCO

San Diego City SD / multiple franchise agreements

San Marcos EDCO

Santee Waste Management, Inc.

Solana Beach Coast Waste Management, Inc./EDCO

Vista EDCO

Unincorporated Various

221

Exhibit 6 City of San Diego’s Environmental Services

Operations and Maintenance Revenues and Expenditures, FY 2002-03

State Grants, 1.5%

Interest, Rents, 3.9%

Charges for Services, 49.0%

Other Local Revenues [2]

45.5%

General & Admin., 37.7%

Refuse Disposal,

36.3%

Recyling Fund, 26.0%

O&M Revenues O&M Expenditures

$83.5 Million $84.3 Million

Source: City of San Diego, Proposed FY 2003 Budget. 1 Includes $31.2 Million transfer from the General Fund.

222

Exhibit 7Solid Waste Operation and Maintenance Expenditures

in San Diego County, FY 2003 ($ Million)

City of San

Diego Percent County of San Diego Percent Total Percent

Operating Revenues (FY 2003)

Charges for services 42.9 51.4% 0.0 0.0% 42.9 45.3%Interests, rents 8.1 9.7% 0.0 0.0% 8.1 8.6%Other local funds (incl. continuing appropropriations) 31.2 37.4% 12.5 100.0% 43.7 46.1%Transfers from federal / state 1.3 1.6% 0.0 0.0% 1.3 1.4%

Total Annual Revenues $ 83.5 100.0% $ 12.5 100.0% $ 94.7 100.0%

Operating Expenditures (FY 2003)Operations and maintenance

General & administrative 19.3 [1] 22.9% 0.0 0.0% 19.3 19.9%Contracts & services 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0% 0.0 0.0%Other O&M 65.0 [2] 77.1% 12.5 100.0% 77.5 80.1%

Subtotal O&M 84.3 100.0% 12.5 100.0% 96.8 100.0%

Total Operating Expenditures $ 84.3 100.0% $ 12.5 100.0% $ 96.8 100.0% Source: City of San Diego FY 2003 budget and County of San Diego FY 2003 budget.

[1] Includes household hazardous waste, underground storage tanks, community cleanups, code compliance, waste reduction & diversion program, etc.

[2] Includes Miramar Landfill O&M costs, refuse collection, curbside recycling collection, and greenery collection.

223

Exhibit 8 Solid Waste Capital Projects

Project No.

Agency ID (1) Project Description

ProjectType

Regional(R) /

Subregional

TotalProject

Cost

Costsprior toFY 2003

FY 2003 Costs

FY 2004 Costs

FY 2005 Costs

FY 2006 Costs

FY 2007 Costs

Costs After FY 2007

1 SDAnnual Allocation - Unclassified Disposal Site Closure

Mandated - 5,876,000 - 2,401,000 1,500,000 500,000 500,000 155,000 820,000

2 SD Arizona Landfill - Closure

Mandated - 2,239,638 1,679,638 50,000 50,000 50,000 55,000 55,000 300,000

3 SD South Chollas Landfill - Gas Upgrades Mandated - 733,000 360,000 33,000 33,000 34,000 36,000 37,000 200,000

4 SD West Miramar Phase II - Landfill Gas System Mandated R 3,060,000 400,000 - - - - - 2,660,000

5 SD Chollas Landfill Photovoltaic Project New - 6,000,000 - 2,000,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,000,000 - -

6 SD Future Landfill and Transfer Facility New - 34,891,250 4,714,801 1,000,000 4,890,849 3,035,700 3,035,700 3,035,700 15,178,500

7 SDWest Miramar Refuse Disposal Facility - Phase II

New R 50,306,179 40,106,179 2,075,000 2,200,000 2,200,000 2,225,000 250,000 1,250,000

8 SDAnnual Allocation - Groundwater Monitoring Network

Technology - 2,355,000 - 215,000 215,000 215,000 230,000 230,000 1,250,000

9 SDAnnual Allocation - Minor Landfill Requirements

Upgrade - 2,355,000 - 215,000 215,000 215,000 230,000 230,000 1,250,000

10 SD Arizona Landfill Gas Utilization Upgrade - 2,050,000 - 250,000 1,800,000 - - - -

11 SD ESD Operations Yard Improvements Upgrade - 1,000,000 - 273,000 491,000 236,000 - - -

12 SD South Miramar Landfill Slopes

Upgrade R 3,000,000 - - - - - 1,500,000 1,500,000

- - - - - - - - - -

REGIONAL SUBTOTAL - - 56,366,179 40,506,179 2,075,000 2,200,000 2,200,000 2,225,000 1,750,000 5,410,000

SUBREGIONAL SUBTOTAL - - 57,499,888 6,754,439 6,437,000 10,694,849 5,785,700 5,086,700 3,742,700 18,998,500

TOTAL - - 113,866,067 47,260,618 8,512,000 12,894,849 7,985,700 7,311,700 5,492,700 24,408,500

Note 1: The County of San Diego also allocated resources to maintenance of inactive landfills, such as San Marcos. However, this information is not included in the most recent CIP budget. Source: City of San Diego Proposed Fiscal Year 2003 Annual Budget Capital Improvement Program, Volume IV (Environmental Services section)

224

Exhibit 9 Projected Annual Rate of Disposal in San Diego County (Millions of Tons)

Year Total Generation

(2000-2001Actual)

Estimated Diversion %

Total Disposal (1995-2001

Actual)

Exports(1995-2001 Actual)

Imports(1995-2001 Actual)

In-County LandfillRate of Disposal (Disposal

- Exported + Imported)

1995 2.8 0.4 0.002 2.4

1996 2.7 0.3 0.002 2.4

1997 2.9 0.4 0.002 2.5

1998 3.2 0.5 0.006 2.7

1999 3.3 0.5 0.005 2.8

2000 6.6 48% 3.4 0.2 0.008 3.2

2001 6.9 46% 3.7 0.2 0.019 3.6

2002 7.2 48% 3.7 [1] 0.3 0.009 3.5

2003 7.5 48% 3.9 0.3 0.009 3.6

2004 7.9 48% 4.1 0.3 0.010 3.8

2005 8.2 50% 4.1 0.3 0.010 3.8

2006 8.5 50% 4.3 0.3 0.011 3.9

2007 8.8 50% 4.4 0.3 0.011 4.1

2008 9.2 50% 4.6 0.3 0.011 4.3

2009 9.5 50% 4.7 0.4 0.012 4.4

2010 9.8 50% 4.9 0.4 0.012 4.6

2011 10.2 50% 5.1 0.4 0.012 4.7

2012 10.5 50% 5.2 0.4 0.012 4.9

2013 10.8 50% 5.4 0.4 0.013 5.0

2014 11.1 50% 5.6 0.4 0.013 5.2

2015 11.5 50% 5.7 0.4 0.013 5.3

2016 11.8 50% 5.9 0.4 0.014 5.5

2017 12.1 50% 6.1 0.4 0.014 5.6

2018 12.4 50% 6.2 0.4 0.015 5.8

2019 12.8 50% 6.4 0.5 0.015 5.9

2020 13.1 50% 6.5 0.5 0.015 6.1

Source: San Diego County Integrated Waste Management Plan, Siting Element (Final Draft, 10/13/03).

1. CIWMB estimate; actual is 3.6 million ton.

225

Exhibit 10 Physical Landfill Capacity Projection in San Diego County (Millions of Tons)

Sycamore Canyon Expansion2 Proposed Gregory Canyon2

Year

In-County LandfillRate of Disposal

ExistingPhysical Capacity

In-County Excess1

ProposedExpansionCapacity

In-County Excess1

(Existing + Sycamore)

ProposedAdditional Capacity

In-County Excess1

(Existing + Gregory)

In-CountyExcess1

(Existing + Sycamore + Gregory)

1995 2.4 1996 2.4 1997 2.5 1998 2.7 1999 2.8 2000 3.2 2001 3.6 2002 3.5 62.9 59.4 59.42003 3.6 59.4 55.8 55.8 2004 3.8 55.8 52.0 52.0 2005 3.8 52.0 48.2 116.6 164.9 164.9 2006 3.9 48.2 44.3 160.9 33.4 77.7 194.3 2007 4.1 44.3 40.2 156.8 73.6 190.2 2008 4.3 40.2 35.9 152.6 69.3 186.0 2009 4.4 35.9 31.5 148.2 64.9 181.6 2010 4.6 31.5 27.0 143.6 60.4 177.0 2011 4.7 27.0 22.3 138.9 55.7 172.3 2012 4.9 22.3 17.4 134.0 50.8 167.4 2013 5 17.4 12.4 129.0 45.8 162.4 2014 5.2 12.4 7.2 123.8 40.6 157.2 2015 5.3 7.2 1.8 118.5 35.2 151.9 2016 5.5 1.8 -3.6 113.0 29.8 146.4 2017 5.6 -3.6 -9.3 107.4 24.1 140.82018 5.8 -9.3 -15.1 101.6 18.3 135.0 2019 5.9 -15.1 -21.0 95.6 12.4 129.0 2020 6.1 -21.0 -27.1 89.6 6.3 123.0

Source: San Diego County Integrated Waste Management Plan, Siting Element (Final Draft, 10/13/03). 1 Excess is calculated: [Existing Physical Capacity + Proposed Capacity - Rate of Disposal]. The difference is defined as the additional tons per year that could be handled. 2 The opening dates and annual permitted tonnages for these landfills are proposed at this time. The Local Enforcement Agency and local land use authority must approve both proposals. CIWMB votes to concur. Issues and concerns of the region and the adjoining jurisdictions will be addressed during the permitting processes.

226

Exhibit 11 SANDAG Estimate of Solid Waste Generation

and Population Projected Growth 2003 – 2030

Population Increase, 30%

Base Year 2003

Solid Waste Generation,

119%

Solid Waste Disposal,

108%

-50%

0%

50%

100%

150%

2000 2010 2020 2030

Source: Integrated Waste Management Plan, Countywide Siting Element (Final Draft, October 13, 2003).

Note 1. This is a comparison of projected growth in population and projected solid waste generation and disposal for the San Diego region.

Note 2. Population in 2003 is 2,961,600; projected population in 2030 is 3,855,085. The San Diego region's solid waste generation in 2003 is 7.5 million tons; projected generation in 2030 is 16.4 million tons. Total disposal in 2003 is 3.9 million tons; projected disposal in 2030 is 8.1 million tons.

Note 3. The 2020 forecast (from the Siting Element) was extrapolated linearly to 2030, by SANDAG.

IRIS TECHNICAL APPENDIX [A.6] ENERGY SUPPLY AND DELIVERY SYSTEM

229

IRIS TECHNICAL APPENDIX [A.6] ENERGY SUPPLY AND DELIVERY SYSTEM

I. Introduction / Description of Infrastructure System

The energy crisis of 2001 highlighted the need to address the future of the region’s long-term energy supply. Population growth, nearly full transmission lines, and aging of the power generating facilities within the region necessitate further increases in transmission capability to take advantage of renewable, fuel diverse, and lower cost power opportunities from neighboring regions, as well as construction of new fuel efficient generating resources to meet demand. Present local generation is often costly, creates air quality impacts, and is usually owned and operated by private companies with little public input. As a region, San Diego County is one of the top three residential cost markets in the state and in the top six commercial cost markets in the U.S.1 The natural gas supplies that fuel many of the region’s power generators and homes have increased in price in recent years, and prices will likely continue to fluctuate from year-to-year. The inclusion of future Liquefied Natural Gas has the potential to mitigate overall prices and reduce volatility. It is within this context that two separate approaches offering different perspectives on how to proceed have emerged.2

The San Diego Regional Energy Office (SDREO) and San Diego Gas and Electric (SDG&E) have similar concerns about the future energy supply in the region, and agree that additional capacity is needed to meet demand through a balanced and diversified mix of supply. However, although both groups agree that a diversified portfolio is necessary, they differ on the approach to increase regional supply. SDG&E suggests a balanced plan that includes energy efficiency, demand reduction, renewable power, transmission and local generation. Although the SDREO advocates a similar mix of resource options, they advocate a higher level of in-county generation, and believe a faster pace of transition to use of local renewable energy sources will be possible, especially in the years beyond 2010.

Regional energy generation (supply) in the region can be categorized into three distinct areas based on fuel type: nuclear, oil and natural gas (NG) and alternative (renewable).3 The San Diego region has a total on-system generating capacity of approximately 2,400 megawatts (MW) (about 65

1 San Diego Regional Energy Infrastructure Study (REIS), Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC), December, 2002 page ES-1.

2 This appendix section focuses primarily on electricity and does not go into detail about natural gas. The natural gas market and planning processes are similar to electricity and many of the problems in one area are shared by the other. For example, each type of energy requires a plan to address the issues and faces scarcity of resource concerns. The IRIS has incorporated gas projects into the database and refers to gas in relation to its role as a fuel source for energy generation.

3 San Onofre Nuclear Power Plant (SONGS) is physically located within the region. However, for regulatory and planning purposes it is considered outside of the region because power generated from the facility arrives over transmission lines. Power from SONGS is not included as part of the region’s generating capacity.

230

percent of the region’s peak demand).4 Peak period demand for electricity in the San Diego region reached 3,571 MW in 2002 as reported by SDG&E.5 The remaining demand is met through imported sources of energy, which are currently limited by transmission capacity to 2,850 MW. Therefore, if peak period demand exceeds approximately 5,300 MW, the region cannot meet the demand through local generation or imported power sources. Historically, the region has imported approximately half of its power from external sources.6

Investment in energy infrastructure supports the implementation of the Regional Comprehensive Plan (RCP) in two ways: 1) providing a safe, reliable energy supply to the San Diego region and 2) distributing energy to homes and businesses for everyday use. For purposes of the IRIS, facilities that provide overall capacity and supply of energy to the region are called “regional” energy infrastructure. Major power plants and large transmission lines are examples of regional infrastructure. Energy sub-stations, small trunk lines, distribution lines, and local neighborhood transmission lines are examples of subregional infrastructure. Regional infrastructure supports the overall growth of the region, while subregional infrastructure serves the pattern of development, and should be consistent with the smart growth urban form and design objectives of the RCP.

II. Responsibilities and Controlling Legislation

Agencies/Organizations

The San Diego Regional Energy Office (SDREO) is an independent, non-profit corporation whose charter calls for providing objective information, research, analysis and long-term planning on energy issues for the San Diego region. SDREO also serves as a link between consumers and government and is currently managing over $30 million in public funds through a variety of rebate, incentive and education programs. SDREO was the contractor to SANDAG to provide the Energy 2030 report for the RCP. SDREO staff administered the Regional Energy Policy Advisory Committee (REPAC) that oversaw completion of “Energy 2030” (described below), and provided technical support to REPAC’s activities.7

San Diego Gas and Electric (SDG&E), a subsidiary of SEMPRA utilities, owns the electricity transmission and distribution lines in the San Diego region and provides service to three million consumers through 1.3 million electric meters and 775,000 natural gas meters in San Diego and southern Orange counties. A map of SDG&E’s service area is included as Exhibit 1. In FY 2002, SDG&E’s customer base consisted of 89 percent residential and eleven percent commercial and industrial users. SDG&E sold most of its power generating facilities at the beginning of the deregulation period which started in 1998. As a result of deregulation, SDG&E was no longer responsible for planning or procuring power on behalf of its customers. However, as of January 1, 2003, State legislation and the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) returned SDG&E to its pre-deregulation role of planning for, and buying, electricity to meet customer needs. The CPUC

4 Current on-system generation capacity, as reported by SDG&E in their 20-year Resource Plan Filing, is 2,359 MW of which 1,635 MW is generated within the service area. The difference between supply and demand is met by importing energy from outside the region through transmission lines.

5 SDG&E MW totals do not include a reserve margin. The San Diego Regional Energy Office, “Energy 2030: The San Diego Regional Energy Strategy” May (2003), Appendix A, figures include a 15 percent reserve margin for a total peak period demand of 4,063 MW.

6 REIS, SAIC, Dec., 2002 page 4-4 and 4-13. 7 SDREO Webpage: www.sdreo.org

231

ordered the three California utilities – SDG&E, Pacific Gas & Electric and Southern California Edison – to restart this role after a four-year break.

Since the beginning of 2003, SDG&E has produced a 20-year electric resource plan with input from a wide range of stakeholders, including frequent consultation with REPAC, and filed that plan with the CPUC. SDG&E has also completed a competitive bidding process for new resources, and is seeking CPUC approval to obtain demand reduction, renewable and combined cycle resources for the San Diego region beginning in 2005. SDG&E’s investment in these resources will be over $600 Million.

To give a clear picture of energy infrastructure in the San Diego region, both power plants and transmission lines must be discussed. The region’s commercial transmission lines are between 69-500 kilovolts (kV). As shown in Exhibit 2, a simplified map of the region’s transmission lines, there are two major points of interconnection today between SDG&E’s service area and the external grid: the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (“SONGS”) switchyard in the north and the Miguel Substation in the south.8

According to the most recent information available from the California Energy Commission (CEC), there were three companies which together generated 94 percent of the total MW produced in the region in 2001. The largest San Diego power generator was the partnership of Dynegy Inc. and NRG Inc. Dynegy/NRG Inc. purchased SDG&E’s largest power plant (Encina) and a fleet of combustion turbines as part of the state’s deregulation efforts. These two companies share 50 percent ownership in multiple plants which together generate 75 percent of the region’s locally-produced energy. The Port of San Diego owns the second largest power producing plant, South Bay, in SDG&E’s in-system area generating approximately 700 MW annually. The remaining power providers located within the in-system generation area are SDG&E and Sithe Energies.9 As of today, SDG&E no longer produces power, although recent approval of the Palomar Energy project in Escondido will bring Sempra back into the local generating market.10 SDG&E has also filed with the CPUC to purchase the Palomar project in Escondido and also a new Combustion turbine plant to be located in the region.

Federal

Energy is a heavily regulated infrastructure area with multiple levels of review by the state and federal government. The United States Department of Energy (DOE) acts as a regulatory agency, legislator, and a comprehensive resource for energy information providers. DOE disseminates scientific and technical statistics, data, and analysis and also funds research and development in such fields as genetics, “clean cities”, and pollution prevention.11

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) is an independent regulatory agency within the Department of Energy. FERC has many responsibilities, including: regulating the transmission and sale of natural gas, oil, and electricity for resale in interstate commerce; licensing and inspecting

8 Source: REIS, 12/2002. page 4-13 9 SDG&E service area primarily extends from the U.S./Mexico border to the San Onofre Nuclear Power Plant. 10 Source: Sempra Press Release 8/6/03. The Escondido plant will be capable of generating 550 MW of power,

enough for approximately 550,000 residents. 11 DOE is the premier laboratory for renewable energy, nuclear energy, fusion energy, coal, oil, natural gas

physics, chemistry, materials, biology, environmental cleanup, and waste management.

232

private, municipal and state hydroelectric projects; overseeing environmental matters related to natural gas, oil, electricity and hydroelectric projects; administering accounting and financial reporting regulations and conduct of jurisdictional companies; and approving site choices, as well as abandonment, of interstate pipeline facilities.

State

The California Energy Commission (CEC) is the state’s primary energy policy and planning agency charged with ensuring a reliable and affordable energy supply. The Commission has five major responsibilities: forecasting future energy needs and maintaining historical energy data; siting and licensing power plants that produce more than 50 MW; promoting energy efficiency through appliance and building standards; developing energy technologies and supporting renewable energy; and planning for and directing state response to energy emergencies.12 Electric Industry Deregulation Law (SB 1890 and AB 90) expands the Commission’s role to include overseeing funding programs that support public interest energy research; advancing energy science and technology through research, development and demonstration; and providing market support to existing, new and emerging renewable technologies.13

The Energy Oversight Board was formed by the California Legislature to perform three functions related to the California Independent System Operator (CAISO): 1) to oversee the CAISO; 2) determine the composition and terms of service and to appoint the members of the governing boards of CAISO; and, 3) serve as an appeal board for majority decisions of CAISO’s governing board.

CAISO is charged with managing the flow of electricity along the long-distance, high-voltage power lines that make up the majority of California’s transmission system. Regulated by FERC, CAISO’s responsibilities include: providing non-discriminatory access to the grid, managing grid congestion, maintaining the reliability and security of the grid, and providing billing and settlement services. The CAISO has no affiliation with any market participant. CAISO controls 75 percent of California’s power-grid transmission systems formerly operated by the three investor-owned utilities in the state.

The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), a California state agency, regulates privately owned telecommunications, electric, natural gas, water, railroad, rail transit, and passenger transportation companies. The CPUC is responsible for assuring California utility customers have safe, reliable utility service at reasonable rates, and protecting utility customers from fraud. The CPUC sets retail rates and regulates the investor owned utilities, holding them accountable for providing a reliable supply for the customer’s they serve. FERC regulates retail rates, contracts and conditions, while the PUC regulates the need for new transmission lines and holds SDG&E accountable for keeping the power on in the region.

12 The CEC is used by the Western Energy Coordinating Commission (WECC) and local agencies as a main source of research for a variety of energy related information.

13 AB 1890 and SB 90 provide the legal framework for a restructured electric industry. The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) will direct participation of the Independently Operated Us in the new market structure. AB 1890 strongly encourages the participation of the Municipally-Owned Utilities. Because of flaws in the deregulation process, the CPUC suspended direct access in September 2001. For more information see: http://www.energy.ca.gov/restructuring/index.html

233

Legislation

A restructuring of California’s electric utility industry began at the state legislative level in 1992, but has been moving towards a more traditional, regulated model since the rolling blackouts and price fluctuations that occurred during the summer of 2001. [The summer of 2001 has resulted in a reversing of the restructuring, not an acceleration] In 1992, Order 636 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) set the stage for electricity deregulation by making electricity trade across states easier. Two years later, the CPUC issued the “blue book” which initiated a study of electric power industry restructuring in California. This was an important step as it brought about consumer choice in the energy market. For the first-time, electricity consumers were allowed “direct access” to choose from whom they purchased their power beginning in 1998.

The previous system of area-specific monopolies for electricity was changed under what is called “restructuring” or deregulation. This process came to a halt in September 2001 when the CPUC suspended direct access in California because of flaws in the deregulation process.

Starting January 1, 2003, the CPUC approved an interim order requiring the Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Edison, and San Diego Gas and Electric to plan for and provide power to meet the needs of its customers who had not selected another provider. The CPUC also “allocated” specific contracts signed by the State of California for power during the energy crisis to customers of each utility, and required the utility serving those customers to assume responsibility for administering the contracts. These contracts are still between the State of California and the individual suppliers, and must remain so; however, the role of the Department of Water Resources, which formerly involved negotiating and signing such contracts, as well as administering them, has been significantly reduced.14 Long-term contracts entered into by the CDWR in 2001 will be providing power to the state for up to ten more years.

In January 2003, the CPUC put into action Senate Bill 1078, the Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), in order to further technological advancement of alternative energy resources. This bill requires the utilities to add new renewable resources each year equaling one percent of energy requirements and replace current renewable contracts with like resources when current contracts expire. By 2017, 20 percent of the total supply should be comprised of renewable technologies such as geothermal, biogas, biomass wind, and solar storage. With approval of its recent proposal for new resources by the CPUC, SDG&E will be at roughly eight percent by 2005.

III. Operations and Maintenance (FY 2003)

Operations and maintenance of energy infrastructure involves the cooperative effort of federal, state, local, private and not-for-profit agencies. The two main types of energy infrastructure are power plants (generation) and transmission lines (distribution). Power plants are operated and maintained by their owners. Transmission lines and pipelines are operated and maintained by SDG&E. Both transmission and generation is overseen by multiple government agencies. Because much of the industry is owned and operated by private companies, access to budgets, operations and maintenance figures, and other financial information is restricted and often unavailable.

14 http://www.news.water.ca.gov/2000.sedition/sdbr10.html

234

Energy infrastructure has many sources of funding including shareholders, user fees (rates), private investment, government grants and incentives and other types of financial assistance. Investor owned utilities shareholders are the major source of funding providing funds for generation transmission and distribution investments. For investor owned utilities, shareholders are the major source of funding for generation, transmission and distribution investments. Utility customers repay the investors through rates. Private (non-utility) investment is responsible for developing some generation facilities and very recently has been invested in transmission facilities. These investments are paid for by the facilities customers.

Federal, State and Local government provides incentives and distribute grants, credits and other types of financial aid for energy infrastructure. Energy related funding sources include: Fed/State/Local grants and loan programs, lease purchase agreements, production incentives, equity investments in companies, debt offerings, and bank loans. There are also numerous and various Federal, State and Local incentive programs including: property tax exemptions, utility rebate programs, other corporate/personal tax credits or deductions, public education/assistance campaigns and green pricing programs. Finally, numerous programs (including some from the list above) are designed specifically to encourage the use of alternative (renewable) energy sources.

IV. Capital Improvement Programs

One of the goals of the IRIS is to gather a detailed list of capital projects by location. For security purposes, detailed SDG&E capital improvement programs are not available to the public. However, information provided by SDG&E indicates there will be total electric plant and distribution facility expenditures of $1.42 billion dollars between FY 2003 – 2007. Of that amount, about 45 percent will be spent on subregional infrastructure and the remaining 55 percent will be spent on regional infrastructure (as defined by the IRIS). Expenditures for FY 2003 total $284.8 million. In FY 2003, $163.4 million will be spent on subregional projects, $121.5 million on regional projects.15

Based upon information submitted by SDG&E to the CPUC, we have estimated the types of capital improvement expenditures for electrical energy SDG&E is likely to make for 2003 and 2004.16

According to the CPUC data, nine percent of planned expenditures are for the construction of new facilities, 66 percent for upgrades to existing facilities, 15 percent for technology, three percent for mandated projects and the remaining seven percent for other projects.17 This level of detailed information is not available for regional gas capital expenditures and subregional projects. A summary and list of CIP expenditures are provided in Exhibits 5, 6 and 7.

15 Of the regional projects, approximately half will be spent on “new business” and the other half on other, general regional projects. According to SDG&E, “new Business” refers to new business and development throughout the SDG&E service territory. The other regional projects category includes expenditures such as distribution facilities, distribution substations and related improvements throughout SDG&E’s service area.

16 Source: David Geier’s testimonial for the SDG&E Distribution Cost of Service Application submitted to the CPUC on December 20, 2002. The projects are itemized in “Appendix A: Electric Distribution Projects Listing Cross-Reference” on page DLG 197. To estimate expenditure value by type of project, staff determined the percent of total expenditures for each project type using the Cost of Service Application then applied those percentages to the total CIP value provided by SDG&E.

17 “New” projects refer to installation of new pipelines and other facilities; “upgrades” refer to renovation, reconstruction, or other improvements to existing facilities. “Mandated” projects are undertaken to satisfy federal or state requirements on safety and other issues. “Green” projects (which may also be mandated) refer to actions to mitigate impacts to or improve the natural environment. “Technology” projects improve overall productivity, such as system or control technologies.

235

The geographic distribution of SDG&E’s FY 2003 investments in subregional facilities by community planning areas is shown in Exhibit 3. The subregional capital improvement projects listed in Exhibit 6 were coded to individual community and infrastructure planning areas across the region (see Exhibit 4 for a list of community and infrastructure planning areas (CIPA)). Because subregional energy infrastructure investment generally follows urban development, it is anticipated that the pattern of investment will change as the RCP’s urban form and design are implemented.

Funding for new electricity generating facilities comes primarily from private (non-utility) developers who recover their costs through electricity sales or by SDG&E. Transmission lines are funded by SDG&E and private developers and paid for primarily by user fees. SDG&E customers pay for SDG&E transmission lines located within the customers’ immediate service area. The ISO is developing a proposal for cost-sharing across all utilities in the State for major transmission lines. However, this proposal would only affect new projects. Current projects would still be paid for by customers in the utility’s service area. The cost-sharing proposal would significantly reduce the amount of resources required from any single agency to develop a new line and would greatly reduce the financial burden of adding transmission capacity.

V. Projected Long-Term Need

Regional Need

As reported by the SDREO, the region will require capacity 8,067 MW of capacity by 2030, a near doubling of current demand.18 As shown in Exhibit 8, this is a significantly higher increase than the forecast growth in population over the same time period.19 All regional agencies appear to agree that not only will total energy demanded increase, but also per capita energy demand will rise (i.e. energy demanded per person will also increase). Since the early 1980’s per capita energy consumption in the region has steadily increased as society has demanded greater energy use to support its improving lifestyle and to achieve a higher-level quality of life. These findings are consistent with the State of California (and, by extension, the nation). According to the CPUC’s Energy Action Plan, “state wide peak demand is growing at about 2.4 percent per year, roughly the equivalent of three new 500-megawatt power plants. State wide residential and commercial air conditioning represent at least 30 percent of summer peak electricity loads.”20

The projection for 2030 electricity demand includes an increase in per capita demand. However, it also assumes a smaller increase than what would occur without certain behavioral changes and technological advancements, such as greater levels of conservation, additional amounts of urban forest cover, and use of more efficient appliances and electronic products. In addition, the forecasts assume that energy produced will come from cleaner and more efficient plants and that regional supply will consist of higher amounts of renewable energy.

18 San Diego Regional Energy Office, “Energy 2030: The San Diego Regional Energy Strategy” May (2003), Appendix A.

19 SANDAG’s 2030 Final Forecast 20 CPUC Energy Action Plan approved at the May 8, 2003 CPUC meeting. The CEC, the Consumer Power and

Conservation Financing Authority (CPA), and the PUC approved the Final Energy Action Plan, proposed by a subcommittee of the three agencies. The plan establishes shared goals and specific actions to ensure that adequate, reliable, and reasonably-priced electrical power and natural gas supplies are achieved and provided through policies, strategies, and actions that are cost-effective and environmentally sound for California's consumers and taxpayers.

236

The San Diego Regional Infrastructure Study reported the power generating capabilities of the “existing” generators. The forecast of the existing facilities highlighted the aging infrastructure and upcoming retirements of power plants. By 2030, generation in-county is projected to decrease more than 40 percent if no new facilities are developed (from the current level of 2,374 MW of power to 1,352 MW). However, if new, more efficient generation plants are built in San Diego; regional capacity can remain comparable to today’s capacity. Regardless of new facilities, in order to meet the region’s growing energy demands, additional energy supply will need to be imported from outside the region.

According to the San Diego Regional Energy Infrastructure Study, grid based power and centralized electric power plants will continue to be the major power supply source in the region in the foreseeable future. However, the use of distributed generation (DG) has recently been discussed as a cost-effective alternative to large central power plants and extensive transmission and distribution lines.21 DG plants are usually located at or near the intended place of use and include all of the following technologies, and more: micro turbines, internal combustion engines, combined heat and power, fuel cells, photovoltaic and other solar energy systems, wind, landfill gas, digester gas and geothermal power generation. DG has the potential to relieve strain on the grid; defer the need for capacity expansions, increase the efficiency of the grid, improve energy planning flexibility, and create environmental benefits and economic development opportunities.22

The age of the regional energy infrastructure is also becoming an increasingly important issue. Of the three largest companies and their local generating facilities, no power plant came online after 1990. CAISO analysts claim that the South Bay and Encinitas plants are outdated and inefficient and that operation will soon become uneconomical.23 According to Jim Avery, senior vice president for San Diego Gas & Electric (SDG&E), plants reaching the end of the useful life span include the South Bay Power Plant owned by Duke Energy and the Encina Power Station owned by Cabrillo Power LLC.24 Not only is the electricity infrastructure aging, but natural gas infrastructure is aging as well.25

To meet demand, it is estimated that the region will require an additional 4,000 MW of transmission capacity no later than 2008 even if new generation is developed within the county as planned. If new in-county generation does not come online as planned, transmission capacity requirements will need to increase by at least 5,000 MW of power (no later than 2008).26 According to a recent article, energy officials say much of San Diego's current energy infrastructure was built more than 20 years ago and little incentive exists -- stemming from legislative hurdles and disagreements -- for power companies to construct new means of transmission.27

If the region continues to rely on power plants that use natural gas as a fuel source, we face the risk of long term supply inadequacy if new projects are not brought to market. Increases in supply are not projected to keep up with growth in demand and potential shortfalls are estimated as early as

21 Source: San Diego Regional Energy Infrastructure Study, 12/2002. page 5-4 22 Ibid. 23 http://www.caiso.com 24 Kevin Christensen, “Increasing demands putting strain on region's power grid,” San Diego Daily Transcript,

9/12/0325 Ibid. 26 http://www.sdge.com 27 Kevin Christensen, “Increasing demands putting strain on region's power grid,” San Diego Daily Transcript,

9/12/03

237

2013 if new projects and supplies are not developed.28 For example, there are a number of pipeline and supply projects being considered to address this need; the history of the natural gas industry is one of building such projects when they are needed, but not before. In response to the increase in local demand for natural gas, there are pipeline projects under consideration to increase deliveries to Southern California, and a number of Liquefied Natural Gas projects both in Northern Baja and California. California’s demand for natural gas, according to the California Energy Commission, is projected to increase two percent per year from 2002-2012 and 41 percent between 1997 and 2012.

Gas curtailments also impact the environment. The San Diego Air Pollution Control District is concerned with the environmental impacts that occur if non-core (commercial or industrial customer) members burn oil during natural gas curtailments. NG supplies are projected to decline in the nation, peaking in 2015-2020 unless technology or new projects are brought to market.29 This may have implications for air quality and efficient use of resources. If the system undergoes natural gas curtailments, the energy must still be produced so power generators may resort to burning oil or worse, coal in place of natural gas. Because oil and coal do not burn as cleanly as natural gas, these fuel sources may create additional levels of air pollution and emissions.

Subregional Need

SDG&E’s 20 Year Resource Plan addresses the supply and capacity requirements for the greater San Diego region. SDG&E is responsible for providing necessary transmission services at the subregional level and coordinates their expenditures to meet the 20 year resource plan. The location of the expenditures is directly linked to the land use and general plan information provided by local jurisdictions.

SDG&E has an adopted multi-year capital improvement program intended to meet the region’s subregional transmission and distribution needs. Distributed generation has the potential to play an integral role in subregional energy supply as technologies become a more affordable convenient source of energy.

VI. Public Policy / Financing Issues and Strategies

As a region, San Diego has yet to adopt a long-range plan; however, SDG&E and the SDREO have published long-term energy options for meeting the region’s future energy needs. Both agencies intend to increase supply and reduce demand. However, while the two organizations advocate similar goals, they have different approaches for meeting the region’s needs.

To address the requirements of the recent CPUC decision, SDG&E filled a 20-year resource plan designed to ensure grid reliability and identify how to fill the “resource gap” that will exist over the planning horizon.

SDG&E’s recommended portfolio to guide future resource planning and procurement is the Balanced Portfolio. It first calls for increased cost–effective energy efficiency and demand response programs. Loads are next met with increased supplies from distributed generation and renewable power to

28 SDREO, “Energy 2030: The San Diego Regional Energy Strategy” May 2003. Page 35. Assumes a minimum of 10 years adequate supply. SDREO assumes a gas supply shortage by 2013. However, SDG&E believes this shortage can be met with the identification of new future sources.

29 REIS, SAIC, Dec. 2002 page 3-2.

238

meet the Renewable Portfolio Standard. It then calls for increased transmission capability by 2008, additional on-system generation both prior to and after the transmission addition, and off-system resources emphasizing fuel diversity (i.e. from fuel sources other than natural gas). Under the Balanced Portfolio, SDG&E’s forecasted 2012 energy mix would be comprised of roughly 14 percent renewable, 53 percent natural gas, 14 percent nuclear, and 19 percent off-system resources.30

Consistent with this plan, SDG&E has recently filed for CPUC approval of a comprehensive resource acquisition program to supply needed resources beginning in 2005. This request includes demand response, renewable, and fuel-efficient combined cycle plants, all located within the San Diego Region. Once approved, the Region will have its grid reliability shortfall met through at least 2007 and potentially longer. SDG&E’s investment in these resources is in excess of $600 Million.

The SDREO has published an alternative plan called “Energy 2030,” with the objective of creating a framework for regional energy planning and implementation that is inclusive, transparent and incorporates the diverse needs and interests of all key stakeholders in the region.31 This objective is addressed through nine goals intended to guide the region’s energy needs by: reversing the historical reliance on out-of-county generation; decreasing per capita consumption; and, increasing the generation of renewable resources. Recognizing the need for regional agreement, the first policy goal of Energy 2030 is to “achieve and represent regional consensus on energy issues at the state and federal levels.”32

Furthermore, the SDREO plan anticipates that per capita electricity and natural gas consumption levels can return to 1980 levels as a result of behavioral changes (turning off computers and lights), advancements in home technologies (more efficient appliances), and substitution of renewable supplies such as solar and wind for non-renewable sources. Additional transmission capacity will need to increase to meet reliability and access to renewable power and low cost supplies. The strategy strongly advocates for additional in-county generation and increasing portions of renewable energy but does not provide specifics on where plants might be located or what the estimated costs of additional renewable sources will be.33

Although the SDG&E and SDREO plans have different perspectives, they do have at least three primary objectives in common: reduce per capita consumption; increase in area capacity; and, increase transmission capabilities. However, each approach contains a different interpretation of how the primary objective of increasing supply should be met (and on how quickly the objectives should be met). For example, SDG&E, through the Balanced Portfolio option, believes on-line capacity will increase primarily from additions to transmission capacity that bring in energy from sources outside the region while the SDREO plan advocates in-county generation as the preferred alternative. By 2030, the SDREO plan suggests that 75 percent of energy supply come from in-county generation supplied by new and upgraded clean, efficient plants located within the region. SDG&E proposes a mix of outside resources and new in-county generation.

30 SDG&E 20 Year Resource Plan. Off System resources refer to electricity generation from sources other than SDG&E. Including imported and locally generated power.

31 SDREO Webpage: www.sdreo.org.32 SDREO Energy 2030 page 21. 33 The San Diego region is known for being a difficult place to site energy generating facilities and for having

strict environmental requirements.

239

In accordance with SB 1078, SDG&E’s 20 Year Resource Plan and the SDREO Energy 2030 strategy both intend to make renewable energy an integral part of the future energy supply mix.

Currently, distributed generation and renewable energy sources such as wind, hydropower, land fill gas (biogas), photovoltaic (solar), geothermal and others are relatively costly compared to more traditional sources such as coal, oil and natural gas.34 However, there are some renewable sources that are becoming increasingly cost effective and, if made available in the region, could help alleviate some of the need for additional large power plants and major transmission lines. The cost of geothermal electricity ranges from $0.05 to $0.08 per kilowatt-hour, hydropower $0.03 to $0.04 cent/kWh, wind $0.04 to $0.06 cent/kWh, and biomass $0.07 to $0.08 cent/kWh. Solar thermal is $0.12 to $0.14 cent/kWh compared to the average electricity retail price of approximately $0.07 per kilowatt-hour.35 It is hoped that technological advancements will decrease the cost of renewable energy in future years.

Finally, the smart growth urban form and design called for in the RCP can play a role with respect to both of the region’s current long term strategies. By locating growth in existing areas, fewer miles of transmission and distribution lines will be required and substations can be expanded on existing sites, avoiding the need to obtain new permits and overcome neighborhood opposition.

List of Exhibits

1) SDG&E Service Area 2) SDG&E Service Area and Simplified Transmission (Line) Topology 3) Energy Infrastructure Distribution of Subregional CIP Expenditures, FY 2003 4) List of Community/City Infrastructure Planning Areas (CIPAs) 5) Summary of Capital Improvement Programs (FY 03-FY07) 6) San Diego Gas and Electric Subregional Electricity CIP Expenditures 7) San Diego Gas and Electric Gas CIP Expenditures 8) Energy Demand Outpaces Projected Population Growth from 2003 to 2030

34 When comparing the costs of power, the “traditional sources” of electrical generation (coal, oil, and natural gas) are assumed to be large centrally-located power plants and do not include distributed generation. This exclusion is important as DG will produce power at the site without the need for transmission and distribution, therefore DG does not include the costs of transmission and distribution.

35 Energy Information Administration 2001, Renewable Energy Annual 2000, DOE/EIA-0603(2000) March 2001, Washington D.C.\REPIS 1999, K.Porter, D. Trickett, L. Bird. The Renewable Electric Plant Information System , NREL. August, 2000. Electric Power Research Institute, Renewable Energy Technology Characterizations, EPRI TR-109496 Dec. 1997

240

241

EN

CIN

A

SO

UTH

BA

Y

OLD

TO

WN

PE

NA

SQ

UIT

OS

TO

TIJ

UA

NA

MIG

UE

L

ES

CO

ND

IDO

TALE

GA

ME

XIC

O

MIS

SIO

N

SA

N O

NO

FR

E

SA

N L

UIS

RE

Y

SY

CA

MO

RE

CA

NY

ON

GLE

NC

LIF

F

DE

SC

AN

SO

BA

RR

ETT

CA

ME

RO

NTO

BO

ULD

ER

CR

EE

K

SA

NTA

YS

AB

EL

CR

EE

LMA

N

LOS

CO

CH

ES

ALP

INE

LOV

ELA

ND

NA

RR

OW

S

WA

RN

ER

S

BO

RR

EG

O

PO

WA

Y

PO

ME

RA

DO

ES

CO

RIN

CO

N

LILA

C

AS

H

VA

LLE

Y C

EN

TER

IMP

ER

IAL

CO

.

RIV

ER

SID

E C

O.

OR

AN

GE

CO

.

SA

N D

IEG

O C

O.

Exi

stin

g M

ajo

r G

en

era

tio

n P

lan

tsE

xist

ing

23

0 k

V S

ub

sta

tio

nE

xist

ing

69

kV

Su

bst

ati

on

Exi

stin

g 1

38

kV

Su

bst

ati

on

Exi

stin

g 5

00

kV

Tra

nsm

issi

on

Lin

eE

xist

ing

23

0 k

V T

ran

smis

sio

n L

ine

Exi

stin

g 1

38

kV

Tra

nsm

issi

on

Lin

eE

xist

ing

69

kV

Tra

nsm

issi

on

Lin

eC

ou

nty

Bo

un

da

rie

sSa

n D

ieg

o C

ou

nty

Se

rvic

e A

rea

Ora

ng

e C

ou

nty

Se

rvic

e A

rea

No

te:

Ma

p n

ot

to s

cale

BO

ULE

VA

RD

CR

ES

TWO

OD

Exh

ibit

2SD

G&

E S

erv

ice A

rea &

Sim

pli

fied

Tra

nsm

issi

on

To

po

log

yC

AP

ISTR

AN

O

TRA

BU

CO

LAG

UN

AN

IGU

EL

MA

RG

AR

ITA

CR

ISTI

AN

ITO

S

MA

IN S

TRE

ET

IMP

ER

IAL

VA

LLE

Y

MO

NS

ER

ATE

PA

LA

TO S

CE

242

243

Exhibit 4 Community Infrastructure Planning Areas 1

CIPA NO. JURISDICTION COMMUNITY PLANNING AREA 101 1 Carlsbad Carlsbad 1 102 1 Carlsbad Carlsbad 2 103 1 Carlsbad Carlsbad 3 104 1 Carlsbad Carlsbad 4 201 2 Chula Vista Chula Vista 1 202 2 Chula Vista Chula Vista 2 203 2 Chula Vista Chula Vista 3 204 2 Chula Vista Chula Vista 4 300 3 Coronado Coronado 400 4 Del Mar Del Mar 501 5 El Cajon El Cajon 1 502 5 El Cajon El Cajon 2 503 5 El Cajon El Cajon 3 601 6 Encinitas Encinitas 1 602 6 Encinitas Encinitas 2 603 6 Encinitas Encinitas 3 604 6 Encinitas Encinitas 4 701 7 Escondido Escondido 1 702 7 Escondido Escondido 2 703 7 Escondido Escondido 3 704 7 Escondido Escondido 4 705 7 Escondido Escondido 5 800 8 Imperial Beach Imperial Beach 901 9 La Mesa La Mesa 1 902 9 La Mesa La Mesa 2

1000 10 Lemon Grove Lemon Grove 1101 11 National City National City 1 1102 11 National City National City 2 1201 12 Oceanside Oceanside 1 1202 12 Oceanside Oceanside 2 1203 12 Oceanside Oceanside 3 1204 12 Oceanside Oceanside 4 1205 12 Oceanside Oceanside 5 1301 13 Poway Poway 1 1302 13 Poway Poway 2 1303 13 Poway Poway 3 1401 14 San Diego Balboa Park 1402 14 San Diego Barrio Logan 1403 14 San Diego Carmel Mountain Ranch 1404 14 San Diego Centre City 1405 14 San Diego Sabre Springs 1406 14 San Diego Clairemont Mesa 1407 14 San Diego East Elliott 1408 14 San Diego Greater Golden Hill 1409 14 San Diego Miramar Ranch North

244

Exhibit 4 Community Infrastructure Planning Areas 1

CIPA NO. JURISDICTION COMMUNITY PLANNING AREA

1410 14 San Diego La Jolla 1412 14 San Diego Linda Vista 1414 14 San Diego Midway-Pacific Highway 1415 14 San Diego Mira Mesa 1417 14 San Diego Mission Bay Park 1418 14 San Diego Mission Beach 1419 14 San Diego Mission Valley 1420 14 San Diego Navajo 1421 14 San Diego Carmel Valley 1423 14 San Diego Ocean Beach 1424 14 San Diego Old San Diego 1425 14 San Diego Otay Mesa-Nestor 1426 14 San Diego Otay Mesa 1427 14 San Diego Pacific Beach 1428 14 San Diego Greater North Park 1429 14 San Diego Rancho Penasquitos 1430 14 San Diego Peninsula 1431 14 San Diego Rancho Bernardo 1432 14 San Diego San Pasqual 1433 14 San Diego San Ysidro 1434 14 San Diego Scripps Miramar Ranch 1435 14 San Diego Serra Mesa 1438 14 San Diego College Area 1439 14 San Diego Tijuana River Valley 1440 14 San Diego Torrey Pines 1441 14 San Diego University 1442 14 San Diego Uptown 1444 14 San Diego Skyline-Paradise Hills 1447 14 San Diego Tierrasanta 1448 14 San Diego Sorrento Hills 1449 14 San Diego Fairbanks Country Club 1450 14 San Diego Kearny Mesa 1455 14 San Diego Via De La Valle 1456 14 San Diego Mid-City:City Heights 1457 14 San Diego Mid-City:Eastern Area 1458 14 San Diego Mid-City:Kensington-Talmadge 1459 14 San Diego Mid-City:Normal Heights 1461 14 San Diego Del Mar Mesa 1462 14 San Diego Torrey Highlands 1463 14 San Diego Los Penasquitos Canyon Preserve 1464 14 San Diego Black Mountain Ranch 1465 14 San Diego Pacific Highlands Ranch 1466 14 San Diego NCFUA Subarea 2 1467 14 San Diego NCFUA Reserve 1468 14 San Diego Southeastern:Encanto Neighborhoods 1469 14 San Diego Southeastern:Southeastern San Diego

245

Exhibit 4 Community Infrastructure Planning Areas 1

CIPA NO. JURISDICTION COMMUNITY PLANNING AREA

1481 14 San Diego Rancho Encantada 1482 14 San Diego Miramar Air Station 1483 14 San Diego Lindbergh Field 1485 14 San Diego Scripps Reserve 1486 14 San Diego Harbor 1488 14 San Diego Flower Hill 1491 14 San Diego 32nd Street Naval Station 1501 15 San Marcos San Marcos 1 1502 15 San Marcos San Marcos 2 1503 15 San Marcos San Marcos 3 1504 15 San Marcos San Marcos 4 1601 16 Santee Santee 1 1602 16 Santee Santee 2 1603 16 Santee Santee 3 1604 16 Santee Santee 4 1700 17 Solana Beach Solana Beach 1801 18 Vista Vista 1 1802 18 Vista Vista 2 1901 19 Unincorporated County Alpine 1902 19 Unincorporated County Central Mountain 1903 19 Unincorporated County Crest-Dehesa 1904 19 Unincorporated County Desert 1906 19 Unincorporated County Jamul-Dulzura 1907 19 Unincorporated County Lakeside 1908 19 Unincorporated County Mountain Empire 1909 19 Unincorporated County North County Metro 1911 19 Unincorporated County Otay 1912 19 Unincorporated County Pala-Pauma 1914 19 Unincorporated County Ramona 1915 19 Unincorporated County San Dieguito 1918 19 Unincorporated County Sweetwater 1919 19 Unincorporated County Valle De Oro 1920 19 Unincorporated County Valley Center 1921 19 Unincorporated County Spring Valley 1922 19 Unincorporated County Julian 1951 19 Unincorporated County North Mountain 1952 19 Unincorporated County Bonsall 1953 19 Unincorporated County Fallbrook 1954 19 Unincorporated County Pendleton-De Luz 1955 19 Unincorporated County Rainbow 1998 19 Unincorporated County Barona 1999 19 Unincorporated County County Islands

1. Community infrastructure planning areas (CIPAs) are the same as community planning areas (CPAs) in the City of San Diego and the County of San Diego. CIPAs reflect comparable planning areas for the other cities.

246

Exh

ibit

5

Su

mm

ary

of

Cap

ital

Imp

rovem

en

t Pro

gra

ms

En

erg

y S

up

ply

an

d D

istr

ibu

tio

n F

Y 2

003 –

2007

Perc

ent

FY 2

003

FY 2

004

FY 2

005

FY 2

006

FY 2

007

Tota

l o

f To

tal

R

egio

nal

Imp

rove

men

ts [

1]

Gas

Pro

ject

s $

44.2

$

37.1

$

0.0

$ 0.

0 $

0.0

$ 81

.3

10.4

%

Elec

tric

Pro

ject

s

77.3

100.

2

168.

7

189.

3

166.

4

701.

9 89

.6%

To

tal

Reg

ion

al

$

12

1.5

$

13

7.3

$

1

68

.7

$

18

9.3

$

1

66

.4

$

78

3.2

10

0.0

%

Sub

reg

ion

al Im

pro

vem

ents

Pr

oje

cts

Allo

cab

le t

o C

IPA

s [2

]

85.7

75.6

22.5

2.7

0.

4

186.

8 29

.1%

New

Bu

sin

ess,

No

t A

lloca

ble

to

CIP

As

[3]

77

.7

80

.7

86

.6

98

.9

11

2.2

45

6.1

70.9

%

Tota

l Su

bre

gio

nal

$

16

3.4

$

15

6.3

$

1

09

.1

$

10

1.6

$

1

12

.6

$

64

2.9

10

0.0

%

To

tal

CIP

$

2

84

.8$

2

93

.6

$

27

7.8

$

2

90

.9

$

27

9.0

$

1

,42

6.1

So

urc

e:

SDG

&E

1

Reg

ion

al im

pro

vem

ent

cost

s in

clu

de

exp

end

itu

res

in S

an D

ieg

o a

nd

so

uth

ern

Ora

ng

e co

un

ties

(in

SD

G&

E se

rvic

e ar

ea)

2 B

ased

on

SD

G&

E's

filin

g t

o t

he

PUC

on

cap

ital

imp

rove

men

ts, i

t is

est

imat

ed t

hat

su

bre

gio

nal

imp

rove

men

ts a

lloca

ble

to

co

mm

un

ity

and

infr

astr

uct

ure

p

lan

nin

g a

reas

(C

IPA

s) f

all a

pp

roxi

mat

ely

into

fo

llow

ing

cat

ego

ries

:

“New

” p

roje

cts,

su

ch a

s in

stal

lati

on

of

new

tra

nsm

issi

on

fac

iliti

es...

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

.....

9%

“U

pg

rad

es”,

su

ch a

s re

no

vati

on

, rec

on

stru

ctio

n, o

r o

ther

imp

rove

men

ts t

o e

xist

ing

fac

iliti

es...

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

66%

“Tec

hn

olo

gy”

pro

ject

s in

ten

ded

imp

rove

ove

rall

pro

du

ctiv

ity,

su

ch a

s sy

stem

or

con

tro

l tec

hn

olo

gie

s...

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

...15

%

“M

and

ated

” p

roje

cts

un

der

take

n t

o s

atis

fy f

eder

al o

r st

ate

req

uir

emen

ts o

n s

afet

y an

d o

ther

issu

es...

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

.3%

Oth

er p

roje

cts

wh

ich

dif

fer

fro

m t

he

cate

go

ries

def

ined

ab

ove

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

......

.....

.7%

3

“New

Bu

sin

ess”

exp

end

itu

res

are

esti

mat

ed a

s an

nu

al t

ota

ls; g

eog

rap

hic

loca

tio

n o

f th

ose

pro

ject

s is

tie

d t

o n

ew d

evel

op

men

t, w

hic

h v

arie

s fr

om

yea

r

to y

ear.

247

Exhibit 6 San Diego Gas and Electric Subregional Electricity CIP Expenditures,

ProjectNo.

ProjectDescription

Total Cost

FY 2003 Costs

FY 2004 Costs

FY 2005 Costs

FY 2006 Costs

FY 2007 Costs

1 Carlsbad 7,485,422 3,370,564 4,114,858 - - -

2 Chula Vista 20,875,508 7,415,637 11,619,962 1,704,637 135,272 -

3 Coronado 4,791,310 1,820,857 2,970,453 - - -

4 Del Mar 1,681,384 822,073 859,311 - - -

5 El Cajon 3,390,931 1,657,563 1,733,368 - - -

6 Encinitas 4,084,458 2,877,058 1,207,400 - - -

7 Escondido 7,892,476 2,764,715 3,056,980 1,113,808 956,973 -

8 Imperial Beach 455,583 269,947 185,636 - - -

9 La Mesa 2,111,966 1,034,437 620,376 457,153 - -

10 Lemon Grove 963,359 903,935 36,927 - 22,497 -

11 National City 3,008,460 1,017,906 1,990,554 - - -

12 Oceanside 5,200,531 2,145,052 2,857,428 198,051 - -

13 Poway 1,434,021 1,213,462 220,559 - - -

14.01 La Jolla 907,801 865,936 41,865 - - -

14.02 Mira Mesa 92,000 92,000 - - - -

14.03 Point Loma 42,000 42,000 - - - -

14.04 Rancho Bernardo 589,296 589,296 - - - -

14.05 San Diego 97,766,444 48,418,951 33,244,900 14,525,758 1,575,559 1,276

14.06 San Ysidro 523,256 115,872 - - - 407,384

15 San Marcos 7,822,487 3,433,666 4,388,821 - - -

16 Santee 1,748,617 1,012,033 383,360 353,224 - -

17 Solana Beach 800,415 361,543 - 438,872 - -

18 Vista 2,735,285 426,950 2,173,569 134,766 - -

19.01 Alpine 1,536,200 146,568 1,389,632 - - -

19.02 Barona Reservation 88,345 79,905 8,440 - - -

19.03 Borrego Springs 1,387,450 279,058 1,108,392 - - -

19.04 Buckman Springs 15,750 15,750 - - - -

19.05 Fallbrook 1,002,203 638,850 363,353 - - -

19.06 JAMUL 1,169,075 951,900 217,175 - - -

19.07 JULIAN 63,630 63,630 - - - -

19.08 Lakeside 685,247 118,020 567,227 - - -

19.09 Pauma Valley 944,385 4,017 - 940,368 - -

19.10 Ramona 371,085 371,085 - - - -

19.11 Rancho Santa Fe 110,416 110,416 - - - -

19.12 Santa Ysabel 74,130 74,130 - - - -

19.13 Spring Valley 31,922 - 31,922 - - -

19.14 Valley Center 2,911,349 133,593 175,388 2,602,368 - -

Total $186,794,197 $85,658,375 $75,567,856 $22,469,005 $2,690,301 $408,660

Source: SDG&E. Note: See Exhibit 4 for summary of CIP expenditures by project type.

* Security concerns prevent SDG&E from releasing additional detail on planned capital projects.

248

Exh

ibit

7

SD

G&

E G

AS C

IP E

xp

en

dit

ure

s

Pro

ject

No

.Pro

ject

Desc

rip

tio

n

Tota

l

Co

stFY

20

03

C

ost

sFY

20

04

C

ost

sFY

20

05

C

ost

sFY

20

06

C

ost

sFY

20

07

C

ost

s

500

New

Gas

Cu

sto

mer

s 22

,841

11

,100

11

,741

-

- -

501

Gas

Sys

tem

Min

or

Ad

d./R

elo

c/R

etir

e 2,

150

1,15

0 1,

000

- -

-

502

Gas

Met

ers

and

Reg

ula

tors

5,

350

2,65

0 2,

700

- -

-

503

Gas

Dis

trib

uti

on

Sys

tem

Rei

nfo

rcem

ent

7,11

3 3,

440

3,67

3 -

- -

504

Gas

Dis

trib

uti

on

Eas

emen

ts

83

40

43

- -

-

505

Stre

et a

nd

Hig

hw

ay R

elo

cati

on

s 14

,020

7,

000

7,02

0 -

- -

506

Gas

Dis

trib

uti

on

To

ols

an

d E

qu

ipm

ent

705

435

270

- -

-

507

Co

de

Co

mp

lian

ce-D

istr

ibu

tio

n

439

216

223

- -

-

508

Rep

lan

cem

ent

of

Mai

ns

and

Ser

vice

s 5,

360

3,03

0 2,

330

- -

-

509

Cat

ho

dic

Pro

tect

ion

72

5 39

5 33

0 -

- -

510

Gas

Dis

t. S

ys. R

elia

b. A

nd

Saf

ety

Imp

rove

men

ts

745

405

340

- -

-

8955

1 G

as D

eman

d a

nd

Cu

rtai

lmen

t M

on

ito

rin

g

252

124

128

- -

-

2869

M

ain

ten

ance

an

d In

spec

tio

n S

yste

m (

M&

I)

2,75

0 91

4 1,

836

- -

-

867

Gas

GIS

7,

210

5,50

0 1,

710

- -

-

G

as T

ran

smis

sio

n

11,5

31

7,76

3 3,

768

- -

-

Tota

l $

81

,27

4$

44

,16

2

$3

7,1

12

--

-

Sou

rce:

SD

G&

E.

No

te:

Co

sts

in t

ho

usa

nd

s o

f d

olla

rs; s

ee E

xhib

it 4

fo

r su

mm

ary

of

CIP

exp

end

itu

res

by

pro

ject

typ

e.

*

Ad

dit

ion

al d

etai

l on

pla

nn

ed c

apit

al p

roje

cts

is n

ot

avai

lab

le d

ue

to s

ecu

rity

co

nsi

der

atio

ns.

249

Exhibit 8 Energy Demand Outpaces Projected Population Growth

from 2003-2030

Population Increase, 30%

Increase in Peak Energy

Demand, 110%

Base Year 2003

-50%

0%

50%

100%

150%

200%

2000 2010 2020 2030

Sources: SANDAG, 2030 Final Forecast; San Diego Regional Energy Office, Energy 2030: San Diego Regional Energy Strategy (May 2003)

Note: Population in 2003 was 2,961,600; projected population in 2030 is 3,855,085. Peak energy demand in 2002 was 3,571 MW; projected peak demand in 2030 is 7,413 MW, without the 15 percent reserve margin. Base year 2003 is assumed to be consistent with peak energy demand in 2002.

IRIS TECHNICAL APPENDIX [A.7] EDUCATION

253

IRIS TECHNICAL APPENDIX [A.7] EDUCATION

Investment in education supports the Regional Comprehensive Plan in two ways: (1) providing equal opportunities for education to all residents and (2) providing appropriate workforce development and training opportunities. For purposes of the IRIS, higher education, including community colleges and universities, is considered “regional” education infrastructure, while K-12 schools are “sub-regional” infrastructure. Regional infrastructure supports the overall growth of the region, providing access to workforce development and training as well as offering associate, bachelor and graduate degrees. Because higher education serves the entire region, it is considered regional. Local K-12 school districts need to be closely linked to the community they serve, and should be consistent with the smart growth urban form and design objectives of the RCP.

Investment in educational infrastructure improves the future prospects and opportunities of the region’s youth, enhances workforce development, and enables income mobility. The IRIS discusses educational infrastructure in three categories: K-12, Community Colleges, and Universities. Table 1 provides an overview of the San Diego public education facilities and enrollment figures for fall 2001.

Table 1 Overview of Facilities and Enrollment Figures

System Schools/Campuses in San Diego Region 2001-02 Enrollment K-12 617 494,588 Community College 8 135,067 CSU 2 40,667 UC 1 21,558 Total 628 691,880 Students* Source: California Basic Education Data System, California Postsecondary Education Commission, 2002. *Note: Students are full time enrolled students. College and University figures include graduate and undergraduate programs, where applicable.

K-12 EDUCATION

I. Introduction/Description of Infrastructure System

As the beginning venture of an educational career, K-12 schooling provides the important educational foundation a student builds upon during their academic years. By investing in the future now, San Diego can ensure itself a new generation of productive workers and capable business leaders.

During the 2001-02 school year, K-12 public schooling in the San Diego region consisted of 42 separate school districts totaling 494,588 students in 617 public schools, a 22 percent increase from

254

1991 (from 405,899 students in 1991).1 Private school enrollment was 44,549 students, approximately 8.4 percent of all students in the region.2 San Diego County school districts employ 25,024 teachers; 1,763 school administrators; 2,231 pupil services personnel; 11,774 full-time classified staff; and 11,755 part-time classified staff.3

For the region, the annual rate of increase in student enrollment has reached its slowest rate in over a decade. Enrollment growth slowed to 1.3 percent in FY02, below the range observed during the previous decade (between a low of 1.6 percent in 1994-95 and a high of 3.6 percent in 1989-90). This trend mirrors overall state growth forecasts.4

II. Responsibilities and Controlling Legislation

Agencies

In the last 30 years, California has changed the way it finances its schools without changing the way it governs them. Oversight for the region’s K-12 education system is divided between local and state entities. School boards continue to govern districts, but the state controls how funds are allocated.5

There are three primary levels of public school responsibility: individual school districts, the County Office of Education, and the state. At the most local level, day-to-day instruction is the responsibility of the 42 school districts in the San Diego region. The sizes of the region’s public school districts range from 32-student Spencer Valley to the 141,599 students in the San Diego Unified School District. Of the 42 local school districts, 24 are elementary school-only, 6 are high school-only, and 12 are unified school districts comprised of both elementary and secondary schools. Recently, the new State Master Plan for Education has recommended a consolidation of districts into unified school districts because this “reinforces the goal of achieving course alignment and articulation across grade levels.”6 A map and names of the region’s school districts are included as Exhibits 1 and 2.

The San Diego County Office of Education (SDCOE) serves an important role in the region’s public education system. The SDCOE provides support infrastructure for local schools and districts. It must also fulfill state mandates to audit school district budgets, register teacher credentials, complete employee background checks, certify school attendance records, and develop countywide programs to serve special student populations.7

The third level of K-12 education is the state which is responsible for distributing funds and setting educational standards. Having oversight over the entire state K-12 educational apparatus is the State Board of Education which sets K-12 standards. For K-12 capital projects, the state’s Office of Public School Construction (OPSC), State Allocation Board (SAB), and Division of State Architect (DSA) aid school districts who apply for School Facility Program (SFP) funds that are used in new school construction and modernization. The responsibility for school accreditation lies with the

1 San Diego County Office of Education (SDCOE) Annual Report to the Community, 2003, Page 5. The SDCOE also offers classes and may be considered a separate school district, bringing the regional total to 43 districts (42 districts plus the SDCOE).

2 San Diego County Office of Education 3 San Diego County Office of Education (SDCOE) K-16 Achievement Report (2003), Page 5 4 Ibid 5 Has School Finance Reform Been Good for California? 2002 6 California Master Plan for Education, 2002 7 SDCOE Annual Report to the Community, 2003

255

Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC) through its Accrediting Commission for Schools. Accreditation certifies – to other educational institutions and to the general public – that an institution meets established criteria or standards and is achieving its own stated objectives.

While much of the discussion of the regulatory oversight and legislation for K-12 education has been at the state and local levels, recently, the federal government has tried to establish a more concrete role for itself with the passage of the No Child Left Behind Act in 2001. This new federal law mandates standardized testing for specific grade levels. In the past, K-12 educational standards were regulated by state education boards with the federal government playing only a limited supporting role. By holding states directly accountable to their self-defined standards and then encouraging local districts to meet them, the federal government has positioned itself to take a more active role in the administration of the K-12 Education system.

Legislation

Over the last 30 years the state of California has taken on more direct responsibility due to the passage of numerous state Supreme Court decisions and various legislation. While the total number of regulations and legislative actions are too numerous to mention, main developments that merit discussion are the Serrano vs. Priest decision, Propositions 13, 47, 50, and 98, and the repeal of Mira/Hart/Murrieta decisions.

The origin of modern public school financing starts with the landmark 1971 California Supreme Court case Serrano vs. Priest. By ruling that the state’s local property tax-based financing system was inequitable and unconstitutional because the revenue allocations varied widely by school district, the state took responsibility for equalizing funding levels across districts. This ruling marked the beginning of increased state involvement in public schools. Seven years after the 1971 state Supreme Court ruling, Proposition 13 slashed property taxes across the board. This 1978 ballot initiative caused the state to virtually take over public school financing by using the money in the state’s General Fund and combining it with the remaining property taxes to form a “revenue limit” that supposedly equalizes funding across different districts.

In 1988, the Proposition 98 ballot initiative established a minimum funding level comprised of no less than California’s 1988 funding level for K-12 education and community colleges. While the calculations and politics to determine the education funding guarantee are complicated, it is widely understood that the annual Proposition 98 allocation is based on a mathematical formula dependent on changes in student enrollment, per capita personal income, and projections of state tax revenues.8 To summarize, Proposition 98 uses an escalator clause such that state public education funding can only grow larger over time.

8 It is from this formula that an annual state funding amount is chosen from three “tests.” In years of normal or stronger revenue growth, the Proposition 98 guarantee is the larger of 1) the same share of the General Fund as in the base year of 1986-87 or 2) the prior year’s funding from state and property taxes, adjusted for inflation and enrollment increases. However, in years of low revenue growth, the Proposition 98 guarantee is the same as the second test except inflation is defined as the growth in per capita general fund revenues plus ½ percent. Further, the difference between what occurs in years of low revenue growth and what the 2nd test would have yielded is to be restored to education funding in years of high revenue growth. Therefore, the allocation cannot decline from one year to the next.

256

The School Facilities Law of 1986 authorized school districts to levy development fees to fund school facilities.9 The law gave school districts (working with local jurisdictions) the ability to halt new development if it did not provide sufficient mitigation contributions. The 1986 law appeared to allow municipalities to levy fees in excess of the statutory maximum amounts to fund schools or to deny requests for development approvals on the basis of inadequacy of school facilities.10 However, there were ways around these restrictions.

The courts, jurisdictions, and school districts found a way around the restrictions of the law during a series of cases known as the Mira/Hart/Murrieta appellate decisions. Mira/Hart/Murrieta allowed cities and counties to use their legislative power over land use to assist school districts by requiring developer fees, land dedications, or other measures designed to fully mitigate the impacts of development on school facilities. These actions proved to be very onerous to the development community, who sought reform from the State.

Then, in 1998, the Governor signed into law Senate Bill 50 (Greene) (“SB 50”), the Leroy F. Greene School Facilities Act. In essence, SB 50 completely removes the cities and counties’ power to require development fees or other exactions in excess of the statutory maximum amounts. SB 50 imposes new limitations on the power of cities and counties to require mitigation of school facilities impacts as a condition of approving new development and suspends or repeals the cases known as “Mira/Hart/Murrieta.” The decisions of the court have been suspended until 2006. However, SB 50 also authorizes school districts to levy statutory developer fees at levels which may be significantly higher than those previously permitted, although school districts must follow a new and more stringent set of rules to do so.11 Proposition 1A was the complimentary bond measure designed to fund SB 50.

The repeal of Mira/Hart/Murrieta has implications for the urban form and design called for in the RCP since it has become more challenging for local jurisdictions to ensure that adequate school facilities will be in place where new growth and redevelopment occur. However, good planning and coordination between school districts, local jurisdictions, the county office of education, and developers should adequately address the needs of impacted communities. In 2006, it is likely that this discussion will once again require some form of legislative action by the State to avoid conflicts between school districts and developers.

When the legislator recognized that funding from Prop 1A was insufficient to meet the needs of SB 50, Proposition 47 was introduced to make up any shortfalls. In November 2002, California voters passed Proposition 47 which authorizes a $13.05 billion bond for public education with $11.4 billion earmarked for K-12 spending. As a result, school districts can apply for this state money through the

9 Under this scheme, the maximum amount that could be levied was $1.50 per square foot for residential development and $0.25 per square foot for commercial and industrial development.

10 California's Coalition for Adequate School Housing. http://www.cashnet.org/Resource%20Center/Section%201/1-6-7.htm#section1

11 California's Coalition for Adequate School Housing. SB 50 provides authority for three different levels of fees. Education Code Section 17620 provides the basic authority for school districts to levy fees against construction for the purpose of funding construction or reconstruction of school facilities, subject to limits set forth in Government Code Section 65995. Prior to SB 50, Section 65995 limited those fees to an inflation-adjusted $1.93 for residential construction and an inflation-adjusted $0.31 for commercial or industrial construction. SB 50 modified Section 65995 to provide, in addition to those “Level 1 Fees”, higher fees on new residential construction pursuant to Government Code Sections 65995.5 and 65995.7.

257

state’s School Facility Program. This bond is important because it represents a significant source of funding for regional schools.

III. Operations & Maintenance (FY 2003)

For FY03, $3.4 billion in district General Funds are spent by the 42 school districts in the San Diego region (see Exhibit 4 for total K-12 Operation and Maintenance (O&M) revenues and expenditures by category). As shown in Exhibit 5, roughly 28 percent of total expenditures are spent in elementary school-only districts, 17 percent in high school-only districts, and 55 percent spent in unified school districts. Other figures of note are that nearly 82 percent of total expenditures in the region are for personnel costs, 6 percent spent on maintenance, and over $22 million or roughly 0.6 percent is set aside for capital outlay. The capital outlay figure is slightly misleading, as a significant amount of maintenance costs are covered under the capital improvement budget and other state-assisted programs (such as the deferred maintenance program summarized in Exhibit 6). Nonetheless, the dominance of personnel costs (primarily due to salaries and benefits) in the O&M expenditures is a relatively unique characteristic of education and is less pronounced in the other infrastructure areas of the IRIS.

Under the Proposition 98 guarantee, FY03 operating revenue for the state-wide K-12 system is over $40 billion.12 For all K-12 school revenue, the state provides 57 percent, local government sources (property taxes and other local sources) contribute 31 percent, and the federal government provides 12 percent.13

Another K-12 funding source is the state lottery. Over the years, lottery income has proven to be an unstable source of income, fluctuating tremendously from a high point of $189 per average daily attendance (ADA) in 1988-89 to a low of $79 per ADA in 1991-92. Lottery funds now comprise approximately two percent of a school district’s annual General Fund revenue.14

IV. Capital Improvement Programs

The long-standing strategy of the region has been to build new schools in order to accommodate an increasing student population and to modernize facilities in need. While individual school districts within the region may possess strategic or long range comprehensive plans that are linked to their facilities planning programs, the San Diego region does not currently possess a regionally integrated strategic plan for K-12 education. Therefore, one way to estimate regional capital funding amounts is to compile the Proposition 47 School Facility Program (SFP) figures from the OPSC. The SFP allocations to the region for new school construction and modernization projects are $220.5 and $159.3 million respectively as of February 2003.15 The region’s total school facilities need for FY02-FY07 is estimated to be approximately $2.6 billion. Of this total, $502 million has been

12 State Board of Education 13 Legislative Analyst’s Office. Though this is by far the highest dollar figure and percentage of taxpayer dollars

in the country, according to the National Education Association, California’s expenditures per pupil of $6,816 for K-12 education ranks only 29th among all states and the District of Columbia. Expenditures per Pupil is defined as expenditures for operating local public schools, excluding capital outlay and interest on the school debt, divided by the fall enrollment.

14 Poway Unified School District 2002-03 Budget 15 State Allocation Board

258

identified for new schools and $1.4 billion for modernizations.16 Capital improvement projects from the School Facility Program are summarized in Exhibit 9 and listed in detail in Exhibit 10. The projects were also assigned to individual community and infrastructure planning areas and mapped in Exhibit 7(a list of the planning areas is included in Exhibit 8).

Two units of the State’s Department of General Services—The State Allocation Board and the Office of Public School Construction—assess requests for project funding units. Eligibility is based on projected five year enrollment. If projected enrollment exceeds existing building stock, the district is eligible for new construction funds. Modernization funds are available for buildings at least 25 years old (20 years if the space is leased).17 Projects are awarded funding by the SAB according to the order and date the proposals are received.

School districts also receive local funding from developer fees and Mello-Roos bonds. At the state level, funding for K-12 capital expenditures is financed primarily through voter-approved general obligation bonds which represent an unpredictable source of revenue. Proposition 47 authorizes a $13.05 billion bond for public education with $11.4 billion earmarked for K-12 spending. As a result, school districts can apply for this state money through the state’s School Facility Program. For new school construction, the SFP funds 50 percent of the project costs, with districts funding the 50 percent balance while for school modernization, the SFP funds 60 percent of project costs, with districts responsible for the remaining 40 percent balance. In the case of school modernization, a school district is eligible for SFP grants when students are housed in permanent buildings at least 25 years old and re-locatable classrooms of at least 20 years.

School districts are also eligible for a deferred maintenance matching funds program administered by the state of California (Fund 14).18 The state provides funds for deferred maintenance up to 0.5 percent of the local district's operating budget. In practice, actual contributions average about 84 percent of the half percent (or about 0.4% of the districts operating budget).19 The local district then matches what the state provides, in effect doubling the contribution. In total, the funds provided by this program are not very large relative to the total regional budget (approximately $28.9 million compared to $3.4 billion total regional operating budget) and do not cover the full amount of many of the deferred maintenance projects to be undertaken (see Exhibit 6 for a summary of the region’s deferred maintenance budget). As a result, many school districts have a significant backlog of deferred maintenance projects and must rely on other sources of funding to complete these projects (such as bond measures).

The largest local bond measure in the region is Proposition MM from San Diego City Schools (Prop MM). Prop MM, passed by 78 percent of San Diego voters in November 1998, provides $1.51 billion toward the estimated $4 billion of needed repairs and upgrades at San Diego City Schools. About $1 billion is designated for major repair and replacement at 165 sites. About $500 million pays for the

16 California Office of Public School Construction, San Diego Unified School District. 17 California Department of General Services, 2002. 18 According to the State Allocation Board's Deferred Maintenance Program Handbook dated January 2003,

the Deferred Maintenance Program provides State matching funds, on a dollar-for-dollar basis, to assist school districts with expenditures for major repair or replacement of existing school building components so that the educational process may safely continue. Typically, this includes roofing, plumbing, heating, air conditioning, electrical systems, wall systems, floor systems, etc. An annual Basic Grant is provided to districts for the major repair or replacement work listed on the “Five Year Plan”, which is a projection of deferred maintenance work to be performed on a district wide basis over the next five years.

19 Compiled by the SDCOE, 2003.

259

construction of 13 new schools and the rebuilding of three existing schools to alleviate overcrowding. It is the largest active public works program in the County of San Diego, and the second largest in California. The CIP project map and information in Exhibits 7, 9 and 10 also include projects funded with Prop MM revenues.20 While other districts also have successful bond measures, the focus of the IRIS effort is to account for the Prop MM expenditures due to its significantly large amount of total revenue available relative to other bond measures and the total CIP budget for education in the region.

V. Projected Long-Term Need

Although the annual growth rate of K-12 student enrollment has been expected to slow over the next decade, the costs of continued maintenance, new school construction, and modernization will continue to pose serious problems for many school districts. With funding sources extremely unpredictable and cuts related to the current state budget deficit being passed on to the local school districts, costly decisions will have to be made even though small teacher-student ratios have recently been mandated by law. As shown in Exhibit 11, growth in the school age population is not expected to increase as quickly as total regional population by 2030. Furthermore, the school age population is declining as a proportion of total population as the baby boomers live longer and their children move upward to higher education and join the workforce.

In the near term, local school districts use population forecasts to estimate future levels of enrollment and future demands on facilities. According to recent SANDAG forecasts, the school age population (5 to 17 year olds) in the region is expected to grow at a moderate level over the next 30 years, increasing approximately 13 percent between 2000 and 2030.21 Using current enrollment percentages, this translates into an increase of approximately 44,500 students over the 30 year period. The fastest growing segment is projected to be the elementary and middle school age group (5 to 11 years old), increasing 26 percent between 2000 and 2030 (from 297,137 to 373,923 people). The high school age group (ages 12 to 17), are also expected to grow, although at a slower pace (19%).

These forecasts suggest that elementary, middle and high school capacity will have to increase in order to accommodate the growing number of students in the region. In the nearer term, San Diego City Schools projects that significant growth will occur at the elementary and high school grade levels for the next 10 years. Overall projections for San Diego City Schools indicate an increase of 13,400 students in the next 5 years alone.22

The RCP calls for additional growth in the incorporated areas, where facilities are already in place. This will create an additional burden on existing school facilities and may have some impact on enrollment projections. However, it will also reduce demand for new schools in developing and unincorporated areas.

20 San Diego City Schools Website: http://www.sdcs.k12.ca.us/. The IRIS capital improvement database includes all State Facility Program (SFP) projects in the region. To ensure the database does not double count both Prop MM projects and the SFP local match amount, we have adjusted the Prop MM values by removing the local match costs from the total project cost.

21 SANDAG 2030 Final Forecast, San Diego County Office of Education; San Diego County Child & Family Health & Wellbeing Report Card, Technical Supplement. Enrollment estimated using the public school enrollment average from the previous three years (approx. 92.7% of 5-17 school age population).

22 San Diego City Schools Long Range Facilities Master Plan, 1999, page 5.2.

260

VI. Relationship of Facility Planning to Local General Plan and Land Use

Investment in K-12 infrastructure is closely tied to forecasts of school enrollment, with impacts from new development or redevelopment and patterns of land use. That is, a local jurisdiction's general plan and its land use element provide an important framework for infrastructure planning. If the general plan anticipates that future growth in housing will occur in currently non-urbanized areas, then new facilities would be constructed to serve that growth. If growth is anticipated to occur in currently urbanized areas, then additions to or modernization and reconstruction of existing facilities may be necessary.

School facilities required to meet the needs of future growth are identified in the public facilities elements of local jurisdictions' general or specific plans and in school districts' facility master plans, which are in turn coordinated with local general plans. When new facilities are required, development impact fees are collected for the purposes of assisting with the construction of new schools in urbanizing areas. Mello-Roos community facilities districts and other funding alternatives are also available to fund new school development.

Implementation of the goals of the RCP and smart growth may require changes to local general plans, their public facilities elements, or school districts' facility master plans. However, the shift in emphasis from new development in currently non-urbanized areas to development or redevelopment of urbanized areas would not occur over night. For example, capital improvement projects are generally committed several years in advance of construction. This lag in implementation would provide an opportunity for the local jurisdictions and school districts to adjust, if necessary, their planning and capital improvement programs to reflect the goals of the RCP.

Historically, school districts have generated revenues from new development, through fees, exactions, or public financing districts, to meet the demand for new facilities. However, recent legislation concerning school funding limited the extent to which revenues may be generated from new development. School funding is now primarily driven by the availability of state and local bond revenues. Existing urbanized areas may find it costlier to provide new or upgraded facilities due to higher land costs, safety requirements, or other reasons. If implementation of the RCP leads to a new pattern of urban use, school districts and the County Board of Education may need to adjust their facilities planning to adequately serve the future growth in the region, emphasizing the improvement and expansion of existing facilities.

VII. Public Policy / Financing Issues and Strategies

There currently are no state laws requiring school districts to develop a master plan, although the State does recommend that they carry out the exercise of developing one.23 San Diego City Schools, the largest school district in the region (educating 141,000 students, nearly 30% of total enrollment in the region), prepares a Long-Range Facilities Master Plan that identifies student needs and programs to accommodate them. The Master Plan enables them to coordinate their long range goals to their immediate capital expenditures (primarily the expenditure of Prop MM funds). In addition, other districts that have the resources and expertise available also create master plans of their own accord.

23 Dowall, David and Whittington, Jan. “Making Room for the Future: Rebuilding California’s Infrastructure,” Public Policy Institute of California, 2003, page 63.

261

Many school districts do have long term facilities master plans which include a statement of the district mission, an inventory of existing facilities, forecasts of future student enrollment, and in some cases, a total cost estimate by facility site. The long term facility master plans can, and sometimes do serve as a road map for the school districts. However, short term expenditure plans are often overlooked or not developed. This creates a disconnect between the immediate capital program expenditures and the district’s ability to implement a long range plan. While the master plans are in no way “wish lists” it makes it very difficult to track expenditures when no corresponding document is available to verify that the current expenditures are being guided by the long term documents, or if these expenditures even exist. Many districts have no long range vision of their own, and rely on the year to year budgeting, enrollment forecasts, and capital programming processes to help them plan for their future.

Much attention has been paid recently to reducing class sizes. With a ratio of approximately 20 students per classroom, it has been argued that every student can receive greater attention from teachers. However, this may be a costly approach, and will significantly raise Operations and Maintenance costs at existing school sites, primarily by increasing salary and benefit amounts.

In a recent report entitled, “Making Room for the Future: Rebuilding California’s Infrastructure,” a number of concerns with the planning and programming of the State’s K-12 Education system are identified. To summarize, a lack of oversight and changing regulations, combined with an increasing reliance on bonds for funding projects has created an atmosphere of uncertainty. These developments have made it difficult for school districts throughout the State to adequately plan for infrastructure investment.24

Schools in the San Diego region rely heavily on bonds for funding major projects. For capital planning purposes, the education sector’s reliance on bonds, especially for K-12 facilities, creates planning problems due to uncertainty and dependence on voter approval.25 Prior to 1952 the cost of school construction was the sole responsibility of local school districts through the passage of local general obligation bonds. Between 1952 and 1978 local school districts and the state shared in the funding of new schools and modernization utilizing a combination of local general obligation bonds and state bonds. Following the passage of Prop 13 in 1978 general obligation bonds were no longer an option for local school districts and the state assumed a major role in school construction funding. Although the passage of Prop 46 in 1986 restored school districts authority to seek voter approvals for general obligation bonds the state continues to be a major source of funds for school construction.

At the local level, voter-approved local bond measures provide much needed revenue to each school district. Unfortunately, this type of funding is not a guaranteed source of revenue and is risky because it is unreliable. Even with recent legislation lowering the bond passage threshold from a 2/3 majority to 55 percent, passing bonds is still a difficult task.26 In fact, the region’s education bond election success rate has been 60 percent in the period from FY96-FY03.27

Recent studies indicate that districts with greater levels of staff dedicated to obtaining grants and other program revenues are more successful at accumulating funding than those that are

24 Ibid, page 61.25 Ibid. 26 Proposition 39 (passed in November 2000) reduced the voting requirement for K-12 and California

Community Colleges from a two thirds majority to 55 percent. 27 SDCOE

262

understaffed.28 Larger and well-funded districts are also better able to pass bonds and to seek out revenue for projects from government and other sources. Perhaps the relationship between the ability to pass bonds, earn money and locate grants and the fiscal capacities of a school district suggest a greater amount of consolidation would improve the region’s ability to compete for limited resources. This concept is supported, for different reasons (such as course alignment and articulation), by the California Master Plan for Education. There are quite a few areas within the region with opportunity for consolidation (which can be interpreted from Exhibit 1). However, unification also yields its own set of problems for school districts, most notably, increased bureaucracy, a reduced level of local/parental control, and potential loss of funding under the Prop 98 funding distribution formula revenue limits. Each district must weigh the benefits and costs of this decision on a case by case basis.

COMMUNITY COLLEGES

I. Introduction/Description of Community College System

According to a recent study, “In the dynamic global economy of the 21st century, California’s greatest competitive advantage is our educated workforce.”29 As the largest education and training providers in the San Diego region, the community college districts play a critical role in higher education and workforce development. The extensive workforce development efforts of community colleges prepare students for entry into the workforce; help currently employed individuals upgrade skills for their present job and prepare for advancement to higher-level positions within their chosen occupation; retrain individuals for a different occupation; and prepare students for transfer to four-year colleges and universities. Community colleges offer contract training opportunities to area businesses, often at corporate sites, and also provide non-credit programs in adult basic education, English as a second language (ESL), and more to prepare adults for their first steps into the workforce. Finally, many students utilize the community college guaranteed transfer programs as an affordable alternative to four years of tuition at the State’s UC and CSU schools.

Regional education infrastructure supports the overall growth of the region, providing access to workforce development and training as well as offering associate, bachelor and graduate degrees. Because higher education serves the entire region, it is considered a regional infrastructure system, in contrast to K-12, which is primarily subregional in nature. Although community college districts are established to address the needs of a large subregional area (such as Southwestern San Diego), because they are open to anyone and serve students from across the entire region, they are considered regional. The San Diego region contains five community college districts consisting of eight campuses, including: Mira Costa and Palomar Colleges serving the North County; Southwestern College in the South County; the San Diego Community College District (composed of City, Mesa, and Miramar Colleges) serving central San Diego County; and, the Grossmont-Cuyamaca Community College District in the East County.

28 Public Policy Institute of California. Dowall, David and Whittington, Jan. “Making Room for the Future: Rebuilding California’s Infrastructure,” Public Policy Institute of California, 2003, page 65.

29 California Commission on Building for the 21st Century, “Invest for California: Strategic Planning for California’s Future Prosperity and Quality of Life.” September, 2001.

263

In fall 2002, the region’s community colleges served over 147,000 students (see Table 2).30 During the 2001-2002 academic year, 4,019 students transferred from the region’s 8 community colleges to the three public universities in the region, demonstrating the strong ties between community colleges and the region’s four-year schools. Of this total, 55 percent transferred to San Diego State University, 29 percent transferred to UC San Diego, and 17 percent transferred to CSU San Marcos.31

Table 2 San Diego Community College Enrollment

San Diego Community College Enrollment 2001 2002

San Diego City College 15,095 16,139

San Diego Mesa College 21,795 24,286

San Diego Miramar College 9,798 10,874

Grossmont College 17,582 18,617

Cuyamaca College 10,037 10,663

Mira Costa College 12,306 14,588

Palomar College 30,322 30,656

Southwestern College 18,778 20,001

Regional Totals 137,714 147,826

Source: CPEC, 2003

II. Responsibilities and Controlling Legislation

Agencies

Within the San Diego region, the five community college districts are responsible for day-to-day instruction and together make up the San Diego Imperial Counties Communities College Association (SDICCCA). The primary function of SDICCCA is to serve as a coordinating and idea sharing forum and to manage the Data Sharing Consortium. Organized in 1998, the Data Sharing Consortium’s purpose is to share data among community colleges, universities, and secondary school districts in order to improve instructional programs and student learning and success. Consortium member community college districts include all schools in the San Diego region plus Imperial Valley College in Imperial County. UCSD and CSU San Marcos and San Diego also send representatives to the meetings. A map of the region’s community college districts is included as Exhibit 2.

There are two primary levels of oversight for the region’s community colleges: individual community college districts and the state of California. At the local level, the 5 community college districts in the San Diego region carry out day-to-day instruction. Under the direction of elected district boards, the community colleges develop curriculum, manage facilities, and adhere to statewide standards set by the California Board of Education.

30 California Postsecondary Education Commission, 2003 31 Ibid.

264

At the state level, the Chancellor’s Office of the California Community Colleges (CCC) oversees all administrative matters. Located in Sacramento, the Chancellor’s Office of the CCC provides leadership and technical assistance to the 108 community colleges and 72 community college districts throughout California and is responsible for allocating public funding to the state’s colleges and districts. The Chancellor's Office operates under the guidance of the Board of Governors, which sets policy and provides long-range planning and guidance to the Chancellor and staff. Both the Chancellor's Office and the Board of Governors were created by legislation passed in 1967 (prior to that, the community colleges fell under the guidance of the State Board of Education). Since then, more colleges have joined the system, making it today the largest system of higher education in the world, serving more than 1.6 million students.32

The 16-member Board of Governors of the California Community Colleges sets policy and provides guidance for the districts and colleges in the system. Appointed by the Governor, the board selects a Chancellor and interacts with state and federal officials and others. Each of the 72 community college districts in the state has a locally-elected Board of Trustees, responsive to local community needs and charged with the operations of the local colleges.

Hierarchically above the CCC is the California Postsecondary Education Commission (CPEC) which has oversight of all postsecondary education in the State of California. In addition to carrying out long range planning, the CPEC also acts as a data clearinghouse for student enrollment, educational outcomes, and budget information. The other Commission with oversight of community colleges is the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges (ACCJC) of the Western Association of Schools and Colleges. The ACCJC evaluates and accredits public and private postsecondary institutions that offer two-year education programs and award an associate degree.

Legislation

Much of the legislation relevant to the region’s community college districts is similar to that described in the K-12 section above. The Proposition 98 ballot initiative established a minimum funding level for both K-12 education and community colleges. In addition to Prop 98, community colleges receive approximately six percent of the $13.5 billion Proposition 47 allocation.

III. Operations and Maintenance (FY 2003)

For FY03, the operating budgets for the region’s eight community colleges total over $480 million in General Fund resources (See Exhibits 7 and 8). Of the total expenditures, approximately 83 percent is for personnel costs (salaries and benefits), the remaining is for operating expenses and equipment, capital outlays, fee-supported services, and other expenses. Local and state funding sources together comprise over 97 percent of the revenue for operations and maintenance in the region, with federal sources and transfers making up the difference (approximately 2.5%).33

California’s Community Colleges charge no tuition fees and are the least expensive of any community college in the entire nation; the national average tuition/fees for a full-time community college student are about $2,000 per year. For a student taking the average full-time load of 26 units per year, the new fee structure in California ($18 per unit) translates into a total fee of $368

32 Community College System of California 33 FY 2003 Budgets for all Community College Districts in the region.

265

per year. Furthermore, the region’s community colleges are relatively affordable when compared to the fees charged at traditional 4-year public universities.34

The state’s FY02-03 expenditures per student of $4,678 for the community college-level is below what is spent per student at the K-12, CSU, and UC levels.35 Like K-12 educational funding, community college districts rely heavily on Proposition 98 minimum state funding guarantees and local bond revenues in order to operate.

The state’s allocation formula funds individual community college districts at widely varying levels on a per-student basis. Funding per full-time-equivalent-student (FTES) ranged from a low of $3,494 to a high of $8,040 in the 2002-03 fiscal year. The difference between the 15 highest funded and 15 lowest funded districts continues to be over $1,200 per student. Even districts with almost equal student populations and comparable socio-economic circumstances differ in the dollars received by over $700 per student. San Diego, Grossmont-Cuyamaca, Palomar and Southwestern Community College Districts are particularly hard hit, losing more than $7.3 million to higher funded districts each year. In fact, Southwestern CCD ranks 70th out of 72 districts in the State in terms of FTES funding.36

According to the Chancellor's Office of the California Community Colleges, prior to the passage of Proposition 13 local community college boards of trustees were responsible for setting a tax rate on property in order to raise the revenues needed to provide services. Community colleges received base money from the state, but the majority of the revenue - about 55 percent - came from local property taxes, which were flexible to meet local needs. The property tax itself is no longer directly contributing to the general revenue of any particular community college district. To allocate state revenue to community college districts, the state calculates the Proposition 98 total for community colleges, subtracts the amount of local property taxes anticipated to be collected within each district’s boundaries (including ERAF, redevelopment revenue, etc.) and provides the remainder of the entitled apportionment from the state general fund. Thus, even the property taxes collected by each district, once the purview of the taxing district to meet local needs, are allocated through the state’s program-based funding formula.37

IV. Capital Improvement Programs

SDICCCA has no integrated long term strategic plan for the region’s community colleges, although individual campus master plans do exist. In general, local community college districts oversee the capital planning of their own community college campuses with limited oversight from the Chancellor’s Office of the CCC. In addition to allocating capital expenditures to meet a rising population or an aging infrastructure, community colleges also do capital planning based on goals set by each school’s respective education master plan.

34 CPEC. Note: Most recent year for which national comparison data is available. California’s community college fees are about 33 percent less than those of New Mexico – the state that has the next lowest community college student fee nationally. States to which California is often compared—New York and Texas—had annual fees of $2,557 and $931, respectively. Recently, California’s budget crisis has led to an increase in fees from $11 to $18 per unit for residents. However, the CCC costs are still the lowest in the country.

35 California Postsecondary Education Commission, reported by the University of California, Office of the President at http://www.dof.ca.gov/HTML/Budget02-03/18_hied.pdf.

36 Chancellor's Office of the California Community Colleges, “State Funding Inequities in the California Community College System: Questions and Answers” Informational Fact sheet dated 10/22/03.

37 Ibid.

266

Community colleges resemble K-12 education in that districts can apply for SFP funds for projects related to new building and modernization. The State of California funds capital improvements with the use of bonds, which require a simple majority approval by the State’s voters. The Chancellor’s Office of the California Community Colleges allocates funds based on a demonstration of need from the districts. The community college districts are required to demonstrate need through a “capacity to load ratio.” The capacity to load ratio is a measurement of a school’s current and five year total capacity estimates relative to its current and forecast enrollment needs. The State pays for the entire cost of the project and does not require a local match. The State also allocates funds for scheduled maintenance and special repair projects. Unlike the capital outlay funding, the district is required to make a one to one match on these projects.38

With the passage of Proposition 47 in November 2002, 5.6 percent, or $746 million of the $1.65 billion total devoted to California higher education has been earmarked to the CCC system for new building construction and modernization. State funding comes from more than Proposition amounts, and the California Five Year Infrastructure Plan includes a list of all funded projects in the State’s education system. Of the $2.5 billion of funds made available statewide in 2002 for community colleges, approximately 1.5 percent has been allocated to San Diego region community colleges. The amount of revenue allocated fluctuates from year to year due to budget and other financial conditions. The regional CC allocation of state funds decreased to less than half a percent in 2003.39

Another source of capital plan funding is local bonds. Community college districts are authorized to sell general obligation bonds with the approval of 55 percent of the voters in the district. These bonds are paid off by taxes on property located within the district.

As shown in Exhibit 11, the region’s community colleges plan to spend approximately 807 million between FY 03- FY 07.40

V. Projected Long-Term Need

Nearly 70 percent of all higher education students in San Diego were enrolled in the region’s community colleges in fall 2002. More specifically, the 144,000 students enrolled per semester is significantly greater than the combined totals of the three public universities who together serve approximately 65,000 students per semester.41

The region’s community colleges are expecting a larger enrollment of students in the near future. Forty six percent of June 2000 high school graduates in the region enrolled in a local community college in either fall 2000 or spring 2001. This amounts to 11,736 students (out of 25,681 high school graduates).42 According to Making Room for the Future: Rebuilding California’s Infrastructure, “although the CCC will be taking in most of the new enrollments (of the three higher education systems: CSU, UC, and CCC), it will receive only one third of every state bond issue.” Furthermore,

38 Southwestern Community College District Facilities Master Plan 2000-2015. 39 California Five Year Infrastructure Plan, 2002 and 2003, California Department of Finance, www.dof.ca.gov.

Total does not include system wide expenditures for which individual school allocations are not available. 40 This total includes the Grossmont-Cuyamaca CCD and Mira Costa CCD, Capital Plans were not available from

the other districts at the time of this report’s completion. 41 CPEC, 2003 42 2002 San Diego County K-16 Achievement Report, page i, 2003.

267

the CCC backlog of deferred maintenance and renovation needs have ballooned and are estimated to be at least $90 million for the State’s CC system, which is likely an underestimate.43

As shown in Exhibit 14, community college enrollment in the region is projected to increase faster than population growth between 2003 and 2030. This is the opposite of what is expected to occur in the K-12 system, where enrollment increases are projected to slow over the same period. While the rate of growth for the region’s community colleges is less than that for the UC and CSU campuses, the total number of students enrolled over the 30 year period is significantly greater.

VI. Relationship of Facility Planning to Local General Plan and Land Use

Investment in community college infrastructure is closely tied to forecasts of school enrollment and regional population estimates. School facilities required to meet the needs of future growth are identified in the college districts' facility master plans, which are in turn coordinated with state and local population projections. The primary relationship between local land use and CC planning is tied to transportation and housing needs, and in the consistency of campus Master Plans and the general plan designations of areas surrounding the campus.

Implementation of the goals of the RCP and smart growth may assist the community college facility planning process in a number of ways. First, by locating growth in existing areas where community college facilities are already in place, utilization of existing facilities becomes a viable option for accommodating increasing enrollment. Second, increasing population near existing campuses will enable local residents to access the facilities more readily. Easy access to facilities should help with job training programs because students can attend evening classes or daytime classes without additional time or inconvenience related to longer travel times. Finally, the smart growth urban form and design will facilitate access to campus via public transit. San Diego State’s trolley station project is a perfect example of smart growth development and facility planning, combining housing and transit opportunities near a major activity center.

Implementation of the RCP may require changes to local general plans, their public facilities elements, or community college districts' facility master plans. However, the shift in emphasis from new development in currently non-urbanized areas to development or redevelopment of urbanized areas would not occur over night. For example, capital improvement projects are generally committed several years in advance of construction. This lag in implementation would provide an opportunity for the local jurisdictions and community college districts to adjust, if necessary, their planning and capital improvement programs to reflect the goals of the RCP.

School funding is now primarily driven by the availability of state and local bond revenues. Existing urbanized areas may find it costlier to provide new or upgraded facilities due to higher land costs, safety requirements, or other reasons. However, additional population within a college’s service area may help with costs by providing a larger revenue base and ability to spread the costs of bonds across more people. If implementation of the RCP leads to a new pattern of urban use, the San Diego community college districts may need to adjust their facilities planning to adequately serve the future growth in the region, emphasizing the improvement and expansion of existing facilities and coordinating their plans with the surrounding area land use plans of local jurisdictions.

43 Public Policy Institute of California. Dowall, David and Whittington, Jan. “Making Room for the Future: Rebuilding California’s Infrastructure,” Public Policy Institute of California, 2003, page 71.

268

VII. Public Policy / Financing Issues and Strategies

Higher education (including the CCC system) is governed by the state’s Master Plan for Higher Education. As part of oversight provisions in the original 1960 plan, the Community College system formed community college districts that were guided by standards set by the Board of Education. The state Chancellor’s Office does not play an integral role in centralized planning for community colleges. The approach to meet projected long-term demand for community college enrollment comes in the form of multiple individual master plans for each community college campus.

The five community college districts that comprise the SDICCCA do not have an integrated long-term strategy or planning process. As a result, each campus individually develops a master plan for facility and student growth. Each community college in the region, although not required to do so, has developed or is in the process of developing a master plan and accompanying five year construction plan. The construction plan includes projects designed to meet the Master Plan’s goals and overall educational objectives for the school. These plans are the basis by which schools can apply for state funds. The state does not require a master plan or an integrated strategy from the districts, although certain state funding programs require facility plans as part of the application process.

The region’s community colleges Master Plans are developed under the assumption of increasing student enrollment. In fact, the CCC system as a whole has acknowledged that enrollment is the primary driver of need for funding infrastructure projects.44 This growth is projected to continue into the future as more students out of high school pursue higher education at community colleges and more workers use the schools to upgrade skills or learn new professions. As a result, additional facilities, labs, classroom space, hiring of new professors and regular staff, and increased parking capacity will all need to be effectively planned if each community college is to maintain competitive standards and adequately serve its student population.

Enrollment projections from the CPEC indicate that statewide enrollment in public higher education will increase by 715,000 students, or 36 percent from 1998 and 2010. A majority of the new students (approximately 74 percent) will enter the California Community College system. Exacerbating the financial difficulties of schools, those campuses that continue to add capacity and build new facilities will also increase their operations and maintenance costs. According to “Making Room for the future: Rebuilding California’s Infrastructure,” the most persistent growing need for higher education is deferred maintenance.45 Of the State’s three higher education systems, the CCC has the greatest percentage of facilities over 25 years old (nearly 70%).46

Because all California community college districts have the same basic responsibilities and are required to comply with the same state laws, a revision to the complicated revenue allocation process may be helpful. The Office of the Legislative Analyst, in a February 2000 report, recommended a more equitable funding structure across districts.47

One way to address the enrollment increase and the growing deferred maintenance problem is to focus on improved management of existing facilities. Useful capacity could be extended by

44 California Five Year Infrastructure Plan, 2002, California Department of Finance, Page 110. 45 Ibid. page 73. 46 California Commission on Building for the 21st Century, “Invest for California: Strategic Planning for

California’s Future Prosperity and Quality of Life.” September, 2001. 47 Ibid.

269

measures such as year round schooling, improved laboratory and classroom scheduling, improvements in information and data regarding facility use, and programs designed to shorten the time required to earn a degree (less work-study, more incentives to graduate sooner, improved counseling and advisory services and others).48 Another option is to increase the number of on-line or “hybrid” courses to relieve some of the pressure to build new facilities. All of these options will require adequate funding support from either the State or local initiatives.

San Diego, Grossmont-Cuyamaca, and Southwestern Community College Districts are currently among the most efficient users of space in the entire State, and are among the top 5 in terms of square feet per full time student equivalent.49 The relatively high existing use of space implies that increasing the productivity out of existing capacity will likely require even more innovative approaches and may be more difficult when compared to schools with less efficient systems already in place.

PUBLIC UNIVERSITIES (UC AND CSU)

I. Introduction / Description of Higher Education System

The California Master Plan for Higher Education (Master Plan) was first adopted in 1960 in order to reduce duplication of effort between institutions by assigning a specific mission to each segment. The University of California (UC) is designated as the state’s primary research institution and is given almost exclusive jurisdiction in public higher education for doctorate degrees whereas the California State University’s (CSU) primary mission is in undergraduate and graduate education through the master’s degree level, with an emphasis on polytechnic fields and teacher education.50 In addition to providing instruction to over 65,000 students (see Table 3 below), the University of California San Diego (UCSD), San Diego State University (SDSU), and California State University San Marcos (CSUSM) also act as leaders in the community and are major engines for regional economic development.

Similar to community colleges, public universities are also considered to be regional infrastructure. Investment in higher education infrastructure helps support the high academic standards universities strive to maintain and contributes to the health of the regional economy and our quality of life in many ways. Regional universities provide a source of research and development that not only benefits students through education but also enhances the innovative potential of the region's businesses and prepares students for the demands of the modern economy. In addition to providing research findings and producing future leaders in the community, universities employ a substantial workforce and generate revenue for local firms. For example, UCSD annually purchases approximately $590 million in goods and services from San Diego businesses.51

48 Dowall, David and Whittington, Jan. “Making Room for the Future: Rebuilding California’s Infrastructure,” Public Policy Institute of California, 2003, Page 123.

49 Chancellor's Office of the California Community Colleges, 10/22/03. Gross Square Footage per Resident FTES in FY 02 for the three schools was 40, 40, and 41 Grossmont-Cuyamaca, San Diego, and Southwestern respectively. These ratios ranked 2 through 4 out of the 72 CC Districts in the State. Palomar CCD and Mira Costa have a ratio of 44 and 60, respectively.

50 California’s Five Year Infrastructure Plan, 2002 51 University of California San Diego, Long Range Development Plan (LRDP) Draft 2003, p. 11

270

Table 3 CSU and UC Enrollment in San Diego

CSU and UC Enrollment In San Diego 2001 2002

University of California, San Diego 21,558 23,528

California State University, San Marcos 6,496 7,678

San Diego State University 34,171 34,304

Regional Totals 62,225 65,510

Source: CPEC, 2003. Totals include graduate and undergraduate full time equivalent enrollment.

II. Responsibilities and Controlling Legislation

Agencies

UCSD is one of the ten campuses in the UC system.52 Composed of 6 undergraduate colleges, UCSD served 23,500 undergraduate and graduate students in 2002. In addition, UCSD is a regional engine for economic diversification and growth. UCSD faculty and alums have spun-off over 200 local companies, including over a third of the region's biotech companies. UCSD is also San Diego County's largest single civilian employer, with a monthly payroll in excess of $63 million, and over 20,000 employees.53 Organizationally, UCSD is headed by the Chancellor’s Office which carries out the day-to-day primary missions of the university. Oversight functions include instructing students (undergraduate through the doctorate level), implementing research programs, and coordinating public service efforts (including outreach and health science programs such as teaching hospitals).

The University of California is governed by the Board of Regents. The 26-member board is composed of 18 members appointed by the governor, a student appointed by the Regents, and seven ex-officio members. The regents select the University president. Educational policy is established by the Academic Senate on behalf of the faculty.

With an enrollment of over 34,000 full-time students, SDSU is by far the largest institution of higher learning in the San Diego region and is one of the larger schools in California. Since 42 percent of all its students and 37 percent of all incoming freshmen come from within the San Diego region, SDSU is committed to serving the higher educational needs of local residents and is an important asset for the regional economy.54 The President’s Office of the university is in charge of administrative matters and planning and implementing the university’s Master Plan. While most students attend classes in the College of Art & Letters or College of Sciences, SDSU’s Schools of Education and Business Administration are also vital centers of learning. SDSU can easily claim many thousand alumni involved in local business, politics, media and all aspects of the community. SDSU is

52 Hastings College of the Law (www.uchastings.edu) in San Francisco is affiliated with the UC System but is administered independently and has its own governing board.

53 University of California San Diego, Long Range Development Plan (LRDP) Draft 2003, 54 SDSU, Analytic Studies and Institutional Research

271

an important source of teachers in as well. Approximately two-thirds of San Diego County’s teachers have been degreed or certified at SDSU.55

The newest of the three major public universities in the San Diego region, CSU San Marcos serves over 7,500 students. San Marcos was founded in 1989 as the higher education leader in the northern San Diego region and the first in a new generation of California State University campuses. As its enrollment has rapidly increased, plans are currently in place to increase its facilities and to provide another campus choice for students who want a traditional 4-year college education. The location of the region’s four year schools is included in Exhibit 2.

Responsibility for the California State University is vested in the Board of Trustees, composed of 25 members (24 appointed by the governor and one appointed by the CSU Statewide Alumni Council). The trustees, the chancellor and the presidents develop system-wide policy. Campus-level im-plementation is done via broadly based consultative procedures. The Academic Senate of the California State University, made up of elected representatives of the faculty from each campus, recommends academic policy to the Board of Trustees through the Chancellor.

Legislation

The three public universities in the San Diego region closely follow the State’s Master Plan for Higher Education. UCSD is one campus within the ten-campus UC system. SDSU and CSUSM are members of the 23-campus CSU system. In adopting the Donahoe Higher Education Act of 1960, the State Legislature established the Board of Trustees of The California State Colleges (designated “The California State University” on Jan. 1, 1982) to “succeed to the powers, duties and functions with respect to the management, administration and control of the state colleges.” Prior to this, the State Board of Education had jurisdiction over the separate colleges. Above the UC and CSU systems is the CPEC which has oversight of all postsecondary education in the state.

The Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC) oversee university accreditation through its Senior College Commission. The WASC accreditation process aids institutions in developing and sustaining effective educational programs and assures the educational community, the general public, and other organizations that an accredited institution has met high standards of quality and effectiveness. As a regional accrediting body, WASC accredits institutions, not individual programs; however, programs are actively reviewed by WASC as part of the accreditation process.

III. Operations and Maintenance (FY 2003)

Together, all three major public campuses spent over $2 billion per year in General Funds for operations and maintenance in FY 2003 (see Exhibits 7 and 8). Over 91 percent is spent on salaries and benefits with the remaining funds divided between fee supported services, operating expenses and equipment, capital outlay, and other expenditures.

As integral parts of the UC and CSU systems, all three schools rely on state funding in order to operate. Average expenditures per student from state sources for CSU are $10,550 and for UC $16,314 per an undergraduate, general campus student.56 CSU undergraduate, 2002 academic year

55 San Diego Magazine, August 1996 56 California Postsecondary Education Commission

272

fees averaged $1,926, including campus-specific fees.57 For UCSD, 2002 average undergraduate fees were $3,429.58

Unlike the K-12 or Community College levels, the major universities are not guaranteed a minimum level of funding under the Proposition 98 annual allocation. However, the CSU campuses receive a large amount of their funding from annual state allotments, as shown in Exhibit 8. By contrast, UCSD receives over 50 percent of its overall annual funding from the federal government and grants linked to the UCSD Medical Center. A significant amount of revenues come from grants due to UCSD’s status as a major national research institution. More specifically, more UCSD revenue was received from the federal government than from the State of California in FY02.59 Over 54 percent of annual revenues in FY 2003 accounted from local sources (primarily endowments, grants, and tuition) at UCSD, while less than 25 percent came from these sources at the CSU schools.

IV. Capital Improvement Programs

The CSU system is more centralized than the CCC, UC or K-12 system because it explicitly requires that capital outlay expenditures be coordinated with a strategic plan. Within the CSU, a system-wide set of Academic Master Plans, first adopted in 1963, is intended to integrate and guide capital outlay decisions. The CSU system requires each campus to provide a Capital Outlay Plan for the University’s future. The five year Physical Master Plans compiled by the department of Capital Planning, Design, and Construction (CPDC) for Cal State San Marcos and San Diego State serve that function. Similar to the CCC Chancellor’s office, the CPDC prioritizes projects according to a system developed to fund capital improvements in the following order: projects that provide system wide benefits; renovations; and then, new growth. Most recently, the FY03-FY07 Capital Improvement Program totals for both SDSU and CSUSM are $199.4 million and $251.1 million, respectively (see Exhibit 11).

Less centralized than the CSU, each individual campus in the UC system has responsibilities for long-range planning, along with project design and construction. The Regents and the Office of the President formulate policies and procedures in these areas and coordinate across the system.

Strategies to meet projected long-term demand for university enrollment at UCSD are included in the 2004 Long Range Development Plan (LRDP). UCSD’s most recent LRDP is the fifth comprehensive installment of such a plan since the university’s inception in 1963, setting the academic year of 2020-2021 as the planning horizon. The LRDP identifies institutional and development objectives, delineates campus land uses, and estimates the campus building capacity.60

Between 2003 and 2007, UCSD plans to spend approximately $232 million through the State-funded Capital Improvement Program as shown in Exhibit 11. In addition, the campus will fund seismic retrofitting at the Medical Center and build the new Cal(IT)2 facility using State Lease Revenue Bonds, along with private sector funding. Exhibit 11 includes the annual figures for all of the region's schools between FY 2003 and FY 2007, the analytical time frame of the IRIS.

In both the UC and CSU systems, capital improvement programs are divided between state and non-state funded sources. At the local level, there is no regional long-term integrated strategic plan for

57 SDSU 58 UCSD59 UCSD FY 2003 Budget 60 For more information on UCSD’s LRDP, visit the physical planning section of the website at www.ucsd.edu

273

postsecondary education. However, a K-16 Education Master Plan for the entire K-12 through University system was recently released at the State level.61 The K-16 Master Plan provides a basic overarching framework for education, but lacks many of the specifics necessary to adequately develop a capital improvement program at the local level. This function is left up to the individual campus facility planning departments.

The CSU and UC facility plans rely on assumptions about the future growth of student enrollment, which is anticipated to continue in the future as more students out of high school apply for higher education at local universities. By doing so, the growth of student population, housing capacity, hiring of new professors and regular staff, and increased parking capacity will need to be effectively planned for if each local university is to maintain competitive standards with other universities across the country. Currently, each school admits more students every year into their undergraduate and graduate programs. UCSD, SDSU, and CSUSM are all preparing for the influx of students with on-campus construction, expansion of university facilities and a procedure in place for dealing with this change.

The California Five Year Infrastructure Plan includes a list of all funded projects in the State’s education system. Of the nearly $6 billion of funds made available statewide in 2002 for UC and CSU campuses, approximately 3 percent has been allocated to San Diego region schools. The amount of revenue allocated fluctuates from year to year depending on budget and other fiscal conditions. In FY 2003, the amount of state revenue distributed to the region has decreased to approximately 0.6 percent.62 The majority of the decline is attributed to a decrease in CSU revenues, as the UC campus increased it share of the state’s total UC expenditures from 2.4 percent in 2002 to 4.2 percent in 2003. Over the same time period, the CSU allocation declined from 3.6 percent in 2002 to less than one percent in 2003.

V. Projected Long-Term Need

In contrast to the region’s community colleges, it should be noted that all three public universities do not presently have a forum to collectively discuss higher education issues in the San Diego region. While the presidents of UCSD, SDSU, and CSUSM do have existing memberships in SDICCCA, they represent their respective institutions at this monthly forum by special invitation, attending only when asked.

With the region focused on promoting and encouraging “new economy” industries and clusters that demand higher levels of skill and education, the need to educate the region’s workforce at the BA level and beyond will be crucial for the economic prosperity of San Diego. Forecasts have predicted that over the next decade the demographic cohort known as the “echo boomers” will begin attending college.63 As the echo boomers attend the region’s universities, UCSD, SDSU, and CSUSM must be prepared to absorb this influx of future students. As shown in Exhibit 15, growth in UC and CSU enrollment in the San Diego region is projected to outpace population growth between 2003 and 2030. Mirroring these local concerns about growth, according to the California Five Year Infrastructure Plan, the primary drivers of need for the UC system as a whole are the need

61 Note: The California Master Plan for Education, 200262 California Five Year Infrastructure Plan, 2002 and 2003, California Department of Finance, www.dof.ca.gov.

Total does not include system wide expenditures for which individual school allocations are not available.63 California Department of Finance

274

for new space to address enrollment growth, and the need for systematic renewal of existing space to address both safety and programmatic concerns.64 In other words, the drivers are increasing enrollment and the need to modernize and upgrade facilities.

In addition to normal enrollment growth expected to occur as more of the population attends college, the CPEC also projects that the number of community college transfers into UC and CSU will continue to rise, requiring more efficient use of existing resources and possibly new facilities. Furthermore, according to a 1998 CSU survey, 35 percent of CSU’s buildings are more than 38 years old, and 73 percent are more than 18 years old.65 These figures imply a growing potential for deferred maintenance backlogs and facility modernization requests.

VI. Relationship of Facility Planning to Local General Plan and Land Use

Investment in University infrastructure is closely tied to forecasts of school enrollment and with the needs of the modern economy. Because local universities are regional infrastructure and serve the entire State of California, there are fewer linkages to local general plans and land use. The primary relationships are significant transportation impacts and student housing needs, and in the consistency of university plans and the general plan designations of surrounding areas.

It is important to note that, as university attendance grows, so does campus size. University Capital Improvement Programs will affect surrounding cities and neighborhoods by increasing traffic and housing demands. Therefore, the effects of these impacts (both good and bad) must be adequately addressed in the appropriate planning departments of local jurisdictions.

VII. Public Policy / Financing Issues and Strategies

Preparing the future workforce to continue the regional tradition of innovation and new product development is an important part of ensuring regional prosperity. The spin offs, technology transfers, patents, skilled workers, and other benefits derived from the presence of high quality universities is an integral part of maintaining the region’s quality of life. To ensure continued success, the State’s higher education facilities require adequate financial resources to meet the demands of a growing student population, and a deteriorating and aging infrastructure.

The drivers of facility demands for the UC and CSU systems are similar as they relate to enrollment growth and aging infrastructure, although UC has the additional demands created by its research and clinical programs. These factors combined with current budget issues also have contributed to an increasing deferred maintenance backlog. According to the California Commission on Building for the 21st Century, the state has an aging education infrastructure. Most facilities are over 25 years old.”

Because of its ability to grow, UCSD is one of the campuses in the UC system that will be targeted to accept additional levels of students. Other campuses, such as Berkeley and Los Angeles, are relatively “developed,” having already built on a majority of their land. Therefore, they do not have much room to expand compared to less urbanized campuses like Davis, Irvine, Riverside and San

64 California Five Year Infrastructure Plan, 2002, California Department of Finance, www.dof.ca.gov. Page 98.65 Dowall, David and Whittington, Jan. “Making Room for the Future: Rebuilding California’s Infrastructure,”

Public Policy Institute of California, 2003, page 32.

275

Diego. While assisting the entire UC system may be a necessary requirement for a local campus, it may imply that other needed projects be placed on hold as the new capacity increasing projects are prioritized over upgrades and modernizations. Fortunately, safety-oriented projects such as seismic retrofitting are scheduled to receive priority and will not be set aside to create additional space for future enrollment.

Similar to the community college situation, one way to address the enrollment increase and the growing deferred maintenance problem is to focus on improved management of existing facilities. Useful capacity could be extended by measures such as year round schooling, improved laboratory and classroom scheduling, additional on-line course offerings, improvements in information and data regarding facility use, and programs designed to shorten the time required to earn a degree (less work-study, more incentives to graduate sooner, improved counseling and advisory services and others).66 Other options might include increasing student fees. However, appropriate adjustments to student loan programs and other financial aid must be addressed to ensure broad-based access to education for California residents.

Education Section Exhibits

1. K – 12 School Districts 2. K – 12 School Districts and Enrollment Figures San Diego Region, 2001 – 2002 3. Higher Education 4. K – 12 School Districts in San Diego County Operating Budgets, FY 2003 5. Summary of K – 12 School Districts Operating Budgets, FY 2003 6. Summary of K – 12 School Deferred Maintenance Budgets, FY 2001 7. Institutions of Public Higher Education in San Diego County, Operating Budgets, FY 2003 8. Summary of Operating Budgets of Public Higher Education Institutions, FY 2003 9. Education Infrastructure Distribution of Subregional (K – 12) CIP Expenditures FY 2003 10. Community Infrastructure Planning Areas 11. Summary of Capital Improvement Programs K – 12 and Higher Education, FY 2003 – 2007 12. K – 12 Schools Capital Projects 13. Regional Population Outpaces Growth in K – 12 School – Age Population, Projected Growth

2003 – 2030 14. Annual Community College Enrollment and Population, Projected Growth 2003 – 2030 15. Annual UC and CSU Enrollment and Population, Projected Growth 2003 – 2030

66 Dowall, David and Whittington, Jan. “Making Room for the Future: Rebuilding California’s Infrastructure,” Public Policy Institute of California, 2003, Page 123.

276

277

Exhibit 2 K-12 School Districts and Enrollment Figures

San Diego Region, 2001 – 2002

ID District 2001-02

Enrollment1 Alpine Union Elementary 2,3662 Bonsall Union Elementary 1,5993 Borrego Springs Unified 4124 Cajon Valley Union Elementary 18,896 5 Cardiff Elementary 8816 Carlsbad Unified 9,5367 Chula Vista Elementary 23,865 8 Coronado Unified 2,8619 Dehesa Elementary 17810 Del Mar Union Elementary 3,01911 Encinitas Union Elementary 5,60212 Escondido Union Elementary 19,782 13 Escondido Union High 8,04814 Fallbrook Union Elementary 5,87815 Fallbrook Union High 2,95116 Grossmont Union High 23,989 17 Jamul-Dulzura Union Elementary 1,59618 Julian Union Elementary 1,62019 Julian Union High 88220 La Mesa-Spring Valley 14,613 21 Lakeside Union Elementary 5,02222 Lemon Grove Elementary 4,48123 Mountain Empire Unified 1,84924 National Elementary 6,66425 Oceanside Unified 22,365 [26] County Office of Education [1] 3,32527 Poway Unified 32,507 28 Ramona City Unified 7,28329 Rancho Santa Fe Elementary 76830 San Diego Unified 141,599 31 San Dieguito Union High 10,864 32 San Marcos Unified 13,374 33 San Pasqual Union Elementary 50434 San Ysidro Elementary 4,81035 Santee Elementary 7,57536 Solana Beach Elementary 2,69437 South Bay Union Elementary 9,80238 Spencer Valley Elementary 3239 Sweetwater Union High 37,175 40 Vallecitos Elementary 23541 Valley Center-Pauma Unified 4,77042 Vista Unified 28,018 43 Warner Unified 298 Total 494,588

Source: Enrollment data from California Department of Education, Educational Demographics Unit (Sept. 2003)

Note: See Exhibit 1 for location of districts. 1. No district boundaries are shown.

278

279

Exhibit 4 K-12 School Districts in San Diego County Operating Budgets, FY 2003

State, 20.1%

Revenue Limit*, 66.7%Federal, 6.5%

Other Local, 6.7% Services &

Operations, 6.6%

Books & Supplies, 8.3%

Capital Outlay, 0.7% Other Outgo,

1.9%

Salaries & Benefits, 82.6%

O&M Revenues O&M Expenditures

$3,389 Million $3,446 Million

Source: San Diego County Office of Education;

* Note: The amount of general purpose funding a school district receives per student (using ADA - Average Daily Attendance) is called its "revenue limit." It is a combination of local property taxes and state taxes.

280

Exhibit 5 Summary of K-12 School Districts Operating Budgets, FY 2003

($ Million)

Elementary School

DistrictsHigh School

DistrictsUnified School

DistrictsTotal K-12

School Districts Percent

Operating Revenues (FY 2003) Revenue limit sources* $ 625.5 $ 431.7 $ 1,204.7 $ 2,262.0 66.7%

Federal 58.4 26.9 134.0 219.3 6.5% State 154.1 83.7 442.2 680.0 20.1% Other local 88.1 46.2 93.6 227.9 6.7%

Total Annual Revenues $ 926.1 $ 588.5 $ 1,874.6 $ 3,389.1 100.0%

Operating Expenditures (FY 2003) Salaries & benefits 792.4 503.4 1,549.0 2,844.8 82.6% Books & supplies 60.8 32.4 191.4 284.5 8.3% Services & other operating expenses 77.0 46.1 104.7 227.8 6.6%

Subtotal O&M 930.1 581.9 1,845.1 3,357.1 97.4% Capital outlay 5.6 3.2 14.0 22.9 0.7% Other outgo 12.2 8.3 45.3 65.8 1.9%

Total Operating Expenditures $ 948.0 $ 593.4 $ 1,904.4 $ 3,445.8 100.0%

Revenues Over or (Under) Expenditures -21.9 -5.0 -29.8 -56.7 Source: San Diego County Office of Education. *Note: The amount of general purpose funding a school district receives per student (using ADA - Average Daily Attendance) is called its "revenue limit." It is a combination of local property taxes and state taxes.

281

Exhibit 6 Summary of K-12 School Deferred Maintenance* Budgets FY 2001

($ Million)

Elementary School

Districts High School

Districts

Unified School

Districts

Total K-12 School

Districts Percent

Deferred Maintenance - Sources (FY 2001) State revenues $ 4.0 $ 2.3 $ 7.4 $ 13.8 42.0% Local revenues 0.3 0.2 0.5 1.1 3.2% Transfers-in 3.9 4.6 9.5 18.0 54.8%

Total Annual Revenues $ 8.2 $ 7.2 $ 17.4 $ 32.8 100.0%

Deferred Maintenance - Uses (FY 2001) Operating Expenses 4.1 3.4 3.2 10.7 36.9% Capital outlay 3.0 1.2 13.9 18.2 63.1%

Total Deferred Maintenance Expenditures $ 7.1 $ 4.6 $ 17.2 $ 28.9 100.0%

Revenues Over or (Under) Expenditures 1.1 2.6 0.2 3.9 Source: San Diego County Office of Education. *Note: The Deferred Maintenance Program for K-12 schools provides State matching funds, on a dollar-for-dollar basis, to assist school districts with expenditures for major repair or replacement of existing school building components. Typically, this includes roofing, plumbing, heating, air conditioning, electrical, floor and wall systems, etc.

282

Exhibit 7 Institutions of Public Higher Education in San Diego County

Operating Budgets, FY 2002-2003

O&M Revenues O&M Expenditures

$2,505 Million $2,315 Million

Source: FY 2003 budgets of public higher education institutions (see Exhibit 8).

Local, incl. tuition, 48.9%

Federal, 16.8%

State, 33.7%

Transfers, other, 0.7%

Fee-supportedservices, 5.6%

Operatingexpenses & equipment,

4.6%

Capital outlay, 0.6%

Other, 0.9%

Salaries & benefits,

88.3%

283

Exhibit 8 Summary of Operating Budgets of Public Higher Education Institutions, FY 2003

CommunityCollege

Districts [1]

CSU San Marcos and

SDSU

University of California San

Diego

Total Public Higher

Education Percent

Operating Revenues (FY 2003) Federal $ 9.7 --- $ 411.0 $ 420.7 16.8% State 224.2 262.7 356.7 843.6 33.7% Local, incl. tuition 247.2 57.2 919.5 1,223.9 48.9% Transfers, other 1.9 15.1 --- 17.0 0.7%

Total Annual Revenues $ 483.0 $ 335.1 $ 1,687.2 $ 2,505.2 100.0%

Operating Expenditures (FY 2003) Salaries & benefits 390.6 281.9 1,372.6 2,045.1 88.3%

Operating expenses & equipment 13.7 47.3 45.0 106.0 4.6%

Fee-supported services 62.5 3.0 64.2 129.7 5.6% Subtotal O&M 466.9 332.1 1,481.8 2,280.8 98.5%

Capital outlay [2] 14.2 --- --- 14.2 0.6% Other 20.0 --- --- 20.0 0.9%

Total Operating Expenditures $ 501.0 $ 332.1 $ 1,481.8 $ 2,315.0 100.0%

Revenues Over or (Under) Expenditures -18.0 2.9 205.3 190.3 Sources: Budgets of community colleges, CSU San Marcos, SDSU, and UCSD, FY 2003.

1. Grossmont-Cuyamaca, Miracosta, Palomar, San Diego, and Southwestern Community College Districts. 2. --- represents data that is "not applicable or not available. "Capital Outlays” included in the operations and maintenance budget refer to purchases of

equipment and other items with relatively long operational life cycles. They differ from the “capital projects” discussed under the capital improvement program sections.

284

19511951

19541954

19061906

19141914

19121912

19201920

19011901

19071907

19531953

19021902

19151915

19111911

14821482

203203

702702

204204

19031903

19521952

19091909705705

12021202

19191919

300300

14151415

14321432

13031303

704704

13021302

19551955

103103

14261426

18011801

14201420

101101

14411441

14061406

19091909

201201

15041504

19211921

18021802

14471447

102102

13011301

104104

12011201

14311431

14861486

14291429

503503

15011501

601601

703703

202202

14101410

14251425

19981998

14301430

14641464

501501

16011601

14441444

14211421

604604

14501450

902902

15021502

701701

14341434

14171417

603603

14681468

800800

14391439

11021102

502502

14191419901901

14571457

14691469

12031203

14561456

14071407

14121412

14401440

602602

11011101

14811481

14421442

14651465

14271427

10001000

16021602

15031503

16031603

14281428

14351435

12041204

17001700

14611461

14381438

14091409

14331433

14051405

1403140314621462

12051205

14041404

400400

1401140114831483

14581458

19181918

14631463

16041604

1414141414591459

14481448

1466146614491449

14081408

14231423

14021402 14911491

14241424

14851485

14181418

19991999

14881488

285

Exhibit 10 Community Infrastructure Planning Areas1

CIPA NO. JURISDICTION COMMUNITY PLANNING AREA

101 1 Carlsbad Carlsbad 1 102 1 Carlsbad Carlsbad 2 103 1 Carlsbad Carlsbad 3 104 1 Carlsbad Carlsbad 4 201 2 Chula Vista Chula Vista 1 202 2 Chula Vista Chula Vista 2 203 2 Chula Vista Chula Vista 3 204 2 Chula Vista Chula Vista 4 300 3 Coronado Coronado 400 4 Del Mar Del Mar 501 5 El Cajon El Cajon 1 502 5 El Cajon El Cajon 2 503 5 El Cajon El Cajon 3 601 6 Encinitas Encinitas 1 602 6 Encinitas Encinitas 2 603 6 Encinitas Encinitas 3 604 6 Encinitas Encinitas 4 701 7 Escondido Escondido 1 702 7 Escondido Escondido 2 703 7 Escondido Escondido 3 704 7 Escondido Escondido 4 705 7 Escondido Escondido 5 800 8 Imperial Beach Imperial Beach 901 9 La Mesa La Mesa 1 902 9 La Mesa La Mesa 2

1000 10 Lemon Grove Lemon Grove 1101 11 National City National City 1 1102 11 National City National City 2 1201 12 Oceanside Oceanside 1 1202 12 Oceanside Oceanside 2 1203 12 Oceanside Oceanside 3 1204 12 Oceanside Oceanside 4 1205 12 Oceanside Oceanside 5 1301 13 Poway Poway 1 1302 13 Poway Poway 2 1303 13 Poway Poway 3 1401 14 San Diego Balboa Park 1402 14 San Diego Barrio Logan 1403 14 San Diego Carmel Mountain Ranch 1404 14 San Diego Centre City 1405 14 San Diego Sabre Springs 1406 14 San Diego Clairemont Mesa 1407 14 San Diego East Elliott 1408 14 San Diego Greater Golden Hill

286

CIPA NO. JURISDICTION COMMUNITY PLANNING AREA 1409 14 San Diego Miramar Ranch North 1410 14 San Diego La Jolla 1412 14 San Diego Linda Vista 1414 14 San Diego Midway-Pacific Highway 1415 14 San Diego Mira Mesa 1417 14 San Diego Mission Bay Park 1418 14 San Diego Mission Beach 1419 14 San Diego Mission Valley 1420 14 San Diego Navajo 1421 14 San Diego Carmel Valley 1423 14 San Diego Ocean Beach 1424 14 San Diego Old San Diego 1425 14 San Diego Otay Mesa-Nestor 1426 14 San Diego Otay Mesa 1427 14 San Diego Pacific Beach 1428 14 San Diego Greater North Park 1429 14 San Diego Rancho Penasquitos 1430 14 San Diego Peninsula 1431 14 San Diego Rancho Bernardo 1432 14 San Diego San Pasqual 1433 14 San Diego San Ysidro 1434 14 San Diego Scripps Miramar Ranch 1435 14 San Diego Serra Mesa 1438 14 San Diego College Area 1439 14 San Diego Tijuana River Valley 1440 14 San Diego Torrey Pines 1441 14 San Diego University 1442 14 San Diego Uptown 1444 14 San Diego Skyline-Paradise Hills 1447 14 San Diego Tierrasanta 1448 14 San Diego Sorrento Hills 1449 14 San Diego Fairbanks Country Club 1450 14 San Diego Kearny Mesa 1455 14 San Diego Via De La Valle 1456 14 San Diego Mid-City:City Heights 1457 14 San Diego Mid-City:Eastern Area 1458 14 San Diego Mid-City:Kensington-Talmadge 1459 14 San Diego Mid-City:Normal Heights 1461 14 San Diego Del Mar Mesa 1462 14 San Diego Torrey Highlands 1463 14 San Diego Los Penasquitos Canyon Preserve 1464 14 San Diego Black Mountain Ranch 1465 14 San Diego Pacific Highlands Ranch 1466 14 San Diego NCFUA Subarea 2 1467 14 San Diego NCFUA Reserve 1468 14 San Diego Southeastern:Encanto Neighborhoods 1469 14 San Diego Southeastern:Southeastern San Diego 1481 14 San Diego Rancho Encantada

287

CIPA NO. JURISDICTION COMMUNITY PLANNING AREA 1482 14 San Diego Miramar Air Station 1483 14 San Diego Lindbergh Field 1485 14 San Diego Scripps Reserve 1486 14 San Diego Harbor 1488 14 San Diego Flower Hill 1491 14 San Diego 32nd Street Naval Station 1501 15 San Marcos San Marcos 1 1502 15 San Marcos San Marcos 2 1503 15 San Marcos San Marcos 3 1504 15 San Marcos San Marcos 4 1601 16 Santee Santee 1 1602 16 Santee Santee 2 1603 16 Santee Santee 3 1604 16 Santee Santee 4 1700 17 Solana Beach Solana Beach 1801 18 Vista Vista 1 1802 18 Vista Vista 2 1901 19 Unincorporated County Alpine 1902 19 Unincorporated County Central Mountain 1903 19 Unincorporated County Crest-Dehesa 1904 19 Unincorporated County Desert 1906 19 Unincorporated County Jamul-Dulzura 1907 19 Unincorporated County Lakeside 1908 19 Unincorporated County Mountain Empire 1909 19 Unincorporated County North County Metro 1911 19 Unincorporated County Otay 1912 19 Unincorporated County Pala-Pauma 1914 19 Unincorporated County Ramona 1915 19 Unincorporated County San Dieguito 1918 19 Unincorporated County Sweetwater 1919 19 Unincorporated County Valle De Oro 1920 19 Unincorporated County Valley Center 1921 19 Unincorporated County Spring Valley 1922 19 Unincorporated County Julian 1951 19 Unincorporated County North Mountain 1952 19 Unincorporated County Bonsall 1953 19 Unincorporated County Fallbrook 1954 19 Unincorporated County Pendleton-De Luz 1955 19 Unincorporated County Rainbow 1998 19 Unincorporated County Barona 1999 19 Unincorporated County County Islands

1. Community infrastructure planning areas (CIPAs) are the same as community planning areas (CPAs) in the City of San Diego and the County of San Diego. CIPAs reflect comparable planning areas for the other cities.

288

Exhibit 11 Summary of Capital Improvement Programs K-12 and Higher Education, FY 2003 – 2007

($ Million)

FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 Total Percent of Total

Regional Improvements Grossmont-Cuyamaca CCD $ 7.2 $ 20.4 $ 2.8 $ 36.4 $ 31.8 $ 98.6 11.5% Miracosta CCD 0.1 7.2 2.3 16.5 8.4 34.5 4.0% Southwestern CCD 8.2 12.1 12.1 8.4 2.3 43.2 5.0% CSU San Marcos [1] 36.2 63.3 19.8 100.0 31.8 251.1 29.3% San Diego State University [1] 15.1 29.2 23.2 62.0 69.9 199.4 23.2% University of California, San Diego [2] 39.8 54.6 76.8 36.9 23.6 231.7 27.0% Total Regional $ 106.6 $ 186.8 $ 137.0 $ 260.2 $ 167.8 $ 858.5 100.0% Subregional Improvements (K-12) New / Reconstruction [3] 265.2 190.0 47.6 --- --- 502.7 27.0% Upgrade / Modernization 264.9 514.8 346.7 136.3 96.3 1,359.0 73.0% Total Subregional (K-12) $ 530.1 $ 704.8 $ 394.2 $ 136.3 $ 96.3 $ 1,861.7 100.0% Total CIP $ 636.7 $ 891.7 $ 531.3 $ 396.5 $ 264.1 $ 2,720.2 Source: California Office of Public School Construction, San Diego Unified School District, Grossmont-Cuyamaca CCD, Miracosta CCD, Southwestern CCD, CSU San Marcos, SDSU, UCSD. Note: "New" projects refer to new or reconstruction of schools; "Upgrade / Modernization" refers to addition, renovation, and other improvements to existing facilities. Figures for subregional facilities (K-12) exclude expenditures for deferred maintenance. 1. Figures shown for FY 2003 are from California State University, Capital Improvement Program, 2003/04 - 2007/08; table, "Previous Five-Year Capital

Improvement Program, 1998/99 Through 2002/03". 2. Figure shown for FY 2003 is from "UCOP Approved 2001-2006 State-Funded Capital Improvement Program" (8/17/00). Figures for FY 2004 to 2007 are from

"2003-2008 State-Funded Capital Improvement Program" (c2001). In addition, UCSD also has a non-State funded capital program for FY 2003 to 2006, totaling $489,188,000 (University of California, "2002-03 to 2006-07 Non-State Capital Program: Overview of the Report").

3. --- represent data that is not available.

Exhibit 12K-12 Schools Capital Projects

ProjectNo.

AgencyID [1]

Project Description [2]ProjectType

Total Project Cost

Costs Prior to FY 2003 [3]

FY 2003Costs

FY 2004Costs

FY 2005Costs

FY 2006Costs

FY 2007Costs

Costs After FY 2007

9241 1 Alpine Elementary UPGRADE 1,565,648 - - 1,043,765 521,883 - - - 9254 1 Joan MacQueen Middle School NEW 16,390,254 16,390,254 - - - - - - 9250 1 Shadow Hills UPGRADE 957,032 - 478,516 478,516 - - - - 9919 2 Morro Hills Elementary NEW 13,924,821 - 6,962,411 6,962,411 - - - - 9378 4 Avocado Elementary UPGRADE 1,975,401 - - 1,316,934 658,467 - - - 9294 4 Crest Elementary UPGRADE 764,069 - - 509,379 254,690 - - - 9334 4 Cuyamaca Elementary UPGRADE 301,996 - - 201,331 100,665 - - - 9276 4 Flying Hills Elementary UPGRADE 848,966 - - 565,977 282,989 - - - 9554 4 Montgomery Middle UPGRADE 4,825,130 - - 3,216,753 1,608,377 - - - 9236 4 Rios Elementary Yr UPGRADE 612,830 - - 408,553 204,277 - - - 9245 4 Vista Grande Elem. UPGRADE 933,862 - - 622,575 311,287 - - - 9142 5 Cardiff Elementary UPGRADE 1,033,638 - 516,819 516,819 - - - - 9139 5 Harris (Ada W.) Elementary UPGRADE 1,187,163 - 593,582 593,582 - - - - 9068 6 Buena Vista Elementary UPGRADE 1,723,548 - 861,774 861,774 - - - - 9802 6 Calavera Hills NEW 28,705,942 - 14,352,971 14,352,971 - - - - 9069 6 Carlsbad High UPGRADE 3,422,250 3,422,250 - - - - - - 9080 6 Jefferson Elementary UPGRADE 621,631 - 310,816 310,816 - - - - 9508 7 Arroyo Vista Elementary NEW 12,132,370 12,132,370 - - - - - - 9803 7 Chula Vista Learning Community Charter

SchoolUPGRADE 12,746,764 - 6,373,382 6,373,382 - - - -

9521 7 Cook (Hazel Goes) Elem. UPGRADE 1,527,306 1,527,306 - - - - - - 9804 7 Corky McMillin Elementary NEW 11,495,454 - 5,747,727 5,747,727 - - - - 9544 7 Finney (Myrtle S.) Elem. UPGRADE 1,691,626 - 845,813 845,813 - - - - 9513 7 Halecrest Elementary UPGRADE 1,636,129 1,636,129 - - - - - - 9546 7 Juarez-Lincoln Elementary UPGRADE 1,648,911 1,648,911 - - - - - - 9533 7 Lauderbach Elementary UPGRADE 2,718,381 2,718,381 - - - - - - 9537 7 Loma Verde Elementary UPGRADE 1,960,029 - 980,015 980,015 - - - - 9558 7 Los Altos Elementary UPGRADE 1,672,345 1,672,345 - - - - - - 9520 7 Mueller (Robert L.) Elem. UPGRADE 1,671,101 1,671,101 - - - - - - 9923 7 Otay Ranch Village 1 Elem. NEW 10,519,954 10,519,954 - - - - - - 9529 7 Palomar Elementary UPGRADE 1,367,268 1,367,268 - - - - - - 9528 7 Parkview Elementary UPGRADE 1,448,574 1,448,574 - - - - - - 9522 7 Rogers (Greg) Elementary UPGRADE 2,469,947 - 1,234,974 1,234,974 - - - - 9538 7 Rohr (Fred H.) Elementary UPGRADE 1,829,295 - 914,648 914,648 - - - - 9549 7 Silver Wing Elementary UPGRADE 1,724,804 1,724,804 - - - - - - 9572 7 Thurgood Marshall Elem. NEW 8,202,070 8,202,070 - - - - - - 9536 7 Valle Lindo Elementary UPGRADE 1,602,666 1,602,666 - - - - - - 9495 7 Valley Vista Elementary UPGRADE 1,655,006 1,655,006 - - - - - - 9339 9 Dehesa Elementary UPGRADE 678,455 - - 452,303 226,152 - - - 9180 10 Ashley Falls Elementary NEW 6,087,342 6,087,342 - - - - - - 9189 10 Del Mar Heights Elementary UPGRADE 1,618,928 1,618,928 - - - - - - 9183 10 Del Mar Hills Elementary UPGRADE 1,032,633 1,032,633 - - - - - - 9674 10 Sage Canyon Elementary NEW 7,781,866 - 3,890,933 3,890,933 - - - - 9805 10 Sorrento Hills Elementary NEW 19,368,588 - 9,684,294 9,684,294 - - - - 9119 11 Capri Elementary UPGRADE 1,660,036 1,660,036 - - - - - - 9676 11 El Camino Creek Elementary NEW 4,181,352 - 2,090,676 2,090,676 - - - - 9134 11 Ocean Knoll Elementary Yr UPGRADE 1,377,601 1,377,601 - - - - - -

289

Exhibit 12K-12 Schools Capital Projects

ProjectNo.

AgencyID [1]

Project Description [2]ProjectType

Total Project Cost

Costs Prior to FY 2003 [3]

FY 2003Costs

FY 2004Costs

FY 2005Costs

FY 2006Costs

FY 2007Costs

Costs After FY 2007

9131 11 Park Dale Lane Elementary UPGRADE 1,657,166 1,657,166 - - - - - - 9127 11 Paul Ecke-Central School UPGRADE 1,151,301 1,151,301 - - - - - - 9916 12 Bear Valley Middle School (Kit Carson Vacant

Land)NEW 22,316,716 - 11,158,358 11,158,358 - - - -

9902 12 Bernardo - Vacant Land NEW 12,366,420 - 6,183,210 6,183,210 - - - - 9106 12 Central Elementary UPGRADE 601,139 - 300,570 300,570 - - - - 9085 12 Conway Elementary UPGRADE 2,090,426 - 1,045,213 1,045,213 - - - - 9108 12 Del Dios Middle UPGRADE 2,635,316 - 1,317,658 1,317,658 - - - - 9673 12 Farr Avenue School (New Elementary #3) NEW 20,343,582 - 10,171,791 10,171,791 - - - - 9571 12 Felicita Elementary UPGRADE 1,961,751 1,961,751 - - - - - - 9086 12 Glen View Elementary UPGRADE 1,951,312 - 975,656 975,656 - - - - 9098 12 Hidden Valley Middle UPGRADE 3,185,611 - 1,592,806 1,592,806 - - - - 9112 12 Juniper Elementary UPGRADE 1,543,640 1,543,640 - - - - - - 9096 12 Lincoln Elementary UPGRADE 342,851 - 171,426 171,426 - - - - 9114 12 Miller Elementary UPGRADE 1,588,340 - 794,170 794,170 - - - - 9102 12 Oak Hill Elementary UPGRADE 2,089,760 - 1,044,880 1,044,880 - - - - 9088 12 Orange Glen Elementary UPGRADE 1,614,092 - 807,046 807,046 - - - - 9924 12 Reidy Creek Elementary NEW 14,842,188 - 7,421,094 7,421,094 - - - - 9092 12 Rose Elementary UPGRADE 2,026,624 - 1,013,312 1,013,312 - - - - 9087 13 Escondido High UPGRADE 9,411,778 9,411,778 - - - - - - 9103 13 Orange Glen High UPGRADE 11,002,857 11,002,857 - - - - - - 9121 13 San Pasqual High UPGRADE 11,491,105 11,491,105 - - - - - - 9117 13 Valley Continuation High School UPGRADE 11,028,392 11,028,392 - - - - - - 9005 14 Fallbrook Street Elementary UPGRADE 2,017,388 - 1,008,694 1,008,694 - - - - 9004 14 La Paloma Elementary UPGRADE 2,486,305 - 1,243,153 1,243,153 - - - - 9649 14 Pendleton (Mary Fay) Elem. UPGRADE 1,561,854 - 780,927 780,927 - - - - 9007 14 Potter (James E.) Intermediate UPGRADE 2,841,503 - 1,420,752 1,420,752 - - - - 9605 17 Jamul Primary UPGRADE 1,142,508 - 571,254 571,254 - - - - 9578 18 Julian Elementary UPGRADE 929,617 929,617 - - - - - - 9434 20 Avondale Elementary UPGRADE 1,708,048 - 854,024 854,024 - - - - 9418 20 Bancroft Elementary (Yr) UPGRADE 1,588,433 - 794,217 794,217 - - - - 9392 20 Casa De Oro Elementary UPGRADE 1,382,156 1,382,156 - - - - - - 9302 20 Fletcher Hills Elementary UPGRADE 1,679,287 1,679,287 - - - - - - 9405 20 Highlands Elementary UPGRADE 1,787,753 - 893,876 893,876 - - - - 9441 20 Kempton Street Elementary UPGRADE 1,749,778 - 874,889 874,889 - - - - 9363 20 La Mesa Dale Elementary UPGRADE 1,483,906 1,483,906 - - - - - - 9368 20 La Mesa Middle UPGRADE 3,131,301 3,131,301 - - - - - - 9447 20 La Presa Elementary Yr UPGRADE 1,705,238 - 852,619 852,619 - - - - 9440 20 La Presa Middle UPGRADE 2,314,316 - 1,157,158 1,157,158 - - - - 9351 20 Lemon Avenue Elementary UPGRADE 1,611,957 - 805,979 805,979 - - - - 9344 20 Maryland Avenue Elem. UPGRADE 1,645,757 - 822,879 822,879 - - - - 9359 20 Murdock Elementary UPGRADE 1,749,778 - 874,889 874,889 - - - - 9330 20 Murray Manor Elementary UPGRADE 1,599,780 1,599,780 - - - - - - 9325 20 Northmont Elementary UPGRADE 1,555,269 1,555,269 - - - - - - 9324 20 Parkway Middle UPGRADE 3,085,464 3,085,464 - - - - - - 9386 20 Spring Valley Elementary UPGRADE 1,597,547 - 798,774 798,774 - - - - 9379 20 Spring Valley Middle UPGRADE 3,413,976 3,413,976 - - - - - -

290

Exhibit 12K-12 Schools Capital Projects

ProjectNo.

AgencyID [1]

Project Description [2]ProjectType

Total Project Cost

Costs Prior to FY 2003 [3]

FY 2003Costs

FY 2004Costs

FY 2005Costs

FY 2006Costs

FY 2007Costs

Costs After FY 2007

9208 21 Eucalyptus Hills Elementary UPGRADE 443,220 443,220 - - - - - - 9210 21 Lakeside Farms Elementary (Yr) UPGRADE 776,259 776,259 - - - - - - 9222 21 Lakeside Middle UPGRADE 539,612 539,612 - - - - - - 9233 21 Lakeview Elementary UPGRADE 1,074,028 1,074,028 - - - - - - 9217 21 Lindo Park Elementary Yr UPGRADE 96,159 96,159 - - - - - - 9231 21 Riverview Elementary UPGRADE 646,073 646,073 - - - - - - 9223 21 Tierra Del Sol Middle UPGRADE 2,586,381 2,586,381 - - - - - - 9255 21 Winter Gardens Elementary UPGRADE 474,880 474,880 - - - - - - 9398 22 Golden Avenue Elementary UPGRADE 1,168,708 1,168,708 - - - - - - 9402 22 Lemon Grove Middle UPGRADE 1,933,022 1,933,022 - - - - - - 9426 22 Monterey Heights Elementary UPGRADE 1,569,678 - 784,839 784,839 - - - - 9415 22 Mt. Vernon Elementary UPGRADE 954,424 - 477,212 477,212 - - - - 9413 22 Palm Middle UPGRADE 1,481,837 1,481,837 - - - - - - 9425 22 San Altos Elementary UPGRADE 1,294,718 - 647,359 647,359 - - - - 9411 22 San Miguel Elementary UPGRADE 1,319,851 1,319,851 - - - - - - 9385 22 Vista La Mesa Elementary UPGRADE 932,020 932,020 - - - - - - 9595 23 Clover Flats Elementary UPGRADE 270,752 - 135,376 135,376 - - - - 9586 23 Descanso Elementary UPGRADE 503,813 - 251,907 251,907 - - - - 9594 23 Jacumba Elementary UPGRADE 228,896 - 114,448 114,448 - - - - 9970 23 Mountain Empire Alternative UPGRADE - - - - - - - - 9970 23 Mountain Empire Alternative UPGRADE 495,849 - 247,925 247,925 - - - - 9596 23 Potrero Elementary UPGRADE 291,137 - 145,569 145,569 - - - - 9494 24 Olivewood Elementary UPGRADE 1,692,609 1,692,609 - - - - - - 9482 24 Palmer Way Elementary UPGRADE 1,760,657 1,760,657 - - - - - - 9033 25 El Camino High UPGRADE 15,962,791 - 5,320,930 5,320,930 5,320,930 - - - 9042 25 Laurel Elementary UPGRADE 1,708,905 - 854,453 854,453 - - - - 9683 25 Nichols Elementary School NEW 12,790,818 12,790,818 - - - - - - 9052 25 Oceanside High UPGRADE 26,288,958 - 8,762,986 8,762,986 8,762,986 - - - 9190 27 Creekside Elementary NEW 10,865,792 10,865,792 - - - - - - 9182 27 Garden Rd. Elementary UPGRADE 216,455 216,455 - - - - - - 9174 27 Meadowbrook Middle UPGRADE 3,661,547 3,661,547 - - - - - - 9680 27 Westview High NEW 55,550,276 37,033,517 18,516,759 - - - - - 9145 28 Hanson Lane Elementary UPGRADE 13,202,199 - 6,601,100 6,601,100 - - - - 9136 28 Montecito High UPGRADE 737,997 - 245,999 245,999 245,999 - - - 9144 28 Peirce (Olive E.) Junior High UPGRADE 2,355,472 - 1,177,736 1,177,736 - - - - 9135 28 Ramona Elementary UPGRADE 2,122,069 - 1,061,035 1,061,035 - - - - 9143 28 Ramona High Addition UPGRADE 1,546,710 - 515,570 515,570 515,570 - - - 9928 28 Unnamed Elementary Project @ Boundary Ave. NEW 14,460,594 - 7,230,297 7,230,297 - - - -

9356 30 003 ADAMS ELEMENTARY UPGRADE 118,110 - 118,110 - 9246 30 004 ALCOTT ELEMENTARY UPGRADE 703,241 - 703,241 - 9287 30 007 ANGIER ELEMENTARY UPGRADE 529,476 - 529,476 - 9445 30 009 AUDUBON ELEMENTARY UPGRADE - - - - 9460 30 011 BAKER ELEMENTARY UPGRADE 1,142,413 - 1,142,413 - 9474 30 013 BALBOA ELEMENTARY UPGRADE 304,651 - 304,651 - 9370 30 017 BARNARD ELEMENTARY UPGRADE 1,691,746 - 1,691,746 - 9632 30 019 LINDA VISTA ANNEX UPGRADE 28,606 - 28,606 -

291

Exhibit 12K-12 Schools Capital Projects

ProjectNo.

AgencyID [1]

Project Description [2]ProjectType

Total Project Cost

Costs Prior to FY 2003 [3]

FY 2003Costs

FY 2004Costs

FY 2005Costs

FY 2006Costs

FY 2007Costs

Costs After FY 2007

9328 30 021 BAY PARK ELEMENTARY UPGRADE 948,433 - 948,433 - 9293 30 023 BAYVIEW TERRACE ELEMENTARY UPGRADE 779,708 - 779,708 - 9274 30 029 BIRD ROCK ELEMENTARY UPGRADE 531,269 - 531,269 - 9364 30 031 BIRNEY ELEMENTARY UPGRADE 1,692,639 - 1,692,639 - 9463 30 033 BOONE ELEMENTARY UPGRADE 1,813,759 - 1,813,759 - 9430 30 037 BROOKLYN ELEMENTARY UPGRADE 767,676 - 767,676 - 9456 30 039 BURBANK ELEMENTARY UPGRADE 73,446 - 73,446 - 9428 30 041 CABRILLO ELEMENTARY UPGRADE 1,569,627 - 1,569,627 - 9263 30 043 CADMAN ELEMENTARY UPGRADE - - - - 9342 30 055 CARSON ELEMENTARY UPGRADE 1,351,916 - 1,351,916 - 9401 30 057 CARVER ELEMENTARY UPGRADE 1,488,213 - 1,488,213 - 9377 30 059 CENTRAL ELEMENTARY UPGRADE 891,516 - 891,516 - 9470 30 060 CHAVEZ ELEMENTARY UPGRADE - - - - 9320 30 061 CHESTERTON ELEMENTARY UPGRADE 956,078 - 956,078 - 9442 30 063 CHOLLAS ELEMENTARY UPGRADE 1,484,222 - 1,484,222 - 9354 30 065 CLAY ELEMENTARY UPGRADE 288,703 - 288,703 - 9318 30 073 CROWN POINT ELEMENTARY UPGRADE 1,280,157 - 1,280,157 - 9298 30 075 CUBBERLEY ELEMENTARY UPGRADE - - - - 9219 30 077 CURIE ELEMENTARY UPGRADE 149,322 - 149,322 - 9290 30 078 DAILARD ELEMENTARY UPGRADE - - - - 9391 30 079 DARNALL CHARTER SCHOOL UPGRADE 350,251 - 350,251 - 9410 30 080 DANA UPGRADE 4,172,824 - 4,172,824 - 9384 30 085 DEWEY ELEMENTARY UPGRADE 278,263 - 278,263 - 9212 30 087 DOYLE ELEMENTARY UPGRADE 68,069 - 68,069 - 9376 30 089 EDISON ELEMENTARY UPGRADE 149,815 - 149,815 - 9688 30 090 ELLEN BROWNING SCRIPPS NEW 85,032 - 85,032 - 9465 30 091 EMERSON/BANDINI ELEMENTARY UPGRADE - - - - 9436 30 093 ENCANTO ELEMENTARY UPGRADE 133,239 - 133,239 - 9373 30 095 EUCLID ELEMENTARY SCHOOL UPGRADE 121,064 - 121,064 - 9248 30 103 FIELD ELEMENTARY UPGRADE 977,452 - 977,452 - 9332 30 105 FLETCHER ELEMENTARY UPGRADE 1,692,741 - 1,692,741 - 9381 30 107 FLORENCE ELEMENTARY UPGRADE 224,233 - 224,233 - 9624 30 109 FORWARD ELEMENTARY UPGRADE 15,623 - 15,623 - 9323 30 111 FOSTER ELEMENTARY UPGRADE 1,014,898 - 1,014,898 - 9360 30 113 FRANKLIN ELEMENTARY UPGRADE 185,254 - 185,254 - 9448 30 115 FREESE ELEMENTARY UPGRADE 1,378,809 - 1,378,809 - 9375 30 117 FREMONT ELEMENTARY UPGRADE 1,559 - 1,559 - 9455 30 119 FULTON ELEMENTARY UPGRADE 710,683 - 710,683 - 9286 30 121 GAGE ELEMENTARY UPGRADE 1,338,241 - 1,338,241 - 9471 30 123 BETHUNE ELEMENTARY UPGRADE 332,141 - 332,141 - 9612 30 124 GARFIELD ELEMENTARY UPGRADE 16,977 - 16,977 - 9479 30 125 ZAMORANO ELEMENTARY UPGRADE - - - - 9380 30 127 GRANT ELEMENTARY UPGRADE 1,156,657 - 1,156,657 - 9312 30 131 GREEN ELEMENTARY UPGRADE - - - - 9197 30 134 HAGE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL UPGRADE 184,493 - 184,493 - 9407 30 135 HAMILTON ELEMENTARY UPGRADE 193,102 - 193,102 - 9285 30 136 HANCOCK ELEMENTARY UPGRADE 397,343 - 397,343 -

292

Exhibit 12K-12 Schools Capital Projects

ProjectNo.

AgencyID [1]

Project Description [2]ProjectType

Total Project Cost

Costs Prior to FY 2003 [3]

FY 2003Costs

FY 2004Costs

FY 2005Costs

FY 2006Costs

FY 2007Costs

Costs After FY 2007

9347 30 139 HARDY ELEMENTARY UPGRADE - - - - 9235 30 141 HAWTHORNE ELEMENTARY UPGRADE 185,272 - 185,272 - 9336 30 143 HEARST ELEMENTARY UPGRADE - - - - 9275 30 147 HOLMES ELEMENTARY UPGRADE 478,716 - 478,716 - 9439 30 149 HORTON ELEMENTARY UPGRADE 25,551 - 25,551 - 9361 30 153 JACKSON ELEMENTARY UPGRADE 554,683 - 554,683 - 9387 30 155 JEFFERSON ELEMENTARY UPGRADE 297,314 - 297,314 - 9204 30 156 JERABEK ELEMENTARY UPGRADE 19,608 - 19,608 - 9432 30 157 JOHNSON ELEMENTARY UPGRADE 427,395 - 427,395 - 9315 30 159 JONES ELEMENTARY UPGRADE - - - - 9322 30 161 JUAREZ ELEMENTARY UPGRADE 419,171 - 419,171 - 9446 30 162 KIMBROUGH ELEMENTARY UPGRADE - - - - 9454 30 164 KENNEDY ELEMENTARY UPGRADE - - - - 9464 30 165 KNOX ELEMENTARY SCHOOL UPGRADE - - - - 9242 30 166 KUMEYAAY ELEMENTARY UPGRADE 1,286 - 1,286 - 9261 30 167 LAFAYETTE ELEMENTARY UPGRADE - - - - 9234 30 169 LA JOLLA ELEMENTARY UPGRADE - - - - 9489 30 171 LEE ELEMENTARY UPGRADE 37,283 - 37,283 - 9321 30 173 LINDA VISTA ELEMENTARY UPGRADE 606,222 - 606,222 - 9267 30 175 LINDBERGH/SCHWEITZER ELEM UPGRADE 417,000 - 417,000 - 9457 30 177 LOGAN ELEMENTARY UPGRADE 145,679 - 145,679 - 9397 30 179 LOMA PORTAL ELEMENTARY UPGRADE 325,530 - 325,530 - 9335 30 181 LONGFELLOW ELEMENTARY UPGRADE 323,415 - 323,415 - 9453 30 185 PERKINS ELEMENTARY UPGRADE 190,710 - 190,710 - 9237 30 188 MACDOWELL ELEMENTARY UPGRADE 260,617 - 260,617 - 9394 30 195 MARSHALL ELEMENTARY UPGRADE 435,989 - 435,989 - 9314 30 197 MARVIN ELEMENTARY UPGRADE 1,717,915 - 1,717,915 - 9206 30 199 MASON ELEMENTARY UPGRADE 493,449 - 493,449 - 9198 30 201 HICKMAN ELEMENTARY UPGRADE 612,261 - 612,261 - 9404 30 203 MCKINLEY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL UPGRADE 776,756 - 776,756 - 9438 30 205 MEAD ELEMENTARY UPGRADE 150,100 - 150,100 - 9269 30 206 MILLER ELEMENTARY UPGRADE 286,150 - 286,150 - 9654 30 208 NORTH PARK ELEMENTARY UPGRADE 923 - 923 - 9202 30 210 MIRAMAR RANCH ELEMENTARY UPGRADE 712,487 - 712,487 - 9349 30 214 TUBMAN VILLAGE CHARTER SCHL UPGRADE 352,591 - 352,591 - 9195 30 217 ERICSON ELEMENTARY UPGRADE 752,487 - 752,487 - 9462 30 218 NYE ELEMENTARY UPGRADE 20,991 - 20,991 - 9196 30 219 SANDBURG ELEMENTARY UPGRADE - - - - 9414 30 223 OAK PARK ELEMENTARY UPGRADE - - - - 9393 30 225 OCEAN BEACH ELEMENTARY UPGRADE 75,493 - 75,493 - 9279 30 227 PACIFIC BEACH ELEMENTARY UPGRADE 103,041 - 103,041 - 9480 30 229 PARADISE HILLS ELEMENTARY UPGRADE 1,802,555 - 1,802,555 - 9388 30 230 ROSA PARKS ELEMENTARY NEW - - - - 9484 30 235 PENN ELEMENTARY UPGRADE 567,340 - 567,340 - 9478 30 237 PERRY ELEMENTARY UPGRADE 939,284 - 939,284 - 9333 30 239 REVERE DEVELOPMENT CTR UPGRADE 18,403 - 18,403 - 9390 30 243 ROLANDO PARK ELEMENTARY UPGRADE 508,213 - 508,213 -

293

Exhibit 12K-12 Schools Capital Projects

ProjectNo.

AgencyID [1]

Project Description [2]ProjectType

Total Project Cost

Costs Prior to FY 2003 [3]

FY 2003Costs

FY 2004Costs

FY 2005Costs

FY 2006Costs

FY 2007Costs

Costs After FY 2007

9273 30 247 ROSS ELEMENTARY UPGRADE 110,918 - 110,918 - 9423 30 249 ROWAN ELEMENTARY UPGRADE 511,847 - 511,847 - 9688 30 251 SCRIPPS ELEMENTARY UPGRADE 6,630 - 6,630 - 9258 30 253 SEQUOIA ELEMENTARY UPGRADE 573,554 - 573,554 - 9278 30 255 SESSIONS ELEMENTARY UPGRADE 1,193,887 - 1,193,887 - 9444 30 259 SHERMAN ELEMENTARY UPGRADE 103,097 - 103,097 - 9412 30 261 SILVER GATE ELEMENTARY UPGRADE 248,671 - 248,671 - 9227 30 263 SPRECKELS ELEMENTARY UPGRADE 5,758 - 5,758 - 9443 30 267 KING ELEMENTARY UPGRADE 861,531 - 861,531 - 9421 30 269 SUNSET VIEW ELEMENTARY UPGRADE 1,069,156 - 1,069,156 - 9256 30 274 TIERRASANTA ELEMENTARY UPGRADE 1,270,360 - 1,270,360 - 9296 30 277 TOLER ELEMENTARY UPGRADE 262,417 - 262,417 - 9215 30 279 TORREY PINES ELEMENTARY UPGRADE 318,488 - 318,488 - 9452 30 283 VALENCIA PARK ELEMENTARY UPGRADE 146,431 - 146,431 - 9353 30 284 VISTA GRANDE ELEMENTARY UPGRADE 199,274 - 199,274 - 9200 30 285 WALKER ELEMENTARY UPGRADE 1,403,511 - 1,403,511 - 9422 30 287 WASHINGTON ELEMENTARY NEW - - - - 9424 30 289 WEBSTER ELEMENTARY UPGRADE 72,875 - 72,875 - 9288 30 291 WEGEFORTH ELEMENTARY UPGRADE 49,118 - 49,118 - 9317 30 293 BENCHLEY/WEINBERGER ELEMENTARY UPGRADE 32,382 - 32,382 -

9239 30 295 WHITMAN ELEMENTARY UPGRADE 167,687 - 167,687 - 9472 30 302 BELL JUNIOR HIGH UPGRADE 1,865,028 - 1,865,028 - 9199 30 303 CHALLENGER MIDDLE SCHOOL UPGRADE 49,622 - 49,622 - 9383 30 304 CORREIA JUNIOR HIGH UPGRADE 200,014 - 200,014 - 9238 30 307 KROC MIDDLE SCHOOL UPGRADE 2,245,037 - 2,245,037 - 9309 30 311 LEWIS MIDDLE SCHOOL UPGRADE 550,098 - 550,098 - 9365 30 312 MANN MIDDLE SCHOOL UPGRADE 3,532,832 - 3,532,832 - 9283 30 313 MARSTON MIDDLE SCHOOL UPGRADE 1,120,878 - 1,120,878 - 9461 30 315 MEMORIAL ACADEMY CHARTER UPGRADE 965,974 - 965,974 - 9313 30 316 MONTGOMERY MIDDLE SCHOOL UPGRADE 1,265,354 - 1,265,354 - 9247 30 317 MUIRLANDS MIDDLE SCHOOL UPGRADE 1,303,508 - 1,303,508 - 9451 30 319 O'FARRELL CHARTER UPGRADE - - - - 9295 30 320 PACIFIC BEACH MIDDLE SCHOOL UPGRADE 92,746 - 92,746 - 9299 30 321 PERSHING MIDDLE SCHOOL UPGRADE 300,117 - 300,117 - 9396 30 322 MONROE CLARK MIDDLE SCHOOL UPGRADE 45,202 - 45,202 - 9400 30 324 ROOSEVELT JUNIOR HIGH UPGRADE - - - - 9221 30 325 STANDLEY MIDDLE SCHOOL UPGRADE 30,972 - 30,972 - 9297 30 326 TAFT MIDDLE SCHOOL UPGRADE 1,483,714 - 1,483,714 - 9257 30 327 DE PORTOLA MIDDLE SCHOOL UPGRADE 1,270,917 - 1,270,917 - 9207 30 328 WANGENHEIM MIDDLE SCHOOL UPGRADE 156,294 - 156,294 - 9367 30 329 WILSON MIDDLE SCHOOL UPGRADE 1,095,435 - 1,095,435 - 9280 30 332 CLAIREMONT HIGH UPGRADE 2,822,368 - 2,822,368 - 9372 30 334 CRAWFORD HIGH UPGRADE 456,100 - 456,100 - 9435 30 335 GOMPERS SECONDARY UPGRADE 737,813 - 737,813 - 9310 30 336 HENRY HIGH UPGRADE - - - - 9362 30 338 HOOVER HIGH UPGRADE 3,617,073 - 3,617,073 -

294

Exhibit 12K-12 Schools Capital Projects

ProjectNo.

AgencyID [1]

Project Description [2]ProjectType

Total Project Cost

Costs Prior to FY 2003 [3]

FY 2003Costs

FY 2004Costs

FY 2005Costs

FY 2006Costs

FY 2007Costs

Costs After FY 2007

9300 30 340 KEARNY HIGH UPGRADE 1,154,911 - 1,154,911 - 9243 30 342 LA JOLLA HIGH UPGRADE 4,920,250 - 4,920,250 - 9450 30 344 LINCOLN HIGH NEW 2,179,199 - 2,179,199 - 9252 30 346 MADISON HIGH UPGRADE 305,747 - 305,747 - 9201 30 349 MIRA MESA HIGH UPGRADE 7,394,176 - 7,394,176 - 9304 30 350 MISSION BAY HIGH UPGRADE 1,930,642 - 1,930,642 - 9459 30 352 MORSE HIGH UPGRADE 3,471,659 - 3,471,659 - 9399 30 354 POINT LOMA HIGH UPGRADE 5,531,334 - 5,531,334 - 9214 30 355 UNIVERSITY CITY HIGH SCHOOL UPGRADE 289,802 - 289,802 - 9429 30 356 SAN DIEGO HIGH UPGRADE - - - - 9262 30 357 SERRA HIGH UPGRADE 1,419,797 - 1,419,797 - 9203 30 359 SCRIPPS RANCH HIGH SCHOOL UPGRADE 650,597 - 650,597 - 9433 30 361 GARFIELD HIGH SCHOOL UPGRADE 32,593 - 32,593 - 9346 30 362 TWAIN JR-SR HIGH SCHOOL UPGRADE 1,994,107 - 1,994,107 - 9277 30 364 RILEY SCHOOL UPGRADE 212,019 - 212,019 - 9437 30 365 KEILLER MIDDLE SCHOOL UPGRADE 2,307,672 - 2,307,672 - 9266 30 367 FARB MIDDLE SCHOOL UPGRADE 959,592 - 959,592 - 9481 30 368 SAN DIEGO SCPA UPGRADE 664,804 - 664,804 - 9289 30 369 MUIR ALTERNATIVE UPGRADE 18,636 - 18,636 - 9950 30 626 GOLDEN HILL ELEM/PROP MM NEW 10,239,284 - 10,239,284 - 9443 30 627 KING/LOGAN/PERKINS/PROP MM UPGRADE 93,259 - 93,259 - 9444 30 628 SHERMAN/PROP MM UPGRADE 18,672 - 18,672 - 9454 30 629 KENNEDY/KNOX/PROP MM UPGRADE - - - - 9206 30 631 MASON HAGE AREA NEW 73,515 - 73,515 - 9356 30 694 ADAMS/FRANKLIN ELEM/PROP MM NEW 102,095 - 102,095 - 9956 30 695 CHEROKEE PT ELEM/PROP MM NEW 3,023,112 - 3,023,112 - 9381 30 696 FLORENCE GR. - JOYNER ELEM/PROP MM NEW 65,076 - 65,076 -

9373 30 697 EUCLID ELEM/PROP MM NEW 26,260,705 - 26,260,705 - 9361 30 698 JACKSON/MARSHALL ELEM/PROP MM NEW 51,171 - 51,171 - 9960 30 748 SCRIPPS RANCH #3 MIDDLE NEW 5,262,570 - 5,262,570 - 9998 30 999 PROP MM FY04 AND AFTER UPGRADE 882,900,000 - - 334,000,000 289,600,000 131,700,000 96,300,000 31,300,0009246 30 Alcott Elementary UPGRADE 1,581,162 - 790,581 790,581 - - - - 9445 30 Audubon Elementary UPGRADE 2,057,404 - - 1,371,603 685,801 - - - 9460 30 Baker Elementary UPGRADE 3,534,083 - - 2,356,055 1,178,028 - - - 9328 30 Bay Park Elementary UPGRADE 1,855,664 - 927,832 927,832 - - - - 9274 30 Bird Rock Elementary UPGRADE 1,448,338 1,448,338 - - - - - - 9364 30 Birney Elementary UPGRADE 2,569,150 - - 1,712,767 856,383 - - - 9463 30 Boone Elementary UPGRADE 2,793,392 - 1,396,696 1,396,696 - - - - 9428 30 Cabrillo Elementary UPGRADE 1,045,799 1,045,799 - - - - - - 9263 30 Cadman Elementary UPGRADE 985,234 - 492,617 492,617 - - - - 9342 30 Carson Elementary UPGRADE 332,475 332,475 - - - - - - 9470 30 Cesar Chavez Elementary UPGRADE 1,572,254 1,572,254 - - - - - - 9280 30 Clairemont Senior High UPGRADE 2,174,379 1,449,586 724,793 - - - - - 9354 30 Clay Elementary UPGRADE 1,285,692 - 642,846 642,846 - - - - 9383 30 Correia Junior High UPGRADE 2,319,049 2,319,049 - - - - - - 9372 30 Crawford Senior High UPGRADE 11,043,322 - - 3,681,107 3,681,107 3,681,107 - -

295

Exhibit 12K-12 Schools Capital Projects

ProjectNo.

AgencyID [1]

Project Description [2]ProjectType

Total Project Cost

Costs Prior to FY 2003 [3]

FY 2003Costs

FY 2004Costs

FY 2005Costs

FY 2006Costs

FY 2007Costs

Costs After FY 2007

9298 30 Cubberley Elementary UPGRADE 1,204,780 - 602,390 602,390 - - - - 9290 30 Dailard Elementary UPGRADE 1,987,712 - - 1,325,141 662,571 - - - 9465 30 Emerson/Bandini Elementary UPGRADE 1,600,534 1,600,534 - - - - - - 9436 30 Encanto Elementary UPGRADE 502,100 502,100 - - - - - - 9373 30 Euclid Elementary UPGRADE 1,543,284 1,543,284 - - - - - - 9248 30 Field Elementary UPGRADE 1,433,869 - 716,935 716,935 - - - - 9332 30 Fletcher Elementary UPGRADE 1,247,428 - 623,714 623,714 - - - - 9323 30 Foster Elementary UPGRADE 1,520,715 - 760,358 760,358 - - - - 9360 30 Franklin Elementary UPGRADE 315,403 315,403 - - - - - - 9448 30 Freese Elementary UPGRADE 1,893,675 - - 1,262,450 631,225 - - - 9455 30 Fulton Elementary UPGRADE 2,569,992 - - 1,713,328 856,664 - - - 9286 30 Gage Elementary UPGRADE 2,225,501 - 1,112,751 1,112,751 - - - - 9380 30 Grant Elementary UPGRADE 2,059,248 - - 1,372,832 686,416 - - - 9312 30 Green Elementary UPGRADE 1,842,822 - - 1,228,548 614,274 - - - 9347 30 Hardy Elementary UPGRADE 1,541,890 - - 1,027,927 513,963 - - - 9336 30 Hearst Elementary UPGRADE 1,697,932 - - 1,131,955 565,977 - - - 9310 30 Henry Senior High UPGRADE 7,098,533 - 2,366,178 2,366,178 2,366,178 - - - 9362 30 Hoover Senior High UPGRADE 5,095,289 - 1,698,430 1,698,430 1,698,430 - - - 9439 30 Horton Elementary UPGRADE 4,870,502 - 2,435,251 2,435,251 - - - - 9315 30 Jones Elementary UPGRADE 1,282,150 - 641,075 641,075 - - - - 9454 30 Kennedy Elementary UPGRADE 3,888,534 - 1,944,267 1,944,267 - - - - 9446 30 Kimbrough Elementary UPGRADE 916,920 916,920 - - - - - - 9464 30 Knox Elementary UPGRADE 1,307,852 - 653,926 653,926 - - - - 9234 30 La Jolla Elementary UPGRADE 1,612,701 - 806,351 806,351 - - - - 9261 30 Lafayette Elementary UPGRADE 2,538,843 - 1,269,422 1,269,422 - - - - 9309 30 Lewis Junior High UPGRADE 801,906 801,906 - - - - - - 9252 30 Madison Senior High UPGRADE 6,790,995 - 2,263,665 2,263,665 2,263,665 - - - 9194 30 Marshall Middle School UPGRADE 2,144,448 2,144,448 - - - - - - 9314 30 Marvin Elementary UPGRADE 1,583,866 - 791,933 791,933 - - - - 9206 30 Mason Elementary UPGRADE 2,094,030 - - 1,396,020 698,010 - - - 9304 30 Mission Bay Senior High UPGRADE 6,382,840 6,382,840 - - - - - - 9443 30 ML King Elementary UPGRADE 644,061 - - 429,374 214,687 - - - 9459 30 Morse Senior High UPGRADE 2,615,475 - - 871,825 871,825 871,825 - - 9451 30 O Farrell Community UPGRADE 3,289,840 - - 2,193,227 1,096,613 - - - 9414 30 Oak Park Elementary UPGRADE 2,100,802 - 1,050,401 1,050,401 - - - - 9393 30 Ocean Beach Elementary UPGRADE 447,599 447,599 - - - - - - 9279 30 Pacific Beach Elementary UPGRADE 261,998 - - 174,665 87,333 - - - 9480 30 Paradise Hills Elementary UPGRADE 900,763 - - 600,509 300,254 - - - 9484 30 Penn Elementary UPGRADE 2,573,658 - - 1,715,772 857,886 - - - 9478 30 Perry Elementary Yr UPGRADE 2,507,335 - - 1,671,557 835,778 - - - 9400 30 Roosevelt Junior High UPGRADE 3,587,354 - 1,793,677 1,793,677 - - - - 9388 30 Rosa Parks Elementary NEW 2,709,536 2,709,536 - - - - - - 9273 30 Ross Elementary UPGRADE 519,257 - 259,629 259,629 - - - - 9429 30 San Diego Senior High UPGRADE 20,204,362 - 6,734,787 6,734,787 6,734,787 - - - 9196 30 Sandburg Elementary UPGRADE 2,137,123 - - 1,424,749 712,374 - - - 9421 30 Sunset View Elementary UPGRADE 1,945,687 0 - 1,297,125 648,562 - - - 9452 30 Valencia Park Elementary UPGRADE 363,483 363,483 - - - - - -

296

Exhibit 12K-12 Schools Capital Projects

ProjectNo.

AgencyID [1]

Project Description [2]ProjectType

Total Project Cost

Costs Prior to FY 2003 [3]

FY 2003Costs

FY 2004Costs

FY 2005Costs

FY 2006Costs

FY 2007Costs

Costs After FY 2007

9422 30 Washington Elementary NEW 590,030 590,030 - - - - - - 9479 30 Zamorano (Agustin Vincente) UPGRADE 2,040,070 0 - 1,360,047 680,023 - - - 9133 31 Oak Crest Junior High UPGRADE 2,919,798 - 1,459,899 1,459,899 - - - - 9137 31 San Dieguito High UPGRADE 4,877,674 - 1,625,891 1,625,891 1,625,891 - - - 9178 31 Torrey Pines High UPGRADE 3,296,153 2,197,435 1,098,718 - - - - - 9104 32 Carrillo Elementary NEW 1,935,648 1,935,648 - - - - - - 9089 32 Dunn (Alvin M.) Elementary UPGRADE 1,827,531 1,827,531 - - - - - - 9675 32 Mission Hills High School NEW 84,502,552 - 28,167,517 28,167,517 28,167,517 - - - 9079 32 Richland Elementary UPGRADE 1,662,431 1,662,431 - - - - - - 9681 32 San Elijo Middle School NEW 32,107,076 - 16,053,538 16,053,538 - - - - 9100 32 San Marcos High UPGRADE 5,938,400 3,958,933 1,979,467 - - - - - 9084 32 San Marcos Middle UPGRADE 6,977,911 - 3,488,956 3,488,956 - - - - 9115 33 San Pasqual Union UPGRADE 14,666,291 14,666,291 - - - - - - 9565 34 Smythe Elementary UPGRADE 2,300,494 2,300,494 - - - - - - 9568 34 Sunset Elementary UPGRADE 11,859,652 - 5,929,826 5,929,826 - - - - 9155 36 Skyline Elementary UPGRADE 1,509,525 1,509,525 - - - - - - 9152 36 Solana Vista Elementary UPGRADE 1,203,768 1,203,768 - - - - - - 9555 37 Emory Elementary UPGRADE 1,986,689 1,986,689 - - - - - - 9553 37 Harbor View Elementary UPGRADE 1,353,733 1,353,733 - - - - - - 9550 37 Imperial Beach Elementary UPGRADE 1,432,523 1,432,523 - - - - - - 9542 37 West View Elementary UPGRADE 1,027,328 1,027,328 - - - - - - 9501 39 Bonita Vista High UPGRADE 1,790,198 1,193,465 596,733 - - - - - 9532 39 Castle Park High School UPGRADE 383,064 255,376 127,688 - - - - - 9534 39 Castle Park Middle UPGRADE 587,526 587,526 - - - - - - 9512 39 Chula Vista Junior High UPGRADE 1,695,015 - - 1,130,010 565,005 - - - 9523 39 Chula Vista Senior High UPGRADE 1,303,851 - 434,617 434,617 434,617 - - - 9487 39 Granger Junior High UPGRADE 1,226,726 1,226,726 - - - - - - 9682 39 High School #12 (San Ysidro High) NEW 46,247,218 15,415,739 15,415,739 15,415,739 - - - - 9915 39 High School No. 11 - Otay Ranch NEW 51,858,472 - 17,286,157 17,286,157 17,286,157 - - - 9517 39 Hilltop Junior High UPGRADE 651,364 651,364 - - - - - - 9509 39 Hilltop Senior High UPGRADE 1,355,274 903,516 451,758 - - - - - 9556 39 Mar Vista Middle UPGRADE 1,156,290 1,156,290 - - - - - - 9548 39 Mar Vista Senior High UPGRADE 2,340,442 - 1,560,295 780,147 - - - - 9543 39 Montgomery Senior High UPGRADE 817,750 545,167 272,583 - - - - - 9491 39 National City Junior High UPGRADE 342,834 342,834 - - - - - - 9535 39 Palomar High UPGRADE 1,014,470 676,313 338,157 - - - - - 9562 39 Southwest Senior High UPGRADE 574,788 383,192 191,596 - - - - - 9496 39 Sweetwater High School UPGRADE 1,197,781 798,521 399,260 - - - - - 9684 41 Lilac Elementary NEW 11,489,918 - 5,744,959 5,744,959 - - - - 9629 41 Valley Center Elementary-Lower UPGRADE 1,829,617 - 914,809 914,809 - - - - 9023 41 Valley Center Elementary-Upper UPGRADE 1,746,126 - 873,063 873,063 - - - - 9031 42 Bobier Elementary UPGRADE 1,022,599 - 511,300 511,300 - - - - 9040 42 California Avenue Elem. UPGRADE 665,269 - 332,635 332,635 - - - - 9057 42 Casita Elementary UPGRADE 1,829,312 - 914,656 914,656 - - - - 9912 42 Continuation High School # 2 NEW 1,602,407 - 534,136 534,136 534,136 - - - 9059 42 Crestview Elementary UPGRADE 79,954 - 39,977 39,977 - - - -

297

Exhibit 12K-12 Schools Capital Projects

ProjectNo.

AgencyID [1]

Project Description [2]ProjectType

Total Project Cost

Costs Prior to FY 2003 [3]

FY 2003Costs

FY 2004Costs

FY 2005Costs

FY 2006Costs

FY 2007Costs

Costs After FY 2007

9908 42 Elementary (Future Elementary School #3) @ Foothill & Oak

NEW 13,533,482 - 6,766,741 6,766,741 - - - -

9974 42 Elementary (Future Elementary School #4) NEW 1,112,614 - 556,307 556,307 - - - - 9975 42 Elementary (Future Elementary School #5) NEW 1,119,424 - 559,712 559,712 - - - - 9909 42 Elementary (Future Elementary School #6) @

Marilyn & NorthNEW 18,482,922 18,482,922 - - - - - -

9910 42 Elementary (Hannalei Property #1) NEW 13,272,597 - 8,848,398 4,424,199 - - - - 9973 42 Future High NEW 4,738,336 - 1,579,445 1,579,445 1,579,445 - - - 9913 42 Future Middle (Huntalas Prop.) NEW 6,224,537 - 3,112,269 3,112,269 - - - - 9050 42 Grapevine Elementary UPGRADE 1,590,706 - 795,353 795,353 - - - - 9617 42 Guajome Park Acad. Charter UPGRADE 39,195,568 - 19,597,784 19,597,784 - - - - 9048 42 Lincoln Middle UPGRADE 1,718,376 - 859,188 859,188 - - - - 9065 42 Madison Middle UPGRADE 16,990,320 16,990,320 - - - - - - 9055 42 Monte Vista Elementary UPGRADE 1,686,229 - 843,115 843,115 - - - - 9927 42 Temple Heights Elementary NEW 14,686,385 - 9,790,923 4,895,462 - - - - 9041 42 Vista Academy Of Visual & Performing Arts UPGRADE 94,979 94,979 - - - - - -

9028 42 Vista High UPGRADE 13,267,112 - 4,422,371 4,422,371 4,422,371 - - - 9047 42 Washington Middle UPGRADE 360,764 - 180,382 180,382 - - - -

Total 2,246,364,601 353,370,282 530,085,785 704,827,375 394,228,227 136,252,932 96,300,000 31,300,000

Source: California Office of Public School Construction, State Allocation Board; San Diego Unified School District (Proposition MM).1. K-12 school districts; see Exhibit 3.2. All are subregional projects. San Diego Unified School District's Proposition MM projects are shown in capital letters, preceded by a 3-digit

code; all other projects are from the database of the state Office of Public School Construction (OPSC). Where the same school appears inboth the Proposition MM list and the OPSC list, local expenditures have been adjusted to eliminate duplication. The Proposition MM list contains school-specific expenditure plans only for FY 2003. Total planned expenditures are shown for FY 2004 and later (see Project No. 9998).

3. Costs prior to FY 2003 apply only to projects listed in the April 2003 version of the OPSC database. Expenditures under Proposition MM prior to FY 2003 and expenditures for schools not shown in the OPSC list are not included. The OPSC database shows total project cost, state and local contributions, and funding release (warrant issue) date. The followingassumptions were used to roughly approximate expenditures for individual fiscal years:

(1) Construction is assumed to begin 90 days after fund release.(2) Construction of an elementary or middle school is assumed to require an average of 18 months.(3) Construction of a high school is assumed to require an average of 36 months.(4) For an elementary or middle school, if funds are released during the first half of a fiscal year (July to December), then 2/3 of total

budget is assumed to be expended during that fiscal year, with the remainder in the next fiscal year. If funds are released duringthe second half of a fiscal year, then 1/2 of total budget is assumed to be expended during that fiscal year and the remainder during the next fiscal year.

(5) For a high school, if funds are released during the first half of a fiscal year, then 1/3 of total budget is assumed to be expendedduring that fiscal year, 1/3 during the next, and 1/3 during the year after next. If funds are released during the second half of a fiscal year, then 1/3 of total budget is assumed to be expended during the next fiscal year, 1/3 during the year after next, and1/3 during the following year.

298

299

Exhibit 13 Regional Population Outpaces Growth in K-12 School-Age Population,

Projected Growth 2003 – 2030

Population Increase, 30%

Base Year 2003

School-Age Pop, 11%

-25%

25%

75%

2000 2010 2020 2030

Source: SANDAG, 2030 Final Forecast

Note 1. This is a comparison of projected growths in total population and in school-age (5-17) population of San Diego County.

Note 2. Population in 2001 was 2,856,000; projected population in 2030 is 3,855,085. Total school-age population in 2001 was 533,500 (public school enrollment was 494,588); projected school-age population in 2030 is 595,600.

Note 3. Base year 2003 is assumed for population and school-age population (K-12). 2003 numbers are extrapolated from 2001 enrollment.

300

Exhibit 14 Annual Community College Enrollment Population

and Projected Growth 2003 – 2030

Population Increase, 30%

Base Year 2003

Increase in CC Enrollment,

48%

-50%

0%

50%

100%

2000 2010 2020 2030

Source: SANDAG, 2030 Final Forecast; 2002 DOF Enrollment Estimate Series; SANDAG Projections of enrollment from 2011-2030 based on DOF State Estimates to 2030.

Note 1. This is a comparison of projected growths in total population and community college enrollment in San Diego County

Note 2. Population in 2002 was 2,908,500; projected population in 2030 is 3,855,085. Community College enrollment in 2002 was 147,826; projected enrollment in 2030 is 222,600.

Note 3. Base year 2003 is assumed for both populations and community college enrollment. 2003 numbers are linearly extrapolated from 2002 numbers.

301

Exhibit 15 Annual UC and CSU Enrollment and Population,

Projected Growth 2003 – 2030

Population Increase, 30%

Base Year 2003

Increase in University Enrollment,

57%

-50%

0%

50%

100%

2000 2010 2020 2030

Source: SANDAG, 2030 Final Forecast; 2002 DOF Enrollment Estimate Series; SANDAG Projections of enrollment from 2011-2030 based on DOF State Estimates to 2030.

Note 1. This is a comparison of projected growths in total population and four year university enrollment (graduate and undergraduate) in SD County

Note 2. Population in 2002 was 2,908,500; projected population in 2030 is 3,855,085. Four Year University enrollment in 2002 was 65,510; projected enrollment in 2030 is 104,880.

Note 3. Base year 2003 is assumed for both populations and four-year university enrollment. 2003 numbers are linearly extrapolated from 2002 numbers.

DRAFT IRIS TECHNICAL APPENDIX [A.8] PARKS AND OPEN SPACE

305

DRAFT IRIS TECHNICAL APPENDIX [A.8] PARKS AND OPEN SPACE

PARK AND RECREATION FACILITIES

I. Introduction / Description of Infrastructure System

San Diego County contains approximately 1,201,676 acres of parks, beach and open space, representing about 44 percent of the total area of the county (Table 1).1 Of these parks and open spaces, nearly one-half are owned by the State of California, about 40 percent by federal agencies, seven percent by local jurisdictions and agencies, and three percent by private organizations.

Table 1. San Diego County Parks and Open Space

Local Parks - Active1 4,866 Ac

Local Parks - Passive2 77,309

Beach3 - Active 1,050

Beach3 - Passive 202

State Parks4 587,362

Federal - National Forest, BLM, Other4 488,933

Private4 41,954

Total 1,201,676 Ac

Source: SANDAG's Inventory of Land Use and Land Ownership, 2003 1. Includes developed or landscaped parks, such as ball fields. 2. Natural open spaces. 3. Including public and private beach areas. 4. Excluding beaches.

Park and recreation infrastructure supports the implementation of the Regional Comprehensive Plan (RCP) in multiple ways: (1) recreation, (2) public health and safety, (3) preservation of natural and cultural resources, and (4) urban design and scenic and visual enjoyment. For purposes of the IRIS, large passive parks and open space preserves are classified as “regional” facilities, which provide benefits to residents of the entire region. Most active parks and recreation areas are

1 From SANDAG’s Inventory of Land Use and Land Ownership, 2003. Total area of the county is 2,712,479 acres.

306

considered to be “subregional” facilities, since they provide services to local communities.2 Exhibit 1 shows the location of regional parks and principal beach areas in San Diego County.

This section focuses primarily on active parks; the following section addresses sand replenishment at local beaches; and the last section discusses habitat conservation at passive parks and open space preserves.

II. Responsibilities and Controlling Legislation

Agencies

Local governments in San Diego region own over 82,000 acres of park and recreation areas, of which the City of San Diego and the County of San Diego own the largest amounts. San Diego Unified Port District also owns important park areas around San Diego Bay. Local jurisdictions commonly have park and recreation departments which are responsible for managing and maintaining park lands and for acquiring and developing additional areas to serve the needs of new population.

The California Department of Parks and Recreation and other state agencies own over 587,000 acres of land in San Diego County, including Anza-Borrego Desert State Park, Ocotillo Wells State Vehicular Recreation Area, Rancho Cuyamaca State Park, and others. The U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management and other federal agencies own and manage 489,000 acres of open space land in the county.

Legislation

Traditionally, state bond acts have played a major role in funding for the acquisition and development of new parks. In March 2002, the voters approved Proposition 40, “The California Clean Water, Clean Air, Safe Neighborhood Parks, and Coastal Protection Act of 2002,” authorizing issuance of bonds totaling $2.6 billion for the acquisition and development of state and local parks and land, air, and water conservation programs.

III. Operations and Maintenance (FY 2003)

Local jurisdictions in San Diego spent approximately $179 million in FY 2003 to operate and maintain parks and recreational facilities. Staffing and administrative costs accounted for 25 percent of expenditures, and direct operations and maintenance, 72 percent.

Charges for services, such as recreation fees, provided about 14 percent of parks and recreation expenditures. Other local revenues, primarily allocations from the general fund, accounted for 84 percent.

2 In SANDAG’s land use inventory, active parks include developed or landscaped areas, such as ball fields, which are

characterized by higher trip generation rates than passive parks. Passive parks are primarily natural open spaces.

307

IV. Capital Improvement Programs

Over the next five years (FY 2003 to FY 2007), capital improvement programs (CIPs) of the region’s 19 local jurisdictions show $286 million of planned expenditures for acquisition and development of new parks and improvements to existing facilities. A majority of these expenditures are intended for subregional facilities, although some of the cities and the County of San Diego plan expenditures for the habitat preserve system envisioned by the Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP, or one of several regional habitat conservation programs in the San Diego region; see discussion of habitat conservation below). Approximately $145 million of acquisition and improvements occurred in FY 2003. Distribution of these expenditures in the region’s jurisdictions and communities is shown in Exhibit 4 (community and infrastructure planning areas are listed in Exhibit 5).

Approximately 71 percent of planned CIP expenditures are for the construction of new facilities (new parks or recreational facilities); 25 percent for upgrades to existing facilities; and the remaining four percent for technology and other projects, including the habitat programs (see Exhibit 6 for a summary of CIP expenditures for the period from FY 2003 to FY 2007 and Exhibit 7 for additional detail).

Capital improvement projects are funded from a combination of sources, including local funds and state assistance, the latter typically funded from the proceeds of general obligation bonds. Two state grant programs funded from Proposition 40 are described below.

The Murray-Hayden Urban Parks and Youth Service Program is funded with approximately $47 million. The program is targeted to heavily urbanized counties and cities. Eligible projects include park acquisition and development, rehabilitation, park facilities and improvements, environmental enhancement, youth centers, and environmental youth service centers located in areas either lacking in park or open space lands or with deteriorated park facilities, areas of significant poverty and unemployment, or areas with shortage of youth services.

The Roberti-Z'Berg-Harris Grant Program funded with $200 million targets unmet park and recreation needs in the most heavily urbanized and most economically disadvantaged areas. Eligible projects include acquisition of park and recreation lands and facilities, development or rehabilitation of park and recreation lands and facilities, special or major maintenance of park and recreation lands and facilities, and innovative recreation programs.

V. Projected Long-Term Need

General plans of local jurisdictions address the long-range need for parks and open space, including regionally significant natural and cultural resources and the open space and recreational needs of existing and future population. The plans typically distinguish active from passive parks and indicate minimum standards for future parks relative to population.

The City of San Diego Park and Recreation Department has adopted a park standard of 20 acres of park land per 1,000 people.3 The standard includes 2.4 acres of population-based, local parks and

3 City of San Diego Park and Recreation Department, http://www.sannet.gov/park-and-recreation/ .

308

1.6 acres of athletic areas or mini-parks, or four acres of active parks, and 16 acres of resource-based, regional parks. Additional guidelines are specified for neighborhood and community parks and for types of facilities or improvements in those parks. The park standards and guidelines are intended to assure that sufficient park and open space lands are developed in conjunction with population growth.

The City of San Diego is in the process of updating their recreation element. As a result, their standards are likely to be refined. Furthermore, as stated in the current General Plan, the standards should act as guidelines and not be rigidly applied throughout the city. The City’s current Recreational Element states, “An ideal balance of recreational opportunities cannot be achieved through just city-wide application of numerical standards for physical facilities. These standards are important, however, they should be used with discretion rather than mechanically…their application should be related to economic feasibility and the nature of the specific neighborhood or community, and should allow for flexibility as specific areas change or the needs and desires of the residents change.”4

The park and recreation element of the County of San Diego’s general plan incorporates a goal of 30 acres of park and open space per 1,000 population, composed of 15 acres of local parks, trails, playgrounds, and other public recreational facilities and 15 acres of regional parks. In the short term, however, the general plan has adopted a goal of 5 acres of local parks per 1,000 population. These are intended to provide for the recreational needs of residential communities.

In relation to population, the region has a large amount of passive parks. The local jurisdictions currently own 77,309 acres of passive parks, or an average of 26 acres per 1,000 population in 2003. Even if the local jurisdictions do not acquire any additional passive parks, the current inventory would provide nearly 20 acres per 1,000 population in 2030. Adding open spaces owned by state and federal agencies in western San Diego would further increase the supply of passive parks. The supply of active parks, however, is below the general guidelines.

Although standards differ by jurisdiction, for purposes of the IRIS, the need for local or active parks ranges from four to five acres for every 1,000-person increase in population, or an average of 4.5 acres per 1,000 population increase.5 As noted above, the San Diego region currently has approximately 5,916 acres of local parks, including active parks (4,866 acres) and active beaches (1,050 acres; Table 1). There is thus an average of less than 2 acres per 1,000 for the region’s population of 2.96 million.6 Turning to the future, if a standard of 4.5 acres per 1,000 population increase is applied to the region’s projected growth from 2003 to 2030 of more than 890,000 persons to 3.85 million7, the region will need to add approximately 4,000 acres of local, active parks to accommodate the population growth (Exhibit 8).

4 City of San Diego, Recreation Element, page 313. This element is currently being updated, although the park standards philosophy is unlikely to change significantly. 5 Population-based need for regional parks falls in the range of 15 to 16 acres per 1,000 population. However,

considerations of biological resources and the needs of protected species may dictate other regional goals, as discussed later in the section on habitat conservation.

6 Estimated population of 2,961,600 in January 2003; California Department of Finance. 7 SANDAG, 2030 Final Forecast.

309

VI. Relationship of Facility Planning to Local General Plan and Land Use

The location of subregional, or local, parks and open space areas is closely tied to the residential communities which they serve.8 The local jurisdiction's general plan and its land use and open space elements provide standards and guidelines for the location and size of active and passive parks and open space, as previously discussed. When large tracts of vacant land are subdivided and developed with planned residential communities, the local jurisdictions commonly require provision of new neighborhood and community parks and payment of fees to defray the cost of larger, regional parks.

When new residential units are developed in an existing urban area, it is necessary to construct new parks, or enlarge existing parks. Local jurisdictions are exploring opportunities for the joint use of school playgrounds and athletic fields to meet the communities' recreational needs, but such opportunities are often limited. If additional park land is needed, existing urban areas generally have little vacant land, and what land is available is usually too expensive to be purchased for park use. Thus, it cannot be assumed that new residential development or redevelopment will be automatically supported by additional parks and open space.

VII. Public Policy / Financing Issues and Strategies

Achieving the urban form and design objectives of the RCP requires planning and early action on land for subregional (i.e., local, active) parks and open space, in order to meet service standards established by the local jurisdictions. That is, availability of additional park land, in existing urban communities, may be an important condition of smart growth development.

Currently the region has a target for local, active parks, but has no funding strategy to achieve it. Construction of additional parks will also necessitate allocation of funds for operations and maintenance of parks.

Planning for regional parks does not require the same level of coordination with new residential development as subregional parks. The larger parks and open spaces can be planned in conjunction with existing shoreline areas or with important habitat areas identified by the region's various habitat conservation plans.

8 Open space areas conserved for their biological value may be distributed independently of developed, urban

areas. These are discussed under habitat conservation later in this section.

310

SHORELINE PRESERVATION

I. Introduction / Description of Infrastructure System

Beaches are an important part of the San Diego region’s recreational and environmental infrastructure. The region’s shoreline and beaches cover the entire north-south length (76 miles) of the region’s western boundary, extending north into Orange County and south into Baja California, Mexico. The beach system includes not only the dry sand on land, but also underwater sand that extends one-half to one mile out into the ocean and the sandy bottoms of the region’s lagoons, bays, estuaries, and rivers. San Diego’s beaches generate close to $1 billion annually in visitor expenditures.

The San Diego region’s beaches have been steadily eroding for the past 20 years. Sand that used to flow down rivers to replenish the beaches is no longer doing so because of urban development throughout the region and because of water and flood control projects needed to support that development. As the beaches continue to erode and lose sand, recreational opportunities are restricted. A unique and highly valued environment, including breeding and foraging habitat for sensitive marine species and fauna, disappears. Private and public development and infrastructure are subject to increasing damage from storms. In addition, an important resource for the visitor industry is affected.

Regional infrastructure focuses on the overall supply and capacity. Subregional infrastructure refers to service provision. For the purposes of the IRIS, the San Diego region’s shoreline, in particular its beaches are considered to be a regional infrastructure. It is a resource equally accessible to all groups. Residents from any jurisdiction are able to use and enjoy the beaches.

II. Responsibilities and Controlling Legislation

Agencies

The San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) is the local lead agency for the management of shoreline preservation. Typically, the Army Corps of Engineers is the federal lead agency. Both the Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Department of the Navy contributed to the Regional Beach Sand Project (RBSP).

The Shoreline Preservation Committee advises SANDAG on issues related to the adopted Shoreline Preservation Strategy and opportunities for beach replenishment. Committee members include elected officials from the coastal cities, representatives from environmental groups, and state and federal agencies.

311

Legislation

Under the Coastal Act of 1976, the California Coastal Commission has the primary jurisdiction over land use and other activities in the Coastal Zone, including the state's shoreline.9 The Coastal Commission issues coastal development permits and reviews local coastal programs (LCPs), prepared by local governments. It also reviews federal activities that affect the Coastal Zone. The Commission has review authority over all offshore oil and gas development within the state’s three-mile jurisdiction. It also has authority over the leasing, exploration, development, and production of offshore oil and gas resources in federal waters.

By state law, all California beaches are public, at least up to the mean high-tide line, which is generally the wet sand.

III. Operations and Maintenance (FY 2003)

The state Department of Parks and Recreation maintains the state beaches in the San Diego region—from San Onofre to Silver Strand; local jurisdictions provide lifeguard, maintenance, and other services in other areas. The latter costs are included in the park and recreation budgets of local jurisdictions (see above).

IV. Projected Long-Term Need / Capital Improvement Programs

There is no regional capital improvement program for beach sand replenishment. However, SANDAG's Shoreline Preservation Strategy for the San Diego Region adopted in 1993 and implementation of the 2001 Regional Beach Sand Project indicate the scope of restoration activities needed for sand replenishment at local beaches.

The Shoreline Preservation Strategy sets out regional objectives, policies, and recommendations for implementing a coordinated list of solutions for each of the region’s shoreline areas needing sand replenishment. The strategy was formulated by SANDAG’s Shoreline Preservation Committee, made up primarily of elected officials from the region’s coastal jurisdictions. The central idea guiding the strategy is coordination. Coastal science tells us that events in one part of the shoreline will affect beaches and sea cliffs up coast and downcoast because sand moves laterally along the shoreline. The strategy also emphasizes that preserving and enhancing the region’s shoreline will have to be an ongoing, long-range undertaking. The strategy looks ahead 20- and 50-years in the future to ensure that the region can respond to the needs of shoreline structures and public improvements implemented today and to the future recreational needs of residents and visitors. Finally, the strategy proposes an action plan that will require a major financial commitment from people in our region, as well as funding assistance from the state and federal governments.

9 The Coastal Act includes specific policies that address issues such as shoreline public access and recreation,

industrial uses, water quality, development design, offshore oil and gas development and public works. The policies of the Coastal Act constitute the statutory standards applied to planning and regulatory decisions made by the Commission and by local governments, pursuant to the Coastal Act.

312

Beginning in 2001 and continuing for 20 years, the Regional Beach Sand Project plans to move around 20 million cubic yards of clean beach quality sand, implemented in approximately 2 million-cubic yard replenishment projects carried out every other summer at an annual cost of about $7.5 million. The total amount of sand and the specifics of each project would be determined based on environmental constraints and coastal conditions. In 2001, 2.1 million cubic yards of sand was moved to 12 local beaches.

After completion of the Regional Beach Sand Project, additional two million-cubic yard beach replenishment projects may be required to maintain the restored beaches at a rate of one project every four or five years. The cost is estimated to be around $2 million per year. State and national studies indicate that such a program will substantially increase the region’s income per year, and provide a direct return in local tax revenues well in excess of the public investment.

In 2001, 2 million cubic yards of sand was moved to 6 miles of local beaches at 12 locations, at a total cost of $17.5 million, with funds from the federal government ($9.6 million) and the state ($6.9 million). SANDAG continues to carry out comprehensive monitoring program to find out how the sand moves from the initial beach fills, and how it affects the environment. The sand from the 12 beaches will eventually spread out over the region’s entire 60-mile coastline and some will be lost to offshore canyons.

Currently, the region has a shoreline preservation strategy, but no funding sources to implement it. The strategy encompasses both capital improvement plans and operations and maintenance expenditures.

V. Public Policy / Financing Issues and Strategies

Implementation of the Regional Beach Sand Project will require $7.5 million annually through 2021 and about $2 million annually thereafter. SANDAG’s Shoreline Preservation Committee has developed a series of alternative funding strategies for the beach restoration program (including environmental management and monitoring), based on local and regional funding sources, to be supplemented by state and federal beach replenishment funding programs.

HABITAT CONSERVATION

I. Introduction / Description of Conservation Programs

Existing Programs

San Diego has several subregional habitat conservation programs, including the Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP; adopted in 1997), the Multiple Habitat Conservation Program (MHCP; adopted in 2003), and the special programs of San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) and various water agencies. In addition, the County has two proposed subarea plans: the North County Multiple Species Conservation Subarea Plan (MSCP-North, currently under development) and the East County Multiple Species Conservation Subarea Plan (MSCP-East; currently under development).

313

These two plans will be annexed to the MSCP subregional plan when they are completed. The subregional habitat conservation programs are intended to protect viable populations of 50 key sensitive plant and animal species and their habitats, while accommodating continued economic development and quality of life for the residents of the San Diego region. Natural habitat areas owned by the Department of Defense10 are subject to their own plans. Exhibit 9 indicates the boundaries of the principal regional habitat conservation programs.

The MSCP study area covers 582,243 acres11,12 in southwestern San Diego County and eleven cities,13

including the City of San Diego, portions of the unincorporated County of San Diego, and some special districts. The goal of the MSCP is to protect approximately 170,000 acres of habitat of 85 endangered, threatened, or other sensitive species. The preserve will be comprised of conservation of lands already in public ownership; public acquisition of private lands from willing sellers; and private development contributions through the application of development regulations and mitigation of impacts.

The MHCP study area encompasses 111,900 acres of seven cities14 in northwestern San Diego County. When fully implemented, the MHCP will preserve approximately 20,000 acres of natural habitat in seven incorporated cities. More than 600 acres of core gnatcatcher habitat will also be conserved in the unincorporated county area adjacent to the MHCP.

The MSCP and MHCP are habitat conservation programs (HCP) under the federal Endangered Species Act and natural community conservation plans (NCCP) under the California NCCP Act. Two other regional habitat conservation plans are under preparation for the northern and eastern sections of the unincorporated county, intended to protect bio-diversity and enhance the region’s quality of life.

The County of San Diego is currently preparing the MSCP-North, a subarea plan for the north San Diego County, and the MSCP-East, for the east county area. These two proposed subarea plans would add approximately 207,000 acres of natural vegetation to the regional preserve system.

Current Usage/Demand

“Demand” for habitat conservation arises primarily from the need to protect plant and animal species which are threatened with extinction or local extirpation due to loss of natural habitat from encroaching urban development. Federal and state laws mandate the protection of endangered or threatened species, and biological analysis indicates the type, amount, and location of natural habitat which must be conserved.

10 The Marine Corps Base at Camp Pendleton, Fallbrook Weapons Annex, and the naval air station at Miramar. 11 The study area is bordered by Mexico to the south, National Forest lands to the east, the Pacific Ocean to the

west and the San Dieguito River Valley to the north. Naval Air Station Miramar, the Point Loma Naval Complex, and other military lands are within the MSCP study area but are being planned separately.

12 Approximately 54 percent (315,940 acres) of the MSCP study area supports several distinct vegetation communities or habitat types, most of which are considered sensitive or rare, with the remainder developed (41%) or in agriculture (5%).

13 The cities of Chula Vista, Coronado, Del Mar, El Cajon, Imperial Beach, La Mesa, Lemon Grove, National City, Poway, and Santee.

14 The cities of Carlsbad, Encinitas, Escondido, Oceanside, San Marcos, Solana Beach, and Vista.

314

At the same time, the presence of natural habitat and other open space contributes significantly to the region's quality of life. In this sense, the system of habitat preserves can be regarded as a regional infrastructure, and the demand for habitat conservation is related to biological needs of species affected by continued urbanization.

Exhibits ten and eleven show the acres of natural habitat and other vacant land which are proposed to be conserved in the region. They are obtained from the two adopted, subregional plans (MSCP and MHCP) and from individual jurisdictions' “subarea” plans (SAPs), which provide data and conservation guidelines specific to each jurisdiction.

II. Responsibilities and Controlling Legislation

Protection of species which are threatened with extinction or extirpation is required by the federal and state Endangered Species Acts (ESA and CESA). California's Natural Community Conservation Planning (NCCP) Act provides a framework for the adoption of multiple species and habitat conservation programs. Other laws which address protection of species and habitat include the Clean Water Act, the Fish and Wildlife Act, and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) at the federal level and the California Coastal Act, the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, the Fish and Game Code, and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) at the state level.

Federal ESA is administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California ESA by the state Department of Fish and Game. The MSCP, MHCP, and similar programs are intended to allow local jurisdictions to review and approve development projects without additional permitting by the federal and state wildlife agencies, if the projects conform to the goals and guidelines of the regional habitat conservation plans. This authority to review and approve projects at the local level is conditioned upon on-going implementation of the regional habitat conservation programs, including habitat acquisition, management, and monitoring.

III. Operations and Maintenance (FY 2003)

Responsibility for maintaining habitat and open space areas falls primarily on their fee owners. In San Diego County, owners of habitat lands include federal agencies (such as Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management, and the Department of Defense); state agencies (such as Department of Fish and Game, State Lands Commission, and University of California); local jurisdictions and special districts; and individuals and private organizations (non-profit organizations, homeowners' associations, and others). The MSCP and MHCP include guidelines for the management of biological resource located in the preserve system. While some agencies and owners are currently undertaking management consistent with these guidelines (e.g., ecological preserves and mitigation banks), other areas will require additional management actions. The two regional habitat conservation programs estimate that the cost to local jurisdictions (i.e., excluding cost to federal and state agencies) to manage the habitat preserve system would be $19.5 million per year.

315

IV. Capital Improvement Programs

Expenditures

Prior to adoption of the MSCP, local jurisdictions in San Diego County did not budget funds for habitat conservation. Thus the cities' operating budgets and capital programs do not adequately reflect their financial commitments for conservation. On the other hand, the MSCP and MHCP represent long-term, strategic plans for habitat conservation.

Currently, annual appropriations for habitat conservation (acquisition, management, monitoring, etc.) are provided by the City of San Diego and the County of San Diego. From 1999 to mid-2003, the City of San Diego acquired $21.3 million of habitat lands. Over the same period, federal and state governments acquired $20.3 million of habitat lands in the city. The city has also expended approximately $300,000 per year in habitat management and biological monitoring, including grants, staff, and other resources; however, this amount is anticipated to decline in the coming years.15

The MSCP and MHCP plans provide estimates of one-time fully endowed and annual costs to implement the respective habitat preserves. Total of one-time costs (such as habitat acquisition and restoration) and 30-year, discounted sum of recurring annual costs (including deposits to an endowment which would fund recurring costs in perpetuity) is estimated to be $1.3 billion (see Exhibit 9). Average annual cost (if amortized over 30 years at 6 percent interest) would be $95.5 million per year. After 30 years, the two subregional plans and the two proposed subarea plans would not require additional funds, since acquisition and other one-time work will have been completed, and the endowment would fund the recurring costs of $19.5 million per year to cover habitat management, biological monitoring, and program administration.

Funding Sources

The two habitat conservation plans propose new regional funding programs to complete their implementation. Although various options for funding programs have been identified, no program has been adopted to date. In the meantime, the City of San Diego and the County of San Diego have each appropriated funds for acquisition and management of selected habitat areas. Federal and state funds have also been used, as described above.

V. Projected Long-Term Need

In addition to the MSCP, the County of San Diego has a strategic action plan to achieve the goals of the Environment Initiative.16 The plan includes: continue implementation of habitat preservation plans, develop and expand parks, promote the agricultural economic element while protecting the environment and food safety, reduce environmental risk, establish youth environmental mentoring/fellowship initiatives and coordinate County efforts with 17 tribal governments.

15 Communication, Keith Greer, MSCP Program Manager, City of San Diego, May 2003. 16 Source: http://www.sdcounty.ca.gov/cnty/cntydepts/cao/pdfs/strategicplan.pdf

316

The long term goals for habitat conservation in the region are to conserve the habitat of endangered, threatened, and other sensitive species. This would include conservation and management of approximately 400,000 acres of natural habitat. To achieve this goal, 205,000 acres of habitat must be acquired. Annual management and monitoring costs are estimated at $23 million per year, with a total cost of $1.3 billion. The strategy accounts for both capital improvement plans and operations and maintenance expenditures.

VI. Public Policy / Financing Issues and Strategies

Planning for habitat conservation helps to ensure preservation of biological resources and open space, thus protecting the region's quality of life and contributing to its economic development. However, implementation of these plans will require new sources of funds, which are not currently identified in the cities' operating or capital budgets.

Park and Open Space Section Exhibits

1. Regional Parks and Open Space (Map) 2. Local Jurisdictions Park and Recreation Departments Operations and Maintenance Revenues and

Expenditures, FY 2002-03 (Chart) 3. Local Jurisdictions in San Diego Region: Parks and Recreation Operations and Maintenance, FY

2003 (Table) 4. Park and Open Space Infrastructure Distribution of Subregional CIP Expenditures FY 2003 (Map) 5. Community Infrastructure Planning Areas (Table) 6. Summary of Capital Improvement Programs: Park and Recreation, FY 2003 to 2007 (Table) 7. Parks and Open Space Capital Projects, FY 2003 and Later (Table) 8. Long-Term Need for Local Parks Exceeds Projected Growth in Population, 2003-2030 (Chart) 9. Habitat Planning Areas (Map) 10. Habitat Conservation: Summary of Conservation Status, Goals and Estimated Implementation

Costs (Table) 11. Habitat Conservation: Conservation Status, Goals and Costs by Jurisdiction (Table)

317

318

Exhibit 2 Local Jurisdictions Park and Recreation Departments

Operations and Maintenance Revenues and Expenditures, FY 2002-03

O&M Revenues O&M Expenditures

$178.8 Million $178.8 Million

Source:Local jurisdictions' FY 2003 operating budgets.

Operations & Maintenance,

72.4%

Debt Service & Capital Costs,

2.5%Administration,

Personnel,25.2%

Charges for Services, 14.4%

Other Local Funds,* 84.2%

Other, 1.5%

319

Exhibit 3 Local Jurisdictions in San Diego Region

Parks and Recreation Operations and Maintenance, FY 2003 ($ Millions)

Total All Jurisdictions Percent

Operating Revenues General tax (e.g., property tax, sales tax) $ 0.7 0.4% Special taxes and assessments 0.1 0.1% Charges for services 25.7 14.4% Interest, rents 1.1 0.6% Other local funds (Incl. allocation from general fund) 150.5 84.2% Transfers from federal / state 0.4 0.2% Transfers from other agencies 0.2 0.1%

Total Annual Revenues $ 178.8 100.0%

Operating Expenditures Operations and maintenance

Admin., personnel, planning 45.0 25.2% Contracts & services 12.6 7.0% Other maintenance 116.8 65.3%

Subtotal O&M 174.4 97.5%

Capital costs, transfers out 3.4 1.9% Debt service 1.0 0.6%

Total Operating Expenditures $ 178.8 100.0% Revenues Over or (Under) Expenditures Source: City and county data from city and county budgets, FY 2003. Note: This table does not reflect expenditures by state and federal agencies for parks and recreation areas in San Diego County. For example, U.S. Forest Service's FY 2003 budget for the operation of Cleveland National Forest is $23.6 million.

320

321

Exhibit 5 Community Infrastructure Planning Areas1

CIPA NO. JURISDICTION COMMUNITY PLANNING AREA

101 1 Carlsbad Carlsbad 1 102 1 Carlsbad Carlsbad 2 103 1 Carlsbad Carlsbad 3 104 1 Carlsbad Carlsbad 4 201 2 Chula Vista Chula Vista 1 202 2 Chula Vista Chula Vista 2 203 2 Chula Vista Chula Vista 3 204 2 Chula Vista Chula Vista 4 300 3 Coronado Coronado 400 4 Del Mar Del Mar 501 5 El Cajon El Cajon 1 502 5 El Cajon El Cajon 2 503 5 El Cajon El Cajon 3 601 6 Encinitas Encinitas 1 602 6 Encinitas Encinitas 2 603 6 Encinitas Encinitas 3 604 6 Encinitas Encinitas 4 701 7 Escondido Escondido 1 702 7 Escondido Escondido 2 703 7 Escondido Escondido 3 704 7 Escondido Escondido 4 705 7 Escondido Escondido 5 800 8 Imperial Beach Imperial Beach 901 9 La Mesa La Mesa 1 902 9 La Mesa La Mesa 2

1000 10 Lemon Grove Lemon Grove 1101 11 National City National City 1 1102 11 National City National City 2 1201 12 Oceanside Oceanside 1 1202 12 Oceanside Oceanside 2 1203 12 Oceanside Oceanside 3 1204 12 Oceanside Oceanside 4 1205 12 Oceanside Oceanside 5 1301 13 Poway Poway 1 1302 13 Poway Poway 2 1303 13 Poway Poway 3 1401 14 San Diego Balboa Park 1402 14 San Diego Barrio Logan 1403 14 San Diego Carmel Mountain Ranch 1404 14 San Diego Centre City 1405 14 San Diego Sabre Springs

322

CIPA NO. JURISDICTION COMMUNITY PLANNING AREA 1406 14 San Diego Clairemont Mesa 1407 14 San Diego East Elliott 1408 14 San Diego Greater Golden Hill 1409 14 San Diego Miramar Ranch North 1410 14 San Diego La Jolla 1412 14 San Diego Linda Vista 1414 14 San Diego Midway-Pacific Highway 1415 14 San Diego Mira Mesa 1417 14 San Diego Mission Bay Park 1418 14 San Diego Mission Beach 1419 14 San Diego Mission Valley 1420 14 San Diego Navajo 1421 14 San Diego Carmel Valley 1423 14 San Diego Ocean Beach 1424 14 San Diego Old San Diego 1425 14 San Diego Otay Mesa-Nestor 1426 14 San Diego Otay Mesa 1427 14 San Diego Pacific Beach 1428 14 San Diego Greater North Park 1429 14 San Diego Rancho Penasquitos 1430 14 San Diego Peninsula 1431 14 San Diego Rancho Bernardo 1432 14 San Diego San Pasqual 1433 14 San Diego San Ysidro 1434 14 San Diego Scripps Miramar Ranch 1435 14 San Diego Serra Mesa 1438 14 San Diego College Area 1439 14 San Diego Tijuana River Valley 1440 14 San Diego Torrey Pines 1441 14 San Diego University 1442 14 San Diego Uptown 1444 14 San Diego Skyline-Paradise Hills 1447 14 San Diego Tierrasanta 1448 14 San Diego Sorrento Hills 1449 14 San Diego Fairbanks Country Club 1450 14 San Diego Kearny Mesa 1455 14 San Diego Via De La Valle 1456 14 San Diego Mid-City:City Heights 1457 14 San Diego Mid-City:Eastern Area 1458 14 San Diego Mid-City:Kensington-Talmadge 1459 14 San Diego Mid-City:Normal Heights 1461 14 San Diego Del Mar Mesa 1462 14 San Diego Torrey Highlands 1463 14 San Diego Los Penasquitos Canyon Preserve 1464 14 San Diego Black Mountain Ranch 1465 14 San Diego Pacific Highlands Ranch 1466 14 San Diego NCFUA Subarea 2

323

CIPA NO. JURISDICTION COMMUNITY PLANNING AREA 1467 14 San Diego NCFUA Reserve 1468 14 San Diego Southeastern:Encanto Neighborhoods 1469 14 San Diego Southeastern:Southeastern San Diego 1481 14 San Diego Rancho Encantada 1482 14 San Diego Miramar Air Station 1483 14 San Diego Lindbergh Field 1485 14 San Diego Scripps Reserve 1486 14 San Diego Harbor 1488 14 San Diego Flower Hill 1491 14 San Diego 32nd Street Naval Station 1501 15 San Marcos San Marcos 1 1502 15 San Marcos San Marcos 2 1503 15 San Marcos San Marcos 3 1504 15 San Marcos San Marcos 4 1601 16 Santee Santee 1 1602 16 Santee Santee 2 1603 16 Santee Santee 3 1604 16 Santee Santee 4 1700 17 Solana Beach Solana Beach 1801 18 Vista Vista 1 1802 18 Vista Vista 2 1901 19 Unincorporated County Alpine 1902 19 Unincorporated County Central Mountain 1903 19 Unincorporated County Crest-Dehesa 1904 19 Unincorporated County Desert 1906 19 Unincorporated County Jamul-Dulzura 1907 19 Unincorporated County Lakeside 1908 19 Unincorporated County Mountain Empire 1909 19 Unincorporated County North County Metro 1911 19 Unincorporated County Otay 1912 19 Unincorporated County Pala-Pauma 1914 19 Unincorporated County Ramona 1915 19 Unincorporated County San Dieguito 1918 19 Unincorporated County Sweetwater 1919 19 Unincorporated County Valle De Oro 1920 19 Unincorporated County Valley Center 1921 19 Unincorporated County Spring Valley 1922 19 Unincorporated County Julian 1951 19 Unincorporated County North Mountain 1952 19 Unincorporated County Bonsall 1953 19 Unincorporated County Fallbrook 1954 19 Unincorporated County Pendleton-De Luz 1955 19 Unincorporated County Rainbow 1998 19 Unincorporated County Barona 1999 19 Unincorporated County County Islands

1. Community infrastructure planning areas (CIPAs) are the same as community planning areas (CPAs) in the City of San Diego and the County of San Diego. CIPAs reflect comparable planning areas for the other cities.

324

Exhibit 6 Summary of Capital Improvement Programs

Park and Recreation FY 2003 to FY 2007 ($ Million)

FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 Total Percent of Total

Subregional Improvements New $ 98.5 $ 69.0 $ 6.5 $ 21.6 $ 7.1 $ 202.7 70.9% Upgrade 39.5 22.4 2.3 3.8 2.4 70.3 24.6% Technology 3.7 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.1 1.8% Green 3.4 3.9 0.0 0.5 0.0 7.8 2.7% Total Subregional 145.2 96.6 8.8 25.9 9.5 285.9 100.0% Total CIP $ 145.2 $ 96.6 $ 8.8 $ 25.9 $ 9.5 $ 285.9 Source: Local jurisdictions in San Diego County, FY 2002-03 budgets. Note: “New” projects refer to installation of new pipelines and other facilities; “upgrades” refer to renovation, reconstruction, or other improvements to existing facilities. “Green” projects (which may also be mandated) refer to actions to mitigate impacts to or improve the natural environment. “Technology” projects improve overall productivity, such as master plans, system or control technologies.

Exhibit 7Parks and Open Space Capital Projects, FY 2003 and Later

ProjectNo.

Agency ID [1]

Project Description Project Type [2]Regional (R) / Subregional

Total Project Cost

Costs Prior to FY 2003

FY 2003Costs

FY 2004Costs

FY 2005Costs

FY 2006Costs

FY 2007Costs

Costs After FY 2007

35781 1 Business Park Recreational Facility New S 2,644,000 - 18,000 - - - - 2,626,00030721 1 Carlsbad Municipal Golf Course New S 5,810,405 5,593,535 216,870 - - - - -

1.1 1 Veteran's Memorial Park New S 16,129,000 - - - - - - 16,129,0001.2 1 Beach Access Improvements Upgrade S 50,000 - 50,000 - - - - - 1.3 1 Cannon Lake Park (6.7 acres) New S 947,000 - - - - - - 947,000

36351 1 Chase Field Bathroom Snack Bar Building Replacement

Upgrade S 190,000 48,835 141,165 - - - - -

38631 1 Holiday Park - Playground Equiptment Upgrade S 85,000 - 85,000 - - - - - 1.4 1 Hosp Grove / Buena Vista Lagoon Rec Imp Upgrade S 2,980,000 - - - - - - 2,980,000

36961 1 Kruger House Preschool Tot Lot Upgrade S 35,000 - 35,000 - - - - - 35191 1 Misc. Beach Access Repairs / Upgrades Upgrade S 70,000 58,548 11,452 - - - - - 38022 1 Park Site Development - Pine School New S 6,896,000 189,990 1,410,010 5,296,000 - - - -

1.5 1 Swim Complex - Filtration Heating Renovations

Upgrade S 162,200 - 162,200 - - - - -

38561 1 Larwin Community Park (22.3 acres) New S 1,220,000 16,872 1,203,128 - - - - - 1.6 1 Park Restoration and Acquistion New S 4,500,000 - - - - - - 4,500,000

36981 1 Park Site Acquistion (15 acres) NE Quad New S 4,550,000 - 4,550,000 - - - - - 38011 1 Park Site Development (15 acres) New S 3,000,000 - - - - - - 3,000,00036991 1 Aviara Community Park (24.25 acres) New S 11,997,890 881,495 11,116,395 - - - - - 36491 1 Aviara Reimbursement Agreement New S 238,000 18,900 219,100 - - - - -

1.7 1 Park Restoration and Acquistion New S 2,700,000 - - - - - - 2,700,0001.8 1 Poinsettia Community Park Phase II New S 7,200,000 - - - 600,000 6,600,000 - -

38361 1 Poinsettia Community Park - Soccer Field Stairs

Upgrade S 85,000 9,689 75,311 - - - - -

38641 1 Poinsettia Community Park - Synthetic Soccer Field

Upgrade S 700,000 5,400 694,600 - - - - -

38371 1 ALGA Norte Land Acquistion New S 4,800,000 177,607 4,622,393 - - - - - 38372 1 ALGA Norte Phase I (30 acres) New S 8,250,000 13,499 936,501 7,300,000 - - - -

1.9 1 ALGA Norte Phase II (50 meter pool) New S 5,936,000 - - - - - - 5,936,00034561 1 Leo Carrillo Park Phase I & II New S 5,568,000 5,054,348 513,652 - - - - - 1.10 1 Leo Carrillo Park Phase III New S 1,703,000 - - - - - - 1,703,000

35791 1 Stagecoach Park Drain (Lower level) Upgrade S 15,000 - 15,000 - - - - - 38381 1 Stagecoach Park Tennis Access Walkway Upgrade S 25,000 6,581 18,419 - - - - -

3.1 3 Spreckles Park Irrigation Renovation Upgrade S 97,498 - 97,498 - - - - - 3.2 3 Golf Course Public Restrooms Upgrade S 377,950 40,450 337,500 - - - - - 3.3 3 Driving Range Golf Ball Barrier

ImprovementsUpgrade S 110,000 - 110,000 - - - - -

3.4 3 North Beach Restroom Upgrade S 90,000 - - 90,000 - - - - 3.5 3 Community Center (Glorietta Bay) New S 8,240,000 - 8,240,000 - - - - - 3.6 3 Glorietta Bay Linear Park New S 7,833,000 - 7,833,000 - - - - - 3.7 3 Glorietta Bay Yacht Club Promenade Upgrade S 1,290,000 - 1,290,000 - - - - - 3.8 3 Municipal Pool Complex Assessment and

RefurbishmentTech S 2,499,000 23,000 2,476,000 - - - - -

3.9 3 Beach Lifeguard Tower Replacement Upgrade S 1,000,000 - 1,000,000 - - - - - 3.10 3 Rotary Plaza Upgrade S 1,104,000 - - - - 1,104,000 - -

6413-5900 4 25th Street End Restroom Upgrade S 250,000 - 250,000 - - - - - 5.1 5 Replacement of the consession stand and

score booth at Kennedy ParkUpgrade S 135,000 135,000 - - - - - -

5.2 5 Replace the sliding doors at Hillside Upgrade S 21,333 21,333 - - - - - - 5.3 5 Replace the sliding doors at Bostonia Upgrade S 21,333 21,333 - - - - - - 5.4 5 Replace the sliding doors at Kennedy Upgrade S 21,333 21,333 - - - - - - 5.5 5 Recreation Center Upgrade Upgrade S 55,000 55,000 - - - - - - 5.6 5 Recreation Facility Upgrade Upgrade S 33,000 33,000 - - - - - - 5.7 5 Replace copiers every 5 years Tech S 6,000 6,000 - - - - - - 5.8 5 Replace stairs and handicap ramps Upgrade S 85,000 85,000 - - - - - -

325

Exhibit 7Parks and Open Space Capital Projects, FY 2003 and Later

ProjectNo.

Agency ID [1]

Project Description Project Type [2]Regional (R) / Subregional

Total Project Cost

Costs Prior to FY 2003

FY 2003Costs

FY 2004Costs

FY 2005Costs

FY 2006Costs

FY 2007Costs

Costs After FY 2007

5.9 5 Tuttle Park Backstop fencing Upgrade S 10,000 10,000 - - - - - - 5.10 5 Wells Park Fitness Center Improvements Upgrade S 25,000 25,000 - - - - - - 5.11 5 Hillside Park Irrigation Improvements Upgrade S 69,000 69,000 - - - - - - 5.12 5 Kennedy Park Sand Volleyball Court New S 9,850 9,850 - - - - - - 5.13 5 Skate park at Kennedy Park New S 238,750 238,750 - - - - - - 5.14 5 Senior Center New S 127,000 127,000 - - - - - - 5.15 5 Kennedy Park Playfield Lighting Upgrade S 76,830 76,830 - - - - - - 5.16 5 Dance Room Flooring Kennedy Center Upgrade S 7,880 7,880 - - - - - - 6.1 6 Recreation Element Update Tech S 35,000 35,000 - - - - - - 6.2 6 MHCP Plan Tech S 141,479 141,479 - - - - - - 6.3 6 Community / Senior Center New S 8,518,480 8,518,480 - - - - - - 6.4 6 Parkland Acquisition Fund New S 918,640 168,640 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 - 210 6 Sand Replenishment Fund (210) Upgrade S 2,410,078 1,248,251 230,351 221,880 229,231 236,479 243,886 - 6.5 6 Greystone Park Design & Development New S 1,250,000 1,250,000 - - - - - - 6.6 6 Standard Pacific Park Design & Development New S 500,000 100,000 400,000 - - - - -

6.7 6 Hawk View Park Upgrade S 60,000 60,000 - - - - - - 6.8 6 Indian Head Canyon Design & Development New S 2,168,093 1,478,093 - 90,000 600,000 - - -

6.9 6 Moonlight Beach Design & Development New S 1,455,000 - 80,000 600,000 775,000 - - - 6.10 6 Moonlight Beach Lifeguard Headquarters Upgrade S 247,500 - 22,500 225,000 - - - - 6.11 6 Quails Gardens Park Site Design &

DevelopmentNew S 2,427,724 - - 875,000 - - - -

6.12 6 Recreational Trails Fund Upgrade S 705,000 330,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 - 6.13 6 Hall Property Design & Development New S 5,980,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 1,980,000 - - - - 6.14 6 Swami's Lifeguard Station Rebuild Upgrade S 110,000 110,000 - - - - - - 6.15 6 Beacon's & Grandview Portable Lifeguard

TowersUpgrade S 42,000 42,000 - - - - - -

6.16 6 Cardiff Sports Park Land Acquisition New S 2,935,838 2,935,838 - - - - - - 9.1 9 La Mesa New S 6,284,999 5,004,999 1,280,000 - - - - -

4010 11 Replace Drinking Park Fountains Upgrade S 48,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 - 4011 11 Misc. Park Bathroom Fixture Replacement Upgrade S 60,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 - 4106 11 Replace Restroom Faucets Community Center Upgrade S 2,100 2,100 - - - - - -

4107 11 Replace Toilets Kimball Senior Center Upgrade S 2,000 2,000 - - - - - - 4108 11 Replace Handrails Kimbal Recreation Center Upgrade S 12,000 12,000 - - - - - -

4109 11 Install ADA Drinking Fountain Kimball Recreation Center

Upgrade S 3,000 3,000 - - - - - -

4110 11 Replace Elec. Cabinet - Kimball Park Upgrade S 6,000 6,000 - - - - - - 4111 11 Replace Elec. Cabinet - El Toyon Park Upgrade S 5,000 5,000 - - - - - - 4112 11 Kimball Park Irrigation Upgrade S 100,000 100,000 - - - - - - 4113 11 Paradise Creek Park New S 700,000 700,000 - - - - - - 4114 11 Playground Equipment Upgrade S 100,000 100,000 - - - - - - 4115 11 Civic Center Landscaping Phase 1 New S 827,145 827,145 - - - - - - 4116 11 Trash Receptacles Upgrade S 5,000 5,000 - - - - - - 12.1 12 ADA City Wide Park Improvements Upgrade S 89,000 - 89,000 - - - - - 12.2 12 Balderama Park Teen Center New S 220,000 - 220,000 - - - - - 12.3 12 Gateway Enhancement Mission Ave / I-5 Upgrade S 59,200 - 59,200 - - - - - 12.4 12 Brooks & Marshall St Pool Improvement Upgrade S 97,300 - 97,300 - - - - - 12.5 12 Balderama Skate Park New S 33,000 - 33,000 - - - - - 12.6 12 Audubon Center Re-roof Upgrade S 64,000 - 64,000 - - - - - 12.7 12 Mission Avenue Gateway Improvement Upgrade S 170,000 - 170,000 - - - - - 12.8 12 Parks Maintainance & Upgrades Upgrade S 100,000 - 100,000 - - - - - 12.9 12 Parks & Rec Administration Tech S 192,894 64,540 61,474 66,880 - - - -

326

Exhibit 7Parks and Open Space Capital Projects, FY 2003 and Later

ProjectNo.

Agency ID [1]

Project Description Project Type [2]Regional (R) / Subregional

Total Project Cost

Costs Prior to FY 2003

FY 2003Costs

FY 2004Costs

FY 2005Costs

FY 2006Costs

FY 2007Costs

Costs After FY 2007

12.10 12 Lake Libby Park Improvements Upgrade S 184,000 184,000 - - - - - - 12.11 12 Heritage Park Restrooms Upgrade S 445,000 70,000 375,000 - - - - - 12.12 12 MLK Jr Park Expansion Upgrade S 499,523 157,523 342,000 - - - - - 12.13 12 Sepulveda Park Improvements Upgrade S - - - - - - - - 12.14 12 Fireside Park Enhancements Upgrade S 118,559 90,559 28,000 - - - - - 12.15 12 North River Road Park Restrooms Upgrade S 388,300 38,300 350,000 - - - - - 12.16 12 Park Enhancements (Ballfield Lighting, etc.) Upgrade S 1,200,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 - - - -

12.17 12 Specialty Parks (Skate, Dog, BMX) New S 480,000 5,000 475,000 - - - - - 12.18 12 Ivy Ranch Enhancements Upgrade S 150,000 - 150,000 - - - - - 12.19 12 Senior Center Planning & Site Selection Tech S 50,000 1,789 48,211 - - - - - 12.20 12 Sports Fields (Locaton TBD) New S 600,000 - 300,000 300,000 - - - - 12.21 12 Athletic Field Study Tech S 60,000 2,000 58,000 - - - - - 12.22 12 John Landes Recreation Center Expansion New S 700,000 - 50,000 650,000 - - - - 12.23 12 Rancho Del Oro Park Entertainment

EnhancementsUpgrade S 50,000 - 50,000 - - - - -

12.24 12 Murray Bridge Athletic Field New S 300,000 - 300,000 - - - - - 12.25 12 Trail Design & Environmental Studies Tech S 100,000 - 100,000 - - - - - 12.26 12 City-Wide Playground Installation New S 350,000 - 350,000 - - - - - 12.27 12 Pump Station Roof Structure Upgrade S 8,500 - 8,500 - - - - - 12.28 12 Tee Box Rehabilitation Upgrade S 150,000 - 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 50,000 - 12.29 12 Integrated Pest Management & Fairway

AssessmentMisc S 30,000 - 10,000 10,000 10,000 - - -

12.30 12 Driving Range Remodel Upgrade S 300,000 - 5,000 250,000 45,000 - - - 13.1 13 Community Park Playground Upgrade S 244,050 244,050 - - - - - - 13.2 13 Bike Storage Areas (Lake Poway) Upgrade S 8,486 8,486 - - - - - - 13.3 13 Bike Storage Areas (Community Park) Upgrade S 8,486 8,486 - - - - - - 13.4 13 Trail Fencing Upgrade S 40,180 40,180 - - - - - - 13.5 13 Community Swim Center Deck Repair Upgrade S 6,500 6,500 - - - - - - 13.6 13 Performing Arts Center Walkway Lighting Upgrade S 55,000 55,000 - - - - - - 13.7 13 BLM Trails New S 28,000 28,000 - - - - - - 13.8 13 Bette Bendixen Minipark New S 159,000 159,000 - - - - - - 13.9 13 Poway Community Swim Center Chlorine

SystemTech S 56,300 56,300 - - - - - -

13.10 13 Kimball Living Trust Misc S 266,745 266,745 - - - - - - 13.11 13 Community Park Auditorium Renovation Upgrade S 52,400 52,400 - - - - - - 13.12 13 Lake Poway Dam Access Upgrade S 500 500 - - - - - - 13.13 13 Skate Park Design New S 41,000 41,000 - - - - - - 13.14 13 Blue Sky Ecological Reserve Education Center

Master PlanTech S 117,300 117,300 - - - - - -

13.15 13 Community Pool Concrete and Shade Upgrade S 20,700 20,700 - - - - - - 13.16 13 Gillespie/Kohler Propery Purchase

(Conservation)New S 477,188 477,188 - - - - - -

13.17 13 Starridge Park Playground Upgrade S 154,377 154,377 - - - - - - 21-854.0 14 Balboa Park - Central Mesa Plan Update Tech S 400,000 - - 400,000 - - - - 21-859.0 14 Balboa Park - Parking Structure New S 10,000,000 - 975,000 9,025,000 - - - - 21-855.0 14 Balboa West Park Arcade New S 1,100,000 100,000 100,000 900,000 - - - - 21-852.0 14 Lighting for SD Lawn Bowling Assoc. Upgrade S 30,000 - 30,000 - - - - - 37-444.0 14 Carmel Valley Landscape Improvements Upgrade S 100,000 - - 100,000 - - - - 21-843.0 14 Balboa Park Golf Course Club House &

ParkingUpgrade S 3,504,000 173,534 330,466 2,100,000 900,000 - - -

25-003.0 14 Balboa Park Golf Course Wash Racks Upgrade S 30,000 - 30,000 - - - - - 25-002.0 14 Torrey Pines Golf Course Wash Racks Upgrade S 30,000 - 30,000 - - - - - 25-001.0 14 Torrey Pines Golf Course Restroom

ReplacementUpgrade S 600,000 - 600,000 - - - - -

327

Exhibit 7Parks and Open Space Capital Projects, FY 2003 and Later

ProjectNo.

Agency ID [1]

Project Description Project Type [2]Regional (R) / Subregional

Total Project Cost

Costs Prior to FY 2003

FY 2003Costs

FY 2004Costs

FY 2005Costs

FY 2006Costs

FY 2007Costs

Costs After FY 2007

25-005.0 14 Torrey Pines Golf Course Reconstruction 18 Holes

Upgrade S 950,000 - 950,000 - - - - -

22-943.0 14 Bayside Walk Improvements Upgrade S 861,181 564,193 296,988 - - - - - 22-086.0 14 Fiesta Island Improvement Reserve Upgrade S 2,903,000 - 2,903,000 - - - - - 22-951.0 14 Fiesta Island Phase 1 Improvements Upgrade S 1,000,000 - 1,000,000 - - - - - 22-953.0 14 Mission Bay Boat Lanching Facilities Upgrade Upgrade S 3,374,000 - 3,374,000 - - - - -

22-945.0 14 Mission Bay Marshes Phase One Green S 160,000 - 160,000 - - - - - 22-105.0 14 Northern Wildlife Preserve - Nature Center Green S 100,000 75,000 - 25,000 - - - -

22-940.0 14 Robb Field - Comfort Station Upgrade S 250,000 44,816 205,184 - - - - - 22-947.0 14 Robb Field - Walkway Improvements Upgrade S 200,000 50,000 150,000 - - - - - 22-948.0 14 Santa Clara Recreation Center Replacement

StudyTech S 301,500 6,000 295,500 - - - - -

21-857.3 14 Ski Beach Parking and Boat Ramp Improvements

Upgrade S 1,443,001 - 1,443,001 - - - - -

22-104.0 14 South Shores Phase IV General Dev Plan Tech S 75,000 - 75,000 - - - - - 29-458.0 14 252 Corridor Park (Southeastern San Diego) New S 1,744,500 - 544,500 1,200,000 - - - -

29-506.0 14 Allied Gardens Pool Filter Upgrade S 100,000 - 100,000 - - - - - 20-010.0 14 Annual Allocation Open Space Parks (11

years)New S 2,200,000 - 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 1,200,000

29-581.0 14 Barnard Elementary School Joint Use Park Imp

New S 11,280,237 30,237 - 1,250,000 - - - 10,000,000

29-836.0 14 Bayview Terrace Elementary School Joint Use Fac

New S 1,167,500 180,000 675,000 312,500 - - - -

29-472.0 14 Black Mt. Ranch Community Park Acquistion and Development

New S 12,000,000 6,000,000 - 240,000 - - - 5,760,000

29-499.0 14 Black Mt. Ranch Community Park Recreation Building

New S 3,400,000 - - - - - - 3,400,000

29-429.0 14 Black Mt. Ranch Community Swimming Pool New S 3,000,000 - - - - - - 3,000,000

29-500.0 14 Black Mt. Ranch Neighborhood Park Acq. & Dev.

New S 3,250,000 - - - - 2,000,000 125,000 1,125,000

29-525.0 14 Black Mt. Ranch Neighborhood Park West Acq. & Dev.

New S 3,250,000 - - - - 2,000,000 125,000 1,125,000

29-739.0 14 Breen Park Site Development New S 1,800,000 53,431 1,746,569 - - - - - 29-756.0 14 Camino Ruiz Neighborhood Park

DevelopmentNew S 7,600,000 388,271 4,867,274 2,344,455 - - - -

29-423.0 14 Canyonside Comm. Park Sportsfield Lighting Upgrade S 117,000 50,000 67,000 - - - - -

29-573.0 14 Canyonside Drainage Upgrade S 600,000 - 100,000 500,000 - - - - 29-532.0 14 Capehart Open Space Park Improvements Upgrade S 1,750,000 64,000 110,000 1,576,000 - - - - 29-840.0 14 Carmel Del Mar Neighborhood Park-Tot Lot Upgrade S 144,909 - 144,909 - - - - -

29-764.0 14 Carmel Valley Community Park South Neigh 8A

New S 7,700,680 6,850,680 500,000 350,000 - - - -

29-407.0 14 Carmel Valley Comm Park South Rec Building New S 3,330,000 - - - 300,000 3,030,000 - -

29-482.0 14 Carmel Valley Neighborhood Park Neigh 8 New S 1,750,000 - - - 1,500,000 250,000 - - 29-757.0 14 Carroll Neighborhood Park Development New S 3,040,000 190,000 - - - 520,000 2,330,000 - 29-514.0 14 Carson Elementary School Joint Use

ImprovementsUpgrade S 421,256 35,000 - 386,256 - - - -

29-552.0 14 City Heights Mini-Park Children's Playground Upgrade

Upgrade S 120,000 - 120,000 - - - - -

328

Exhibit 7Parks and Open Space Capital Projects, FY 2003 and Later

ProjectNo.

Agency ID [1]

Project Description Project Type [2]Regional (R) / Subregional

Total Project Cost

Costs Prior to FY 2003

FY 2003Costs

FY 2004Costs

FY 2005Costs

FY 2006Costs

FY 2007Costs

Costs After FY 2007

29-501.0 14 Coastal Erosion Assessment Update - La Jolla Tech S 11,003 - 11,003 - - - - -

29-501.0 14 Coastal Erosion Assessment Update - Mission Tech S 11,003 - 11,003 - - - - -

29-501.0 14 Coastal Erosion Assessment Update - OB Tech S 11,003 - 11,003 - - - - - 29-501.0 14 Coastal Erosion Assessment Update - PB Tech S 11,003 - 11,003 - - - - - 29-501.0 14 Coastal Erosion Assessment Update -

PeninsulaTech S 11,003 - 11,003 - - - - -

29-501.0 14 Coastal Erosion Assessment Update - Torrey Pines

Tech S 11,003 - 11,003 - - - - -

29-486.0 14 Coast Boulevard Walkway Improvements Upgrade S 465,000 50,033 414,967 - - - - - 29-838.0 14 Colina del Sol Community Park Tot Lot

UpgradeUpgrade S 270,000 245,000 - 25,000 - - - -

29-533.0 14 Del Mar Mesa Neighborhood Park New S 1,600,000 - 1,600,000 - - - - 1,000,00029-408.0 14 Dennery Ranch Neighborhood Park New S 2,250,000 - 1,462,500 787,500 - - - - 29-467.0 14 East Clairemont Athletic Field Renovation Upgrade S 386,250 246,250 140,000 - - - - - 29-489.0 14 Encanto Community Park General

Development PlanTech S 73,875 73,875 - - - - - -

29-483.0 14 Encanto Community Park Patio Enclosure & ADA Upgrade

Upgrade S 324,742 224,742 - 100,000 - - - -

29-717.0 14 Fairbrook Neighborhood Park Acquisition & Development

New S 1,010,000 11,843 998,157 - - - - -

29-409.0 14 Field Elementary School Joint Use Improvements

New S 740,000 - - 740,000 - - - -

29-422.0 14 Garfield Elementary School Joint Use Facility New S 650,000 240,000 - 410,000 - - - -

29-534.0 14 Gonzales Canyon Neighborhood Park Acquisition

New S 2,225,000 - - - - - - 2,225,000

29-530.0 14 Hearst Elementary School Joint Use Improvements

New S 937,161 501,204 435,957 - - - - -

29-551.0 14 J Street Mini-Park Children's Playground Upgrade

Upgrade S 59,700 - 59,700 - - - - -

29-827.0 14 Jefferson Elementary School Joint Use Park Playground

New S 657,000 - 657,000 - - - - -

29-459.0 14 Kate Sessions Neighborhood Park Tot Lot Upgrade

Upgrade S 175,750 147,750 28,000 - - - - -

29-655.0 14 Kumeyaay Elementary School Joint Use Improvements

New S 612,178 - 200,000 412,178 - - - -

29-671.0 14 Kumeyaay Lake Berm Replacement Green S 657,800 - 110,000 547,800 - - - - 29-857.0 14 Kumeyaay Lake Dredging Upgrade S 2,175,000 - - 2,175,000 - - - - 29-495.0 14 La Jolla Cove Comfort Station Improvements Upgrade S 115,000 100,000 15,000 - - - - -

29-537.0 14 La Jolla Valley Bike Path New S 500,000 - - - - - - 500,00029-536.0 14 La Jolla Valley Trail New S 300,000 - - - - - - 300,00029-538.0 14 La Jolla Valley Trail North Loop New S 500,000 - - - - - - 500,00029-539.0 14 La Jolla Valley Trail South Loop New S 500,000 - - - - - - 500,00029-657.0 14 La Mirada Elementary School Joint Use

ImprovementsUpgrade S 746,000 - 551,000 195,000 - - - -

29-856.0 14 Ladera Street Stairs Rehabilitation Upgrade S 156,500 - 156,500 - - - - - 29-447.0 14 Lake Murray Community Park Comfort

StationUpgrade S 546,600 35,208 511,392 - - - - -

29-403.0 14 Lakewiew Neighborhood Park Comfort station

Upgrade S 100,000 6,869 93,131 - - - - -

29-450.0 14 Larsen Field Multipurpose Field Improvements

Upgrade S 221,500 158,500 63,000 - - - - -

329

Exhibit 7Parks and Open Space Capital Projects, FY 2003 and Later

ProjectNo.

Agency ID [1]

Project Description Project Type [2]Regional (R) / Subregional

Total Project Cost

Costs Prior to FY 2003

FY 2003Costs

FY 2004Costs

FY 2005Costs

FY 2006Costs

FY 2007Costs

Costs After FY 2007

29-847.0 14 Linda Vista Community Park Security Lights Upgrade S 150,000 - 150,000 - - - - -

29-469.0 14 Lindberg Neighborhood Park ADA Upgrade Upgrade S 125,000 87,000 - 38,000 - - - -

29-470.0 14 Lindberg Neighborhood Park Tot Lot Upgrade

Upgrade S 257,600 157,600 100,000 - - - - -

29-452.0 14 Marie Neighborhood Park Comfort Station Upgrade S 246,250 246,250 - - - - - -

29-465.0 14 Martin Luther King Jr. Community Park Lighting

Upgrade S 39,400 - 39,400 - - - - -

29-479.0 14 Martin Luther King Jr. Community Park Senior Center

New S 3,346,370 712,370 1,074,000 1,560,000 - - - -

29-540.0 14 McGonegal Canyon Neighborhood Park New S 3,250,000 - - - - - - 3,250,00029-515.0 14 Memorial Community Park Skateboard Park New S 576,000 - 576,000 - - - - -

29-505.0 14 Memorial Community Park Tot Lot Upgrade Upgrade S 185,000 - 185,000 - - - - -

29-414.0 14 Mesa Verde Neighborhood Park Tot Lot Improvements

Upgrade S 177,000 83,000 94,000 - - - - -

29-846.0 14 Mid-City Parkland Acquisition New S 1,385,000 - 1,385,000 - - - - - 29-738.0 14 Mira Mesa Community Park (Hourglass Field)

Development Phase 2New S 3,670,000 218,627 3,451,373 - - - - -

29-425.0 14 Mira Mesa Community Park Senior Citizens Center Parking Lot Expansion

Upgrade S 444,138 45,000 344,550 54,588 - - - -

52-533.0 14 Mission Beach Boardwalk Widening Upgrade S 3,632,000 1,552,289 370,711 1,709,000 - - - - 29-472.0 14 Mission Beach South Belmont Park Restroom Upgrade S 1,080,000 750,000 80,000 250,000 - - - -

52-719.0 14 Mission Beach Boardwalk Bulkhead Preservation

Upgrade S 3,740,000 - 177,000 3,563,000 - - - -

20-100.0 14 Mission Dam Dredging Upgrade S 349,900 123,500 30,000 196,400 - - - - 29-668.0 14 Mission Valley Preserve Geological Impact

ReportTech S 40,000 - - 40,000 - - - -

29-833.0 14 Mountain View Community Park Recreation Center

New S 5,631,250 140,000 4,491,250 1,000,000 - - - -

29-718.0 14 Nobel Athletic Area Development New S 9,200,000 362,939 8,837,061 - - - - - 29-702.0 14 Normal Heights Community Park

DevelopmentNew S 1,368,085 976,085 - 392,000 - - - -

29-667.0 14 North Chollas Community Park Master Plan & Development

New S 9,335,547 3,078,204 - 6,257,343 - - - -

29-468.0 14 North Clairemont Community Park Recreation Center Tot Lot

Upgrade S 185,000 50,000 135,000 - - - - -

29-826.0 14 North Park Community Park Phase 1 Requirements

Upgrade S 1,595,000 900,078 694,922 - - - - -

29-661.0 14 Ocean Beach Recreational Center Tot Lot Upgrade

Upgrade S 172,375 467 171,908 - - - - -

29-541.0 14 Ocean View Hills Community Park Acquisition, Design & Construction

New S 5,625,000 - - - - - 1,875,000 3,750,000

29-542.0 14 Ocean View Hills Recreation Center New S 3,000,000 - - - - - - 3,000,00029-550.0 14 Otay Valley Athletic Complex New S 10,124,437 - 100,000 10,024,437 - - - - 29-658.0 14 Pacific Beach Elementary School Joint Use

ImprovementsUpgrade S 570,200 7,590 562,610 - - - - -

29-420.0 14 Pacific Beach Recreation Center Improvements

Upgrade S 198,139 44,009 154,130 - - - - -

29-543.0 14 Pacific Highlands Community Park Acquisition

New S 8,775,000 - - - - - - 8,775,000

330

Exhibit 7Parks and Open Space Capital Projects, FY 2003 and Later

ProjectNo.

Agency ID [1]

Project Description Project Type [2]Regional (R) / Subregional

Total Project Cost

Costs Prior to FY 2003

FY 2003Costs

FY 2004Costs

FY 2005Costs

FY 2006Costs

FY 2007Costs

Costs After FY 2007

29-544.0 14 Pacific Highlands Community Park Recreation Building

New S 3,300,000 - - - - - - 3,300,000

29-432.0 14 Paradise Hills Community Park Phase 3 Upgrade S 2,358,492 98,742 278,250 1,981,500 - - - - 20-103.0 14 Park & Recreation Grant Match Funding New S 2,584,786 1,215,900 1,368,886 - - - - - 29-684.0 14 Park De La Cruz New S 1,691,351 486,575 - 1,204,776 - - - - 29-545.0 14 Parkdale Neighborhood Park New S 1,280,000 - - - - - - 1,280,00029-582.0 14 Penasquitos Creek Restoration Tech S 296,000 - 296,000 - - - - - 29-531.0 14 Pershing Middle School Joint Use Turfing Upgrade S 3,147,506 180,000 441,633 2,525,873 - - - - 29-669.0 14 Playground Upgrade Equipment Upgrade S 500,000 - - 500,000 - - - - 29-844.0 14 Point Loma Parking Lot Improvements Upgrade S 280,000 - 280,000 - - - - - 29-477.0 14 Presido Park Master Plan Tech S 465,000 25,000 - 440,000 - - - - 29-845.0 14 Presidio Park Restroom & Picnic Area Upgrade S 418,625 - 418,625 - - - - - 29-476.0 14 Rancho Bernardo Community Park

Sportsfield LightingUpgrade S 587,000 267,000 320,000 - - - - -

29-516.0 14 Rancho Penasquitos Skate Park New S 1,304,402 - 75,000 1,229,402 - - - - 29-651.0 14 Riviera Del Sol Neighborhood Park

AcquisitionNew S 2,499,000 - - - - - - 2,499,000

29-410.0 14 Sandburg Neighborhood Park Tot Lot improvements

Upgrade S 265,387 167,387 98,000 - - - - -

29-850.0 14 Serra Mesa Community Park Tot Lot Upgrade Upgrade S 487,900 - 487,900 - - - - -

29-660.0 14 Serra Mesa Community Park Recreation Center Game Room Remodel

Upgrade S 98,500 - 98,500 - - - - -

29-497.0 14 Silver Terrace Park New S 497,760 200,000 246,760 51,000 - - - - 29-841.0 14 Solana Highlands Neighborhood Park Tot Lot

UpgradeUpgrade S 270,000 - 270,000 - - - - -

29-664.0 14 South Clairemont Community Park Picnic Shelter

Upgrade S 74,175 8,207 65,968 - - - - -

29-851.0 14 South Clairemont Community Park Pool Filter Replacement

Upgrade S 90,000 - 90,000 - - - - -

29-471.0 14 South Kellogg Park Restroom Upgrade S 463,000 46,000 417,000 - - - - - 29-662.0 14 Southcrest Community Park Tot Lot Upgrade Upgrade S 210,250 - 210,250 - - - - -

29-553.0 14 Standley Community Park Children's Playground Upgrade

Upgrade S 174,000 - 174,000 - - - - -

29-834.0 14 Sunset Cliffs Natural Park Signage Tech S 150,000 - - 150,000 - - - - 29-796.0 14 Tecolote Canyon Natural Park Resource

Management PlanTech S 125,000 - - 125,000 - - - -

29-796.0 14 Tecolote Canyon Natural Park Resource Management Plan

Tech S 125,000 - - 125,000 - - - -

29-488.0 14 Tecolote Nature Center Expansion Upgrade S 505,040 153,040 352,000 - - - - - 29-685.0 14 Teralta Neighborhood Park Development New S 1,538,542 958,542 - 580,000 - - - - 29-484.0 14 Tierrasanta Community Park Tot Lot Upgrade Upgrade S 357,000 257,000 100,000 - - - - -

29-546.0 14 Torrey Highlands Neighborhood Park North New S 3,050,000 - 1,800,000 250,000 1,000,000 - - -

29-547.0 14 Torrey Highlands Neighborhood Park South New S 3,250,000 - 2,000,000 - - 125,000 1,125,000 -

29-548.0 14 Torrey Highlands Trail System New S 1,000,000 - - - - - - 1,000,00029-502.0 14 Torrey Pines Glider Port General

Development PlanUpgrade S 75,000 - 75,000 - - - - -

29-437.0 14 Torrey Pines Pocket Park Acquisition & Development

New S 1,662,000 162,000 - 1,500,000 - - - -

29-842.0 14 University Gardens Neighborhood Park Comfort Station

Upgrade S 375,000 - 375,000 - - - - -

331

Exhibit 7Parks and Open Space Capital Projects, FY 2003 and Later

ProjectNo.

Agency ID [1]

Project Description Project Type [2]Regional (R) / Subregional

Total Project Cost

Costs Prior to FY 2003

FY 2003Costs

FY 2004Costs

FY 2005Costs

FY 2006Costs

FY 2007Costs

Costs After FY 2007

29-656.0 14 Vista Grande Elementary School Joint Use Improvements

New S 1,050,000 - 150,000 900,000 - - - -

29-481.0 14 Vista Pacifica Neighborhood Park Acquisition and Development

New S 4,175,000 1,540,000 1,472,500 1,162,500 - - - -

29-853.0 14 Vista Terrace Neighborhood Park Pool Filter Replacement

Upgrade S 85,000 - 85,000 - - - - -

29-508.0 14 Wangenheim Middle School Sportsfield Lighting

Upgrade S 258,000 - 258,000 - - - - -

29-680.0 14 Windansea Erosion Control Plan Upgrade S 575,000 150,000 200,000 225,000 - - - - 29-727.0 14 Winterwood Lane Community Park

Development Phase 2New S 2,578,906 12,726 2,566,180 - - - - -

29-770.0 14 Winterwood Lane Community Park Pool New S 3,120,000 - 780,000 2,340,000 - - - - 29-436.0 14 Winterwood Lane Community Park

Recreation BuildingNew S 3,120,000 - 780,000 2,340,000 - - - -

29-665.0 14 Zamorano Elementary School Joint Use Improvements

Upgrade S 2,000,000 - 965,000 1,035,000 - - - -

8039 15 Joslyn Senior Center Expansion New S 2,500,000 125,000 1,813,011 561,989 - - - - 8032 15 Bradley Park Phased Improvements Upgrade S 2,578,915 528,915 500,000 590,000 560,000 - 400,000 - 8084 15 Corky Smith Gymnasium Ann. Maintenance

and Phased ImprovementsUpgrade S 135,000 - 10,000 45,000 10,000 25,000 10,000 35,000

8109 15 Woodland Park Phased Improvements Upgrade S 80,000 15,000 20,000 15,000 - 15,000 - 15,0008055 15 Mission Sports Park Phased Development New S 2,309,000 996,000 259,000 309,000 149,000 149,000 149,000 298,0008085 15 Park Playground Improvements Upgrade S 560,000 - 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 80,000 160,0008086 15 Master Trails Program Upgrade S 210,000 - 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 60,0008054 15 Aquatic Facilities Ann. Maintenance and

ImprovementsUpgrade S 137,500 - 30,000 17,500 15,000 15,000 15,000 45,000

8117 15 Park Land Acquisition Biennial Allocation New S 4,500,000 - 1,000,000 1,500,000 - 1,000,000 - 1,000,0008056 15 Jack's Pond Park Phased Development New S 2,401,100 801,100 250,000 350,000 - 500,000 500,000 - 8066 15 Hollandia Park Phased Development New S 4,230,000 60,000 200,000 - 1,070,000 2,900,000 - - 8127 15 Montiel Park Phased Development New S 400,000 - 200,000 - - 200,000 - - 8128 15 Discovery Lake Park Phased Improvements Upgrade S 1,660,000 - 240,000 40,000 40,000 60,000 40,000 1,240,000

8129 15 South Lake Community Park Phased Improvements

Upgrade S 2,100,000 - 100,000 300,000 - 400,000 1,300,000 -

8099 15 Walnut Grove Park Phased Improvements Upgrade S 3,412,200 599,200 445,000 355,000 135,000 785,000 135,000 958,0008118 15 La Moree Park Phased Development New S 230,000 - - 30,000 200,000 - - - 8053 15 Riparian Habitat Mitigation Biennial

AllocationGreen S 1,500,000 - - 500,000 - 500,000 - 500,000

NA 15 Autumn Park Expansion Upgrade S 350,000 - - 350,000 - - - - NA1 15 Double Peak Regional Park Phased

DevelopmentNew S 1,000,000 - - - - 525,000 475,000 -

NA2 15 Poinsettia Park Phased Development New S 1,500,000 - - - - 1,500,000 - - 2002-31 16 Town Center Community Park Phase I New S 4,412,520 4,280,770 131,750 -

9438 17 La Colonia Playground Equipment Upgrade S 50,000 - 50,000 - - - - - 9438.01 17 La Colonia Picnic Improvement Upgrade S 15,000 - - 15,000 - - - - 9441.01 17 Fletcher Cove Restroom Repair Upgrade S 419,000 144,000 275,000 - - - - -

9444 17 Del Mar Shores Staircase Replacement Upgrade S 1,000,000 - - - 100,000 900,000 - - 7960 18 Rancho Buena Vista Adobe Roof Upgrade S 519,740 18,452 501,288 - - - - - 8013 18 Buena Vista Ballfield Parking Lot Upgrade S 368,000 25,134 342,866 - - - - - 8015 18 Creek Walk/ Wildwood to Brengle Upgrade S 45,000 - 45,000 - - - - - New1 18 Moonlight Amphitheater Stage House Upgrade S 834,520 - 834,520 - - - - - New2 18 Brengle Terrace Park Playground Equipment

ReplacementUpgrade S 110,000 110,000 - - - - - -

New3 18 Thibodo Park Playground Equipment Replacement

Upgrade S 32,000 32,000 - - - - - -

332

Exhibit 7Parks and Open Space Capital Projects, FY 2003 and Later

ProjectNo.

Agency ID [1]

Project Description Project Type [2]Regional (R) / Subregional

Total Project Cost

Costs Prior to FY 2003

FY 2003Costs

FY 2004Costs

FY 2005Costs

FY 2006Costs

FY 2007Costs

Costs After FY 2007

New4 18 Brengle Terrace Park Parking Traffic Study Tech S 30,000 30,000 - - - - - -

New5 18 Wildwood Park Area Master Plan Tech S 20,000 20,000 - - - - - - KN2968 19 Cactus Park Sportfield Upgrade S 54,670 4,670 50,000 - - - - - KN2969 19 Pine Valley Park Ballfield Upgrade S 3,477 3,477 - - - - - - KN1970 19 Jess Martin Playground Upgrade S 243 243 - - - - - - KN0550 19 Otay Valley Regional Park Upgrade S 105,974 105,974 - - - - - - KN1884 19 Lindo Lake Pavilion Upgrade S 135,906 125,161 10,745 - - - - - KN1561 19 Julian Jesse Martin Community Center Upgrade S 57,072 57,072 - - - - - - KN1533 19 Fallbrook Community Park Playground Upgrade S 22,220 22,220 - - - - - - KN6019 19 Heritage Park Bandstand Upgrade S 700,000 - 700,000 - - - - - KK5016 19 800 MHZ Radio Communication Center Upgrade S 177,003 177,003 - - - - - - KN5018 19 Community Services District JPA Tech S 2,208 2,208 - - - - - - KN7024 19 Lindo Lake Parking & Lights Upgrade S 8 8 - - - - - - KN1710 19 El Cajon ARCC Building Improvements Upgrade S 142,747 142,747 - - - - - - KN1714 19 Rios Canyon Ballfield Park Upgrade S 3,817 3,817 - - - - - - KN1716 19 Lakeside Community Center Improvements Upgrade S 87,917 87,917 - - - - - -

KN7012 19 Old Ironside Park Upgrade S 30 30 - - - - - - KN7022 19 Otay Lake Park Restrooms Upgrade S 118,461 118,461 - - - - - - KN0754 19 Lamar Park Development New S 109,403 109,403 - - - - - - KN0783 19 Julian Skateboard Park Upgrade S 9,766 9,766 - - - - - - KN0786 19 Lincoln Acres Park Upgrade S 84,980 84,980 - - - - - - KN0787 19 Cottonwood Park Phase 3 New S 646,888 46,888 600,000 - - - - - KN0788 19 Family Friendly Restrooms Upgrade S 298,067 298,067 - - - - - - KN8013 19 San Pasqual Renovation Upgrade S 7,783,606 7,783,606 - - - - - - KN8045 19 Oakoasis Log House Upgrade S 50,118 50,118 - - - - - - KN0855 19 San Dieguito Park Restroom Upgrade S 14,667 14,667 - - - - - - KK0865 19 Spring Valley Teen Gym New S 246,938 246,938 - - - - - - KN0867 19 Agua Caliente Park Restrooms Upgrade S 6,767 6,767 - - - - - - KN0868 19 Collier Park Walk & Picnic Area Upgrade S 121,877 121,877 - - - - - - KN0870 19 Pine Valley Basketball & Tennis Court Upgrade S 7,574 7,574 - - - - - - KN0871 19 Southbay Biological Study Area Green S 30,000 30,000 - - - - - - KN0873 19 Tijuana River Valley Sport Park New S 580,021 280,021 300,000 - - - - - KN0878 19 William Heise Park Trail Improvements Upgrade S 1,231 1,231 - - - - - - KK0880 19 Spring Valley Teen Center New S 125,597 50,597 75,000 - - - - - KK0883 19 South Bay Regional Center ARRC New S 2,424,260 2,424,260 - - - - - - KN0884 19 Lakeside Teen Center New S 312,212 6,212 306,000 - - - - - KN1885 19 Spring Valley Community Center Playground

ImprovementsUpgrade S 192,558 192,558 - - - - - -

KN1886 19 Julian Memorial Park Improvements Upgrade S 916 916 - - - - - - KN1910 19 Old Ironside Walkway Upgrade S 31,969 31,969 - - - - - - KN9016 19 Rainbow Park Phase 1 New S 466,161 466,161 - - - - - - KN9020 19 Tijuana River / Effie Mae Farm Misc S 4,116 4,116 - - - - - - KN9021 19 Volcan Mt. Restroom ERSN Upgrade S 2,472 2,472 - - - - - - KN9031 19 Sweetwater Morrison Park Development New S 168,236 168,236 - - - - - - KN9032 19 Collier Park Facility Design Tech S 266,823 71,823 195,000 - - - - - KN9034 19 Lindo Lake NE Parking Lot Upgrade S 3,512 3,512 - - - - - - KN9036 19 Louis Stelzer Park Upgrade S 41,714 41,714 - - - - - - KK1953 19 Valley Center Museum Upgrade S 155,625 155,625 - - - - - - KN1954 19 Dos Picos Picnic Area Upgrade S 6,734 6,734 - - - - - - KN2955 19 Agua Caliente Park Upgrade S 1,100,000 1,100,000 - - - - - - KN2956 19 El Monte Park Playground Upgrade S 9,141 9,141 - - - - - - KN2957 19 Flinn Springs Park Upgrade S 2,658 2,658 - - - - - - KN2958 19 Lake Jennings Park Upgrade S 3,702 3,702 - - - - - -

333

Exhibit 7Parks and Open Space Capital Projects, FY 2003 and Later

ProjectNo.

Agency ID [1]

Project Description Project Type [2]Regional (R) / Subregional

Total Project Cost

Costs Prior to FY 2003

FY 2003Costs

FY 2004Costs

FY 2005Costs

FY 2006Costs

FY 2007Costs

Costs After FY 2007

KN2960 19 Lake Morena Equiptment Upgrade S 434 434 - - - - - - KN2961 19 Lindo Lake Park Lighting Upgrade S 8,362 8,362 - - - - - - KN2962 19 Stelzer Park Playground Upgrade S 3,019 3,019 - - - - - - KN2963 19 William Heise Playground Restrooms Upgrade S 6,386 6,386 - - - - - - KN2964 19 Fallbrook Sports Park Upgrade S 5,623 5,623 - - - - - - KK2991 19 San Pasqual Technical Center New S 202,187 202,187 - - - - - - KK2992 19 San Pasqual Gymnasium New S 390,081 390,081 - - - - - - KN3401 19 Jess Martin Park Sportsfield New S 100,000 - 100,000 - - - - - KN3402 19 Felicita Museum ADA Improvements Upgrade S 73,433 3,433 70,000 - - - - - KN3403 19 Felicita Park Playground Upgrade S 125,000 - 125,000 - - - - - KN3404 19 Lake Morena Park Improvements Upgrade S 200,000 - 200,000 - - - - - KN3405 19 Lakeside Park Improvements Upgrade S 745,000 - 745,000 - - - - - KN3406 19 Sweetwater Park SR125 Mitigation Green S 345,000 - 345,000 - - - - - KN3407 19 Lindo Lake Well Upgrade S 34,730 - 34,730 - - - - - KN3408 19 Los Penasquitos Trail Restoration Upgrade S 75,000 - 75,000 - - - - - KN3409 19 Potrero Park Playgrounds Upgrade S 125,000 - 125,000 - - - - - KN3410 19 Sweetwater Playgrounds Upgrade S 135,000 - 135,000 - - - - - KN3411 19 Borrego Springs Park Master Plan Tech S 78,000 - 78,000 - - - - - KN3412 19 East County Sports Complex New S 250,000 - 250,000 - - - - - KN3413 19 Fallbrook Community Park Playground Upgrade S 165,000 - 165,000 - - - - - KN3414 19 Felicita Park Improvements Upgrade S 530,000 - 530,000 - - - - - KN3415 19 Guajome Park Playground Upgrade S 500,000 - 500,000 - - - - - KN3416 19 Nancy Jane Park Swings Upgrade S 140,000 - 140,000 - - - - - KN3417 19 San Dieguito Upper Picnic Improvements Upgrade S 525,000 - 525,000 - - - - - KN3418 19 South Lane Park Improvements Upgrade S 98,000 - 98,000 - - - - - KN3419 19 Sweetwater Bikeway Trails Construction Upgrade S 1,100,000 - 1,100,000 - - - - - KA1562 19 North County Open Space Green S 7,534 7,534 - - - - - - KA2564 19 Otay River Valley Park Upgrade S 250,000 - 250,000 - - - - - KA9500 19 MSCP Green S 10,130,165 4,498,165 2,816,000 2,816,000 - - - - KA9730 19 Tijuana River Land Acquisition New S 30,536 30,536 - - - - - - KA0550 19 Otay Valley Park Acquistion New S 34,805 34,805 - - - - - - KA0551 19 Escondido Creek Acquisition New S 740,911 740,911 - - - - - - KA1971 19 San Elijo Acquisition Green S 73,724 73,724 - - - - - - KA2972 19 Santa Ysabel Acquisition Green S 9,100,000 9,100,000 - - - - - - KA3420 19 Bonsall Park River Site Acquisition New S 383,859 - 383,859 - - - - -

Total 499,779,313$ 110,969,657 145,172,579 96,578,757 8,816,231 25,917,479 9,450,886 102,321,000

Source: Local jurisdictions of San Diego County, FY 2003 Capital Improvement Programs.1. See Exhibit 5 for list of local jurisdiction IDs.2. See Exhibit 6 for summary of CIP expenditures by project type.

334

335

Exhibit 8Long-Term Need for Local Parks Exceeds

Projected Growth in Population, 2003-2030

Population Increase, 30%

Base Year 2003

Active Park Acreage

Increase, 71%

-50%

0%

50%

100%

2000 2010 2020 2030

Sources: SANDAG, Inventory of Land Use and Land Ownership andRegional Growth Forecast; General Plans of City of San Diego and County of San Diego.

Note: Population in 2003 is 2,961,600; projected population in 2030 is 3,855,085. Acres of active parks and active beaches in 2003 totaled approximately 5,916 acres; at 4.5 acres per 1000 population increase, approximately 4,200 acres of local and active parks will need to be added by 2030. See text for discussion.

336

337

Exhibit 10 Conservation Status, Goals, and Costs by Jurisdiction

MHCP MSCP MSCP SD Region MHCP [1] Other [2] MSCP [3] North East Total

Total Natural Habitat in Study Area (Acres) 29,961 2,918 318,839 NA NA 1,601,501 Ac Natural Habitat Targeted for Conservation 19,928 1,390 171,723 [9] [9] 400,041 Ac Status of Natural Habitat Targeted for Conservation (Ac.) Currently Conserved [4] 7,173 1,390 98,940 NA NA NA Not Conserved, Committed for Conservation [5] 10,268 -- NA NA NA NA Not Conserved, Not Committed for Conservation 2,487 -- NA NA NA NA Target Acquisition Area (Portion of Habitat Not Conserved and Not Committed for Conservation) [6] 1,347 -- 23,878 108,000 72,000 205,225 Ac Federal / State Share of Acquisition 609 11,939 72,000 48,000 132,548 Local Share of Acquisition 738 11,939 36,000 24,000 72,677 Estimated Implementation Cost for Local Jurisdictions ($ Million) One-Time Costs: Acquisition, Restoration, Start-up 42.1 -- 173.5 144.0 96.0 $455.6 M

Plus: Recurring Cost at Buildout ($ Mill./Yr.) 2.4 NA 8.1 7.6 5.1 23.1 M Restatement of Estimated Implementation Cost as 30-Year Discounted Total and Average Annual Cost Total 30-Year Discounted Cost [7] 128.9 NA 472.8 420.8 280.5 $1,303.1 M Average Annual (Amortized) Cost [8] 9.9 NA 36.2 32.2 21.5 99.8 M

Source: Final MSCP Plan, Final MHCP Plan; Cities of Chula Vista, Poway, San Diego, Santee, and County of San Diego. NA Not applicable or not available. 1. Adopted in 2003; areas refer to subarea plan boundaries, which differ from jurisdiction boundaries. 2. Habitat areas within the incorporated boundaries of MHCP cities but excluded from their subarea plans; these areas are covered by previously adopted habitat conservation plans. 3. Final plan issued in 1998; areas refer to subarea plan boundaries, which differ from jurisdiction boundaries. 4. As of December 2002 or later (as reported by cities). 5. Public and private lands committed for future conservation, but not yet dedicated. 6. Estimated acres of acquisition as provided by cities. 7. Assume: nominal interest rate of 6%; inflation rate of 3%; and financing premium of 0.5% above real (inflation-adjusted) interest rate. 8. 30-year level amortization of total discounted cost. 9. A combined total of 207,000 acres of habitat is planned for conservation for the North and East County programs.

Exhibit 11Habitat Conservation Status, Goals and Estimated Implementation Costs

MHCP (2003) MSCP (1997)

[City names indicate SAP study areas only.] Car

lsba

d

Enci

nita

s

Esco

ndid

o

Oce

ansi

de

San

Mar

cos

Sola

na B

each

Vis

ta

TOTA

L M

HC

P

Inco

rpor

ated

Are

as

Excl

uded

fro

m M

HC

P

Chu

la V

ista

Cor

onad

o

Del

Mar

El C

ajon

Impe

rial B

each

Total Natural Habitat 6,337 2,758 9,206 4,705 5,337 96 1,522 29,961 2,918 8,386 4,421 291 424 1,132

FPA / MHPA / PAMA / PPA (Gross Ac.) 4,367 2,385 7,659 2,868 2,977 38 537 20,831 405 175 212 1,091

Target Conserv. of Natural Habitat (Net Ac.) 4,441 2,214 7,191 2,832 2,595 41 614 19,928 1,390 4,557 350 175 195 1,090

Habitat Conservation Status

Current Conserved - Total 1,647 910 3,081 1,273 144 7 111 7,173 1,390 2,459 350 175 195 1,090

Current Not Conserved - Total 2,794 1,304 4,110 1,559 2,451 34 503 12,755 2,534 - - - -

Committed for Conservation 2,140 640 3,732 1,326 1,983 29 418 10,268 2,534 - - - -

Not Conserved, Not Committed 654 664 378 233 468 5 85 2,487 0 - - - -

Habitat Acquisition (Acres) 1,347 5 - - - -

Other Vacant Land (Agriculture, Disturbed) 3,144 1,289 2,290 5,954 1,721 17 741 15,156 501 7,037 24 41 232 142

Estimated Implementation Costs (2003 $ Mill.)

One-time Costs

Habitat Acquisition -- Total $71.3 $0.15 - - - -

Habitat Acquisition -- Local Share 36.1 0.08 - - - -

Habitat Restoration (One-time or cumulative) 3.8 - - - - -

Management Start-up (One-time) 2.2 - - - - -

Total One-time Cost (Local Share) $42.1 $0.08 - - - -

Annual Recurring Costs at Buildout

Habitat Management 1.98 0.38

Habitat Monitoring * - -

Program Administration * 0.40 -

Total Annual Recurring Cost $2.38 $0.38

Total and Average Costs Over 30 Years

Endowment to pay annual costs (2003 $) $79.3 $12.7

Endowment in 2033 Dollars 192.6 30.8

PV of Annual Deposits to Endowment Fund 33.5 5.4

PV of Annual Recurring Costs 46.6 7.5

Total One-time Cost (see above) 42.1 0.1

PV of Financing and Interest Costs 6.6 0.7

Total One-time and PV Cost Over 30 Years $128.9 $13.6

Average (amortized) annual cost 9.9 1.0

Source: MHCP, MSCP, local jurisdictions. I. Conserved: existing preserves or open space parks, approved mitigation III. Not Conserved, Not Committed: other lands in FPA Focused planning area banks and mitigation areas, or protected by conservation easement. FPA, MHPA, or PAMA, which are not committedMHPA Multi-Habitat Planning Area II. Committed for Conservation: lands in FPA, MHPA, or PAMA, which are for conservation and may require acquisition.PAMA Pre-approved Mitigation Area not currently conserved, but are anticipated to be conserved in the future,PPA Preserve planning area due to public ownership or commitment of a private owner to conservePV Present value (see interest rate assumpt.) such areas in the future.

Not applicable or not available* For some cities, monitoring and administration

costs are included in "management".

338

Exhibit 11Habitat Conservation Status, Goals and Estimated Implementation Costs

[City names indicate SAP study areas only.]

Total Natural Habitat

FPA / MHPA / PAMA / PPA (Gross Ac.)

Target Conserv. of Natural Habitat (Net Ac.)

Habitat Conservation Status

Current Conserved - Total

Current Not Conserved - Total

Committed for Conservation

Not Conserved, Not Committed

Habitat Acquisition (Acres)

Other Vacant Land (Agriculture, Disturbed)

Estimated Implementation Costs (2003 $ Mill.)

One-time Costs

Habitat Acquisition -- Total

Habitat Acquisition -- Local Share

Habitat Restoration (One-time or cumulative)

Management Start-up (One-time)

Total One-time Cost (Local Share)

Annual Recurring Costs at Buildout

Habitat Management

Habitat Monitoring *

Program Administration *

Total Annual Recurring Cost

Total and Average Costs Over 30 Years

Endowment to pay annual costs (2003 $)

Endowment in 2033 Dollars

PV of Annual Deposits to Endowment Fund

PV of Annual Recurring Costs

Total One-time Cost (see above)

PV of Financing and Interest Costs

Total One-time and PV Cost Over 30 Years

Average (amortized) annual cost

Source: MHCP, MSCP, local jurisdictions.FPA Focused planning areaMHPA Multi-Habitat Planning AreaPAMA Pre-approved Mitigation AreaPPA Preserve planning areaPV Present value (see interest rate assumpt.)

Not applicable or not available* For some cities, monitoring and administration

costs are included in "management".

MSCP (1997)

La M

esa

Lem

on G

rove

Nat

iona

l City

Pow

ay

Sant

ee

City

of

San

Die

go

Uni

ncor

pora

ted

Cou

nty

Wat

er D

istr

icts

Mili

tary

TOTA

L M

SCP

[1]

MSC

P-N

orth

MSC

P-Ea

st

Mili

tary

Oth

er (e

.g.

Cam

p Pe

ndle

ton)

TOTA

L SA

N D

IEG

O

CO

UN

TY[2

]

210 1 1,388 13,772 4,496 78,590 184,248 3,116 18,364 318,839 1,601,501

51 0 225 11,843 51,971 112,237 2,836

51 0 225 10,800 2,649 47,762 101,268 2,601 171,723 207,000 400,041

51 0 225 5,804 306 31,188 57,097 98,940

- - - 4,996 2,343 16,574 44,171 72,783

- - - 1,630 12,931

- - - 713 3,643

- - - - - 3,643 20,230 23,878 108,000 72,000 205,225

25 109 47 2,435 523 19,045 21,549 789 3,710 55,708

- - - - - $72.9 $274.0 - $347.0 $432.0 $288.0 $1,138.3

- - - - - 36.4 137.0 - 173.5 144.0 96.0 449.6

- - - - - - - - - - - 3.8

- - - - - - - - - - - 2.2

- - - - - $36.4 $137.0 - $173.5 $144.0 $96.0 $455.6

0.23 0.11 1.79 4.85 7.53 7.58 5.05 22.14

- - 0.21 - 0.21 - - 0.21

- 0.10 0.40 - 0.50 - - 0.90

$0.23 $0.21 $2.40 $4.85 $8.07 $7.58 $5.05 $23.08

$7.6 $7.1 $80.0 $161.6 $269.0 $252.5 $168.4 $769.2

18.4 17.2 194.2 392.2 652.8 613.0 $408.7 1,867.0

3.2 3.0 33.8 68.3 113.7 106.7 71.2 325.1

4.4 4.2 47.0 95.0 161.4 148.5 99.0 455.6

0.0 - 36.4 137.0 173.5 144.0 96.0 455.6

0.4 0.4 6.3 16.2 24.3 21.6 14.4 66.9

$8.1 $7.6 $123.6 $316.5 $472.8 $420.8 $280.5 $1,303.1

0.6 0.6 9.5 24.2 36.2 32.2 21.5 99.8

Interest Rate AssumptionsNominal interest rate (e.g., expected average interest earned on endowment) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.0%Expected annual inflation rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.0%Inflation-adjusted interest rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.0%Interest premium to amortize present value cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.5%Term (years) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Note 1. Includes management cost for 3.579 acres in the other cities of MSCP study area.Note 2. Total natural vegetation applies only to 2.1 million acres of the county mapped in 1995.

339

IRIS APPENDICES REFERENCES

343

IRIS APPENDIX REFERENCES

I. General

California Commission on Building for the 21st Century. Invest for California: Strategic Planning for California’s Future Prosperity and Quality of Life. September 2001.

California. Department of Finance. 2003 California Five Year Infrastructure Plan. Sacramento, CA. March 2003.

Carlsbad, City of. Operating Budget and Capital Improvement Program 2002 – 2003. Office of the City Manager. Carlsbad, CA. 2002.

Chula Vista, City of. Adopted Budget Fiscal Years 2002 – 2003. Office of the City Manager. Chula Vista, CA. May 2001.

Coronado, City of. Adopted Two Year Financial Plan Fiscal Years 2001/02 – 2002/03. Office of the City Manager. Coronado, CA. December 2001.

Coronado, City of. Capital Improvement Program Fiscal Years 2002/03 – 2008/09. Office of the City Manager. Coronado, CA. June 2002.

Del Mar, City of. Operating and Capital Improvement Budget Fiscal Years 2002/03 – 2003/04.Office of the City Manager. Del Mar, CA. July 2002.

Dowall, David and Whittington. Making Room for the Future: Rebuilding California’s Infrastructure. Public Policy Institute of California. Berkley, CA. January 2003.

El Cajon, City of. Adopted Annual Budget FY 2001 – 2002. Office of the City Manager. El Cajon, CA. July 2001.

Encinitas, City of. Fiscal Years 2001 – 2002 & 2002 – 2003 Operating Budget & New Programs.Office of the City Manager. Encinitas, CA. July 2001.

Encinitas, City of. Fiscal Years 2001 – 2003 to 2006 – 2007 Five – Year Financial Capital Improvement Plan. Office of the City Manager. Encinitas, CA. July 2001.

Encinitas, City of. Supplementary Budget Information Addendum Relating to FY 2002 – 2003.“Operating and Capital Budget for the City of Encinitas and San Dieguito Water District.” Office of the City Manager. Encinitas, CA. August 2002.

Escondido, City of. Annual Operating Budget Fiscal Year 2002 – 2003. Department of Administrative Services. Escondido, CA. May 2002.

Escondido, City of. Five Year Capital Improvement Program Fiscal Year 2002 – 2003. Department of Administrative Services. Escondido, CA. May 2002.

Imperial Beach, City of. Fiscal Year 2001 – 2003 Two – Year Operating Budget with Cost Projections Through FY 2005/06. Department of Finance. Imperial Beach, CA. June 2001.

La Mesa, City of. Two Year Budget FY 2001/02 – 2002/03. Department of Finance. La Mesa, CA. October 2001.

Lemon Grove, City of. Budget Fiscal Year 2002 – 2003. Department of Finance. Lemon Grove, CA. 2002.

National City, City of. Annual Budget Fiscal Year 2001 – 2002. Office of the City Manager. National City, CA. July 2001.

344

Oceanside, City of. Adopted Biennial Budget, Fiscal Years 2002 – 2004. Oceanside, CA. 2002. Oceanside, City of. Capital Improvement Program Budget FY 2002 – 2003 to 2006 – 2007.

Oceanside, CA. 2002. Poway, City of. Proposed Budget for Fiscal Years 2001/02 – 2002/03. Department of Administrative

Services. Poway, CA. May 2001. San Diego, City of. Proposed Fiscal Year 2003 Annual Budget (Volumes I-V). Department of

Budget and Management Services. San Diego, CA. 2002. San Diego, County of. Capital Improvement Program FY 2001 – 2006. Department of Public Works.

County of San Diego, CA. 2001. San Diego, County of. Operational Plan Fiscal Years 2002/03 – 2003/04. Department of Public

Works. County of San Diego, CA. 2001. San Marcos, City of. Operations and Maintenance Budget for Fiscal Years 02/03, 03/04, 04/05.

Capital Improvement Projects Budget for Fiscal Years 02/03 through 08/09. San Marcos, CA. June 2002.

Santee, City of. Adopted Capital Improvement Program and Budget FY 2001 – 2003. Santee, CA. July 2001.

Santee, City of. Two Year Adopted Budget 2001- 2003. Department of Finance. Santee, CA. June 2001. Solana Beach, City of. Adopted Budget for the Fiscal Year July 1, 2002 to June 30, 2003.

Department of Finance. Solana Beach, CA. June 2002. Vista, City of. 2001/02 – 2002/03 Operating Budget. Department of Finance. Vista, CA. May 2001. Vista, City of. 2001/02 – 2002/03 CIP Budget. Department of Finance. Vista, CA. May 2001.

II. Transportation

California. Office of the State Controller. Financial Transaction Concerning Streets and Roads of Cities and Counties of California, Annual Report 2000 – 2001 Fiscal Year. Sacramento, CA. June 2003.

North San Diego County Transit Development Board. Final Operating Budget; Final Capital Improvement Plan Fiscal Years 2002/03 – 2003/04. Oceanside, CA. June 2002.

San Diego Association of Governments. 2002 Regional Transportation Improvement Program. San Diego, CA. July 2002.

San Diego Association of Governments. Bi-national Infrastructure Needs Assessment Study (BINS).SourcePoint. San Diego, CA. November 2003.

San Diego Association of Governments. Mobility 2030; The Transportation Plan for the San Diego Region. San Diego, CA. April 2003.

San Diego Association of Governments. San Diego Airport Economic Impact of Master Plan Implementation. SourcePoint. San Diego, CA. 1998.

San Diego County Regional Airport Authority. FY 2004 Adopted Budget. Department of Financial Planning and Budget. San Diego, CA. June 2003.

San Diego Metropolitan Transit System. Fiscal Year 2003 Budget. San Diego, CA. August 2002. San Diego Unified Port District. Annual Budget for Fiscal Year 2002 – 2003. San Diego, CA. June 2002. San Diego Unified Port District. Maritime Master Plan. San Diego, CA. 2003. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. Bi-national Border

Transportation Planning and Programming Process. Barton–Aschman Associates, Inc. San Jose, CA. March 20, 1998.

345

III. Water Supply and Delivery System

Fallbrook Public Utility District. Final Budget 2002-03. Fallbrook, CA. July 2002. Leucadia County Water District. Financial Statements. Diehl, Evans & Company, LLP. Carlsbad, CA.

October 2002. Metro Investment Report. “After Contentious Debate, Litigation & Legislation State’s Water Policy

Still Leaves Questions Unanswered.” Ed Casey and Weston Benshoof. April 2002.Olivenhain Municipal Water District. Operating and Capital Budget Fiscal Year 2002-2003.

Encinitas, CA. June 2002. Otay Water District. Adopted Operating and Capital Budget Fiscal Year 2002-2003. Department of

Finance. Spring Valley, CA. July 2002. Otay Water District. Water Resource Master Plan. Spring Valley, CA. August 2002. Padre Dam Municipal Water District. Budget, Fiscal Years 2002-2004. Santee, CA. June 2002. Padre Dam Municipal Water District. Capital Improvement Program, Fiscal Years 2002-2004.

Santee, CA. June 2002. Ramona Municipal Water District. Fiscal Year 2002-2003 Budget. Ramona, CA. June 2002. Rincon del Diablo Municipal Water District. Fiscal Year 2002-2003. Escondido, CA. June 2002. San Diego, City of. Long-Range Water Resources Plan (2002-2030). Water Department. San Diego,

CA. December 2002. San Diego County Water Authority. 2000 Urban Water Management Plan. Water Resources

Department. San Diego, CA. December 2000. San Diego County Water Authority. Adopted Capital Improvement Program Budget Fiscal year

2002-2003 (Volume II). Department of Finance. San Diego, CA. September 2002. San Diego County Water Authority. Adopted Operating Budget Fiscal Year 2002-2003, Volume I.

Department of Finance. San Diego, CA. September 2002. San Diego County Water Authority. Draft Regional Water Facilities Master Plan. Engineering

Department. San Diego, CA. December 2002. San Diego County Water Authority. Survey of Member Agency Water Rates. Water Resources

Department. San Diego, CA. April 2003. San Diego Union Tribune. “Recycled water essential to San Diego’s future.” Harold Bailey. San

Diego, CA. March 7, 2003. Santa Fe Irrigation District. Approved Budgets FY 2002/2003. Santa Fe Irrigation District and R.E.

Badger Filtration Plant. Rancho Santa Fe, CA. June 2002. Sweetwater Authority. Final 2002-03 Budget. Chula Vista, CA. August 2002. Vallecitos Water District. Fiscal Year 2002-2003 Budget. San Marcos, CA. June 2002. Valley Center Municipal Water District. Annual Budget Fiscal Year 2002-03. Valley Center, CA.

June 2002. Valley Center Municipal Water District. Water Master Plan. Valley Center, CA. April 2002. Vista Irrigation District. Fiscal Year 2002/2003 Budget. Vista, CA. May 2002.

IV. Wastewater (Sewage Collection, Treatment and Discharge System)

San Diego, City of. Metropolitan Wastewater Plan (Draft). Department of Metropolitan Wastewater. San Diego, CA. August 2003.

San Diego Union Tribune. “San Diego wins sewage waiver renewal.” Terry Rodgers. San Diego, CA. September 10, 2002.

346

San Diego Union Tribune. “S.D. gets $6.1 million grant for urban runoff.” Terry Rodgers. San Diego, CA. July 19, 2003.

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. Southern California Comprehensive Water Reclamation and Reuse Study. Washington, D.C. 1999.

V. Storm Water Management

Carlsbad, City of. Jurisdictional Urban Runoff Management Plan. San Diego, CA. February 2001. North County Times. “County to remain lead agency on stormwater rules.” Marty Graham.

Laguna Beach, CA. April 10, 2003. North County Times. “County searching for ways to fund water cleanup.” Marty Graham. San

Diego, CA. December 12, 2002. San Diego, City of. Urban Runoff Management Program Plan. San Diego, CA. January 2002. San Diego, City of. San Diego River Watershed Urban Runoff Management Plan. San Diego, CA.

January 2003. San Diego, County of. San Diego County Beach Closure Report, 3 Year Summary (2000-2002). San

Diego, CA. 2002. San Diego, County of. The Unified Watershed Urban Runoff Management Program. San Diego,

CA. 2001. San Diego, County of. Project Clean Water Strategic Plan. San Diego, CA. June 2001. San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board (SDRWQCB). Municipal Storm Water Permit

Order No. 2001-01. San Diego, CA. February 2001. San Diego Unified Port District. San Diego Bay Watershed Urban Runoff Management Program

Document. January 2003. San Diego Union Tribune. “S.D. gets $6.1 million grant for urban runoff.” Terry Rodgers. San

Diego, CA. July 19, 2003.

VI. Solid Waste Collection, Recycling and Disposal

California Integrated Waste Management Board. Countywide, Regionwide, and Statewide Jurisdiction Diversion Progress Report. (For San Diego, Report Year 2000). Sacramento, CA. 2000.

California Integrated Waste Management Board. Other Hauler Incentives: Local Government Incentives Case Study. Sacramento, CA. 2001.

San Diego, County of. Integrated Waste Management Plan, Countywide Siting Element. San Diego, CA. October 13, 2004.

San Diego Union Tribune. “Builders urged to lay off the landfill.” Kathryn Balint. San Diego, CA. October 13, 2003.

VII. Energy Supply and Delivery System

Science Applications International Corporation. San Diego Regional Infrastructure Study. San Diego, CA. December 2001.

San Diego Regional Energy Office. Energy 2030: The San Diego Regional Energy Strategy. San Diego, CA. May 2003.

San Diego Gas and Electric. 20 – Year Electric Resource Plan. San Diego, CA. April 2003. California Assembly Bill AB 1890, “1996 The Electric Utility Restructuring Act.” Sacramento, CA.

347

California Senate Bill SB 90 (Sher), “Energy Resources: Renewable Energy Resources: Funding.” Sacramento, CA.

California Public Utilities Commission. Energy Action Plan. San Francisco, CA. May 2003. San Diego Daily Transcript. “Increasing demands putting strain on region’s power grid.” Kevin

Christensen. San Diego, CA. September 2003. Energy Information Administration. Renewable Energy Annual 2000. Washington D.C. 2000.

VIII. Education

Cajon Valley Union School District. Bond Project Estimated Budgets By Year. Department of Long Range Planning. El Cajon, CA. 2003.

California State University, San Marcos. Campus Master Plan/5 Year Plan. Department of Planning, Design, and Construction. San Marcos, CA. September 2003.

California State University, The. Capital Improvement Program 2003/04 – 2007/08. Department of Planning, Design, and Construction. Long Beach, CA. 2003.

California. Department of Education. La Mesa – Spring Valley, San Diego County; 2001/02 Unaudited Actuals School District Certification. Printed 02/2003.

California. Department of Education. San Dieguito Union High, San Diego County; 2002/03 First Interim General Fund Summary: Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balance.Printed 02/2003.

California. Department of Education. Chula Vista Elementary, San Diego County; 2002/03 First Interim General Fund Summary: Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balance.Printed 02/2003.

California. Department of Education. Fact Book 2003: Handbook of Education Information.Sacramento, CA. 2003.

California. State Senate. The California Master Plan for Education. Sacramento, CA. August 2002. Escondido Union School District. 2002 – 2003 Budget Revisions to Adopt Revised Budget.

Escondido, CA. 2002. Escondido Union School District. Facilities Master Plan. Department of Facilities Planning and

Construction. Escondido, CA. August 2001. Grossmont Union High School District. District Long Range Facilities Master Plan. Department of

Facilities Planning. El Cajon, CA. 2003. Grossmont–Cuyamaca Community College District. 2002 – 2003 Adoption Budget. Office of the

Chancellor. El Cajon, CA. October 2002. Grossmont–Cuyamaca Community College District. Cuyamaca College: Master Plan 2000. El Cajon,

CA. June 2000. Grossmont–Cuyamaca Community College District. Five – Year Construction Plan 2004/05 –

2008/09. El Cajon, CA. May 2002. Grossmont–Cuyamaca Community College District. Grossmont College: 2000 Facilities Master Plan.

El Cajon, CA. June 2000. Mira Costa Community College District. 2001 – 2006 Facilities Master Plan. Chancellor’s Office,

Research and Analysis Unit. Oceanside, CA. Decemeber 2000. Mira Costa Community College District. FY 2002/03 Budget. Oceanside, CA. September 2002. Oceanside Unified School District. 2002 – 2003 Adopted Budget. Oceanside, CA. June 2002. Palomar Community College District. Annual Financial and Budget Report. San Marcos, CA.

September 2002. Poway Unified School District. 2002 – 2003 Proposed Budget. Poway, CA. June 2002.

348

Poway Unified School District. Facilities Master Plan. Department of Planning. Poway, CA. 2003. San Diego Unified School District. FY 2003 Budget. Budget Department, Finance Division. San

Diego, CA. December 2002. San Diego, City of. Long – Range Facilities Master Plan 1999 – 2013. HMC Architects. San Diego,

CA. January 1993. San Diego, City of. San Diego Community College District Final Operating Budget 2002 – 2003

(Volumes I-II). San Diego, CA. September 2002. San Diego, County of. Office of Education. Annual Report to the Community. San Diego, CA. 2003. San Diego, County of. Office of Education. K – 16 Achievement Report. San Diego, CA. 2003. San Marcos Unified School District. Long – Range Facilities Master Plan. Department of Facilities

and Planning. San Marcos, CA. January 2003. Sweetwater Union School District. FY 2002 – 2003 Budget. Chula Vista, CA. 2002. University of California, San Diego. 2003 – 2008 State – Funded Capital Improvement Program.

Department of Capital Planning. San Diego, CA. 2003. University of California, San Diego. FY 2003 Budget. San Diego, CA. 2003. University of California, San Diego. UCSD Long Range Development Plan Draft and State, Non–

State Capital Improvement Programs. Department of Campus Planning. San Diego, CA. July 2003.

Vista Unified School District. Budget Summary – Five Year Comparison. Vista, CA. 2002. San Dieguito Union High School District. School Facilities Master Plan. Escondido, CA. January 1999.

IX. Parks and Open Space

San Diego Association of Governments. Inventory of Land Use and Land Ownership. San Diego, CA. 2003.

San Diego Association of Governments. Final 2030 Regional Growth Forecast. San Diego, CA. 2003. Chula Vista, City of. MSCP Subarea Plan Appendices. Chula Vista, CA. October 2002. United States Fish and Wildlife Service; and San Diego Association of Governments. Final

Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (Volumes I - II). P & D Environmental, RECON; and Onaka Planning and Economics. March 2003.

San Diego Association of Governments. Final MHCP (Volumes I – III). AMEC Earth & Environmental, Inc.; Conservation Biology Institute; Onaka Planning & Economics; and The Rick Alexander Company. March 2003.

San Diego, City of. Final Multiple Species Conservation Program. San Diego, CA. August 1998. Santee, City of. Multiple Species Conservation Program: Santee Subarea Plan. Technology

Associates International Corporation; and The Rick Alexander Company. San Diego, CA. March 2002.

Poway, City of. Poway Subarea Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan(Volumes I – II). Department of Planning. Poway, CA. April 1996.

Del Mar, City of. Del Mar Subarea Plan. Del Mar, CA. Printed 2003. Coronado, City of. Coronado Subarea Plan. Coronado, CA. Printed 2003. El Cajon, City of. Multiple Species Conservation Program Subarea Plan. Regional Environmental

Consultants. San Diego, CA. January 1998. San Diego, County of. Multiple Species Conservation Program, County of San Diego Subarea Plan.

San Diego, CA. October 1997.