Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2012/04/03 Item 08 Attachment 6 - Village 2 GDP/SPA Amendments
Otay Ranch General Development Plan and Village 2 Sectional Planning Area Plan Amendments Documents Submitted: GDP: (PCM-10-29) SPA: (PCM-10-30) Tentative Maps (PCS 11-01) Date: April 3, 2012 Submitted by: Otay Ranch New Homes, LLC 1392 E. Palomar Street, Suite 202 Chula Vista, CA 91913 ~~_~ ~ dTAY RANCH ~ 1~EW HOMES u-~.~~ Attachment 6 Project Overview Otay Ranch Villages 2, 3 and a Portion of Village 4 GDP/5PA Amendment Introduction: Otay Ranch New Homes., LLC (ORNH) currently controls 269 residential units within Village 2 and submitted an application to amend the Otay Ranch General Development Plan (GDP) and the Village Villages 2, 3 and a Portion of Village 4 Sectional Planning Area Plan (SPA) In addition, ORNH has submitted an application for a Tentative Map for neighborhoods R-7A and R-9A. These amendments will realign the previously approved Village 2 SPA Plan with today's marketplace and government policy objectives. The proposed project includes amendments to the Otay Ranch General Development Plan (GDP) and Otay Ranch Village 2, 3 and a portion of 4 Sectional Planning Area Plan (SPA Plan) approved by the Chula Vista City Council on May 23, 2006 and amended. through Substantial Conformance Requests approved on February 15, 2007 and December 13, 2007. A Tentative Map for neighborhoods R-7A and R-9A area is also proposed as part of this project. The Village 2 neighborhoods subject to this proposal were graded in 2006. However, due to ongoing negative housing market conditions and homebuyer financing challenges, the product types anticipated in the original Village 2 R-7A and R-9A neighborhoods are no longer feasible. The proposed amendment also proposes to restore densities within neighborhoods R-28 and R-29 that had previously been the subject of Substantial Conformance density transfers to other Village 2multi-family neighborhoods. In an effort to initiate development in Village 2, ORNH is proposing smaller, detached homes on small lots within neighborhoods R-7A and R-9A. R-7A was originally planned as a single family neighborhood with 6,000 sq. ft. lots. 'The proposed amendment reduces the lot sizes to an average of 3,457 sq. ft., with 4 single family detached units accessed via a common private drive. The R-9A neighborhood was originally planned as an alley neighborhood on 40' x 95' lots. The proposed amendment reduces the lot width by 5', and retains the single-family detached character of this neighborhood. These smaller homes, at reduced sales prices, provide potential buyers with financing options. This is critically important for a successful sales program. The proposal also includes increasing densities within two additional multi-family neighborhoods (R-28 and R-29) in order to construct higher density multi-family neighborhoods within the village core. In some instances, densities are restored to approximately the same density originally approved. In other neighborhoods, higher densities are proposed to meet current and anticipated future market demand. ORNH continues to be committed to implementing the original vision for Otay Ranch Village 2 through consistency with the "Santa Barbara" architectural and landscape theme. Otay Ranch Village 2 is atransit-oriented village with higher densities planned within the linear village care located between La Media Road and Heritage Road. The applicant is March 14, 2012 Page 1 Project Overview proposing density increases within (R-28 and R-29) the Village 2 core area.. Neighborhoods R-7A and R-9A and located in the Secondary Area of the village, within walking distance of the western portion of the linear village core, including the Mixed Use parcel, neighborhood park and elementary school site. Otay Ranch Background: Otay Ranch General Development Plan/ Sub Regional Area Plan (GDP/SPA) was originally adopted by the Chula Vista City Council and the San Diego County Board of Supervisors on October 28, 1993. The plan governs the 23,000+ acre Otay Ranch Properties. The Otay Ranch GDP is based upon, and directly implements, the City of Chula Vista General Plan. The Otay Ranch GDP includes plans for urban villages, a resort community, the Eastern Urban Center, industrial areas, rural estate planning areas, and a university. Since its adoption in 1993, the GDP was amended in 1998, in 2005, and most recently in May 2006 to address Village-specific planning issues. Village 2 Background: The Master Tentative Map (CVT -06-05) for Village 2 and a Portion of Village 4 was approved May 23, 2006. The Master Tentative Map was amended through substantial conformance requests on February 15, 2007 and December 13, 2007. Since the Master Tentative Map and SPA Plan were approved, the Village2 has been negatively impacted by a significant economic downturn. This has resulted in changed conditions for development within the Village. Changes include significant economic challenges, fragmentation of Village ownership, reduced property values, and land use entitlements which are not aligned with. today's housing market. Village 2 is currently owned by multiple entities. March 14, 2012 Page 2 Project Overview e~e~we' r~~nw.:~ tn„,~ ~~ro.m r~:~s ~~~.,~~„~,, e'~~~ s,~.~~~~A ~,~~~~~~r~~~ ~~~.~~. ~.~~F ~ nwm~wmr]~~I'gJmrvm~~w+twµ !~ f..i,vuiwrv~. Mqe ~:~jT~ fpwr ~pn:a~fMi. dY~mv P'P~~"°/'rvn Pomm+m Mrv I~.,.p {,.~.I ^~` ..' Otay Ranch New Homes Ownership March 14, 2012 Page 3 Project Overview y }LL~{i a n 9 ~ ~ a H .ffi L,g c '~ 4 ~~Q~~ ~~A.~Q~~ ~? _a ~: A3 X ~ rv ~_a 4-=_a M ~U am March 14, 2012 Page 4 Project Overview General Project Description: This project includes the following components: 1. Amend the Otay Ranch GDP and, the SPA Plan to authorize 2,983 residential units (674 single-family and 2,309 multi-family units), resulting in a net increase of 197 residential units. 2. Amend the SPA Plan as follows: a. Increase the authorized units within R-7A from 44 to 82 single family units and rezone the R-7A neighborhood from SF-3 to RM-1, resulting in a net increase of 38 units. b. Increase the authorized units within R-9A from 56 to 67 single Family units and rezone the R-9A neighborhood from SF-4 to RM-1, resulting in a net increase of 11 units. c. Increase the authorized units within neighborhood R-28 from 46 to 135 multi-family units and rezone R-28 from RM-1 to RM-2 resulting in a net increase of 89 units. d. Increase the authorized units with neighborhood R-29 from 89 to 148 multi-family units, resulting in a net increase of 59 units. 3. Amend the Planned Community District Regulations as necessary to implement the small lot detached product types within R-7A and R-9A. 4. R-7A and R-9A Tentative Map containing 85 residential lots and associated infrastructure. March 14, 2012 Page 5 Project Overview Otay Ranch New Homes Village 2 SPA aa'.-rnl~~l~uijsl Amendment az ~W r~eta~ned t1n1Cs I~rcapose;d Z:aning: inn-1 ' pMH V I"Y^:JMM1 4'A^~Et f.A~S'j / p~ /b ~ ~hd.~OM ~ An%AnwaY ti'7 I'~F CteCarhed Units „~~„~,~aw„ ~ ~° . ,~.,~~- PrS7r;)4ascsd Zonenc~: ~"~. ~-~ / !'~'c`_*.. ., ..d A am nW«e1 mrwraAOnwa w~ R4 ryp avvt IVl uv "I d"1 CIF ~P;t~sc Yrec1 tJndts ~~r l}Pd~7iFC1Sf^t~'R C~(BIP1C~: ~.~-~ uxvrrcc Justification of Proposed Amendment: ad J H' G/ ~ef'Mly ~ A.1 ~RU ~ HAi &2~tYk PP x ~~~ RAN ,.. fN ~ ,r &,c •,N Rl9 R-11I ~ ~ Y . r p FAT ""fix rA N.ud 7 1. R-sa; vzar "~"y, ~ ~a~. RA PNV"xn'avk i k.N.A &"/lp m ~~ ~' R „~„, 14fi ~~= ~4tic7' Cilk;fi CJ CYIfi~ C~ciskinc~ Znnirrt~ f~~-~ Structural shifts in today's housing and credit markets along with changes to government policy objectives have required a different approach to the housing market than when Village 2 was originally approved. Amending the Village 2 SPA Plan will allow ORNH to address these shifts by bringing development in line with today's marketplace conditions. The following justification begins by explaining changes in marketplace and government policy, continues by describing how the proposed project addresses these shifts, and concludes by stating key benefits of the proposed project. Changes in the Marketplace and Government Policy: The following changes to today's marketplace and government policy objectives required a different approach to the housing market than when the Village 2 SPA Plan was approved: March 14, 2012 Page 6 Project Overview Morteaee Marke Credit markets have changed significantly since 2006. Home buyers face much greater scrutiny and higher down. payments to qualify for a home mortgage than in 2006, when the SPA Plan was originally approved. These requirements, along with a reversion to more traditional mortgage products, have led to longer loan processing times and limits to loan size for which prospective home buyers are able to qualify. As a result, a heightened importance is placed on home prices aligning with loan parameters. In short, changes in today's credit markets have lowered the size of mortgages available and in so doing, have also reduced home prices in today's marketplace. Economy: Another difference in today's marketplace is a weaker general economy. In 2006 national unemployment was between 4 and 5%. Today, that amount has more than doubled -the United States is currently at a 8.5-10% rate. This national economic trend is echoed at the local level. With unemployment and corporate restructuring, the number oftwo-income households is decreasing while single- income households are increasing. This underemployment impacts the loan capacity of potential borrowers. Such economic trends reduce the amount families are willing and able to spend on home purchases - a factor which has contributed to reduced home prices and slowed absorption in today's marketplace. Home Buyer Preference: A third difference in today's marketplace from that of 2006 is consumer preference. Due to current economic conditions, increasing energy costs, and an increased recognition of sustainable growth practices, consumer demand has shifted away from housing types anticipated in the 2006 SPA Plan. Instead, consumer preference has trended toward homes which are more compact in size, affordable to purchase and which require less energy and water -all factors which increase sustainability and reduce the cost of purchasing and maintaining a private home. Public Services: A fourth difference in today's marketplace is the method by which municipalities address increased demand for services such as fire, police, and refuse pick-up. Instead. of relying on staff and services growth to accommodate new demand, increasing service efficiencies and decreasing service costs per capita are recognized as more sustainable solutions. Due to this change in approach, increased intensity of housing has been prioritized because it increases efficiency for municipal services and decreases service/infrastructure costs per capita. March 14, 2012 Page 7 Project Overview Government Policv: In addition to current marketplace conditions, new government policy objectives have affected the feasibility of product types planned in the original Village 2 5PA Plan. Policies such as Senate Bill 375 seek to minimize the environmental impact of community development through the coordination of land use and transportation planning. These policies value reduced automobile dependency, increased use of public transportation, pedestrian orientation, location of homes near workplaces, and intensified placement of residential uses. These government policies also promote green building practices which result in efficiency in design, construction, and operation of buildings. Such policies value features such as smaller home footprints, increased energy efficiency, and decreased water usage. These changes in the marketplace and in government policy objectives since 2006 have combined to make the product types specified in the original Village 2 SPA Plan no longer responsive to home buyer values and needs. This amendment addresses these changes and brings the SPA Plan in line with today's marketplace conditions and government policy objectives. Alignment with Today's Marketplace & Government Policv Objectives• Amending the existing SPA Plan will realign development with today's marketplace conditions and government policy objectives. The proposed project does this in the following ways: Most importantly, the proposed project addresses changes in home buyer preference from those presented in the existing Village 2 SPA Plan. Though prospective homebuyers continue to express a desire for detached homes on private lots, living in this manner has become increasingly difficult. Through site planning which increases the intensity of residential uses, and home designs which provide more efficient residences, detached homes on separate lots, with increased affordability are provided through this amendment. It is clear that when such a product is provided, it is well received in today's market. Additionally, efficiently sized residences, included in the proposed project, respond to current home buyer preference by providing increasingly sustainable homes with reduced operating and utility costs. Compact home footprints decrease the amount of energy required for operation within the home, and compact lot sizes decrease the amount of water needed for yard maintenance, while still providing ample backyards and side yards. Secondly, the proposed project will address changes in the mortgage market. fIomes which are priced to align with current mortgage parameters will be available to homebuyers. As a result, the proposed project will make residences available to a broader section of the general public, and thereby offer an March 14, 2012 Page 8 Project Overview increased number of housing choices for the Chula Vista community and general public. The proposed project and addresses shifts in municipalities' approach to the provision of public services. By providing additional housing within the same neighborhood footprint, the proposed project will allow a greater number of residents to be served by the same level of infrastructure and municipal service. Generally speaking, research by the Real Estate Research Corp., Robert Burchell and others report that compact growth can be as much as 70 percent cheaper For governments than equivalent volumes of scattered growth. In other words, it simply costs less to provide infrastructure (streets, schools, flood control or sewers) and services (police and fire protection) to denser, more contiguous households than to far-flung, low-density communities. In this way, the proposed project will provide a more sustainable solution to municipal services by decreasing costs per capita. Further, the proposed project also provides revenue potential to the City of Chula Vista. By bringing the SPA Plan into alignment with current market conditions, ORNH can build and sell homes in today's marketplace. This will create jobs for the community and revenues for the City. In addition, by providing a greater number of homes in the same neighborhood footprint, surrounding uses -such as commercial and mixed use -will be more viable due to an increased consumer base. This not only provides increased revenue potential in and of itself, it may also have a catalyst for future development, and therefore future development revenues. Finally, the proposed project addresses shifts in government policy objectives. The adoption of Senate Bill 375 and other environmentally-oriented policies by the State of California fundamentally shift the way cities and counties will use land and plan for transportation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The logical response is development of complete communities with increased densities to support transit, jobs and neighborhood services that reduce automobile dependence. The proposed project takes significant strides in this direction by providing a greater number of homes in the same neighborhood footprint. The resulting intensity of residential development, and therefore residential population, make surrounding uses -such as commercial -more viable. With this possibility, the proposed project will make Village 2 become increasingly walkable, and reduce automobile dependence by putting shops and jobs nearby to homes. Key Benefits of the Proposed Project: In addition to realigning the SPA Plan with today's marketplace, the proposed project will yield benefits beyond those offered in the original SPA Plan. The following list includes these benefits: March 14, 2012 Page 9 Project Overview • Additional housing within same footprint • Allows for new home creation in today's marketplace • Increases affordability for home buyers while maintaining benefits of detached homes with private open spaces/ yards • Increases viability of complimentary, community serving uses such as commercial • Decreases per capita costs of infrastructure and municipal services • Increased architectural variation at street elevation • Site design with both front and side home elevations facing street creates an attractive streetscape • 4-pack [R-7A) configuration allows increased and varied separation between homes at street elevation creating attractive streetscape • Provides additional alley-loaded homes, which reduces garage-dominated streetscapes • Reduction in curb cuts from typical single family home configuration • Private yards in RM1 zone with usable open space commensurate with single family land uses • Creates a detached, single family home amenity within the RM1 land use o Elimination of street facing garage doors In these ways, the proposed project offers benefits beyond those offered in the currently approved SPA Plan. Not only will the proposed project allow for the creation of new homes for the City of Chula Vista, it will also allow a sustainable, forward-looking improvement upon the existing, approved village plan. Amendment Matrix: The following matrix describes proposed changes to the GDP and SPA plans shown in Appendix 1 and Appendix 2 respectively. These proposed changes are necessary for enacting the proposed project as well as for bringing the GDP and SPA documents into conformance with currently approved unit numbers, distributions, and densities. March 14, 2012 Page 10 Project Overview f ~, Preliminary Lotting Study Neighborhoods R-7A and R-9A (Final Map 153350 Lots 20, 21, & 24j Otay Ranch Village 2 City of Chula Vista, CA March 14, 2012 Page 11 Exhibit Overall GDP 18a Project p. 71 Summary Exhibit Otay Ranch GDP 18b GDP/SRP 72 Land Use p' Amend'SF','MF', 'Total Units' and 'Approx. Pop. Columns for'Otay Valley Parcel' and 'Total' rows Update Land Use Plan per City Staff `""' "°"" Amend'SF' 'MF' 'Total Units'and'Approx. Pop.' Columns GDP Parcel Land , , p~ 75 ' ' ' ' for Village 2 and Total rows Use Table Exhibit 20 Parcel Land GDP 76 U dated Land Use PlanlMa p' P p per City Staff Use Map ~ / l ~,, •-, ,i,i,,,,, ,v!. /i„ iii ,,,, ,/~, ,,, l., i;,//„;/,~„ i/„i:./.! 1 ,, ,,,/,' L„ ii„ //o!i!/ a,G,,,,, a„ /, G,„,,,,i <n~~/ Exhibit 26 Commercial, Industrial & GDP P~ 86 Updated Land Use Plan/Map per City Staff Business Sites ri ~/~ ~ /i ~ Y~' j ~ ~ ~ tifi~ ; '! '/ %~~ a i ~ ; ~ % ~ ~i ; ! i ' „ , ; ! ,/, ,r,~, , ~, ,~ , , , ,r.. / i ~ f !, 1 , ii, , ,, , ~ ,,,,, „/ ,~„ /,1,~~ 1„ il,,, /, I ,,, , ,,,,,,,, /,,, . , Text Amend bullet point 1 'maximum single-family residential units' GDP - p. 122 • Amend bullet point 2'maximum multi-family residential units' • Amend bullet point 3 bwld out population ~ Exhibit 40 Village Two Amend'SF','MF','Total','Density', Res.Acreage,Total GDP Land Use p. 122 and `Approx. Population' columnsfor'LMV','MH','M', and Table 'Total' rows ."'! % %/ ~/~//! i ~ , ~ % ~' %~ ~ ~~ ir r- is /! ' ~~ !' ~; i /~<i ' '//'~~ %/ , : !!i;Lii !~'; ~% i ~i% 4; ;if' . , / ~ „ /, i, ,/ , ,,,, ,,,, /,, , /, , ~r t, , ~„ ,,, ,, , ,,. ,,,, „ -, ,~ ,/ v/ /„i /,%, ,, , /, GDP Text _ p. 124 Updated park acreage number. '//~/ ~~~ '~~'~i~i /~~ il~ln,/~~~ ,; ~ ~'~~~'/~t i,~ /;////7~ /i ~; i y~/i~//„~ {f,G ~ r%!~d; ~~i i "!~; / ; l~ 1 I / ~'~'~' / /o ;!' '/ ' ~ ~~ ^ , , ,. „,:, /,, ,,, „ ,~, , ~ , „ / ,. . ~,,, ,, , ,,, %,/ ~ ice,„ , ~ i , L , „ ; G , Exhibit 41 Village Two GDP Land Use p. 126 Updated Land Use Plan/map per City Staff Ma Exhibit 6 Otay Ranch SPA -Sectional GDP Planning Area Adopted p. I-16 Updated Land Use Plan/Map per City Staff. Land Use GDP SPA -Sectional Montecito & Planning Area Otay Ranch p• I-17 Updated Land Use Plan/Map per City Staff Business Park /~~il % t/ P ~ / /~%//'i li,r f//ii%~~f~i ~l//~iD ~~// ~/1// ~I~/ b iii/iN//~lLi /~/~`~ji %il~,;,%~~70%~ i i //~ ~/ i ~ ,..E,1 Lv/,< ,.,/,...1„ ,//(/ //,T, r//(, f„nf~.U „/„/L/ifd/r//G,f,!„~/i/r/e„r~G~~,//„/, „cc„ /,~ r /, ,,,.,c sic;///n (r//.v „~. / ,i;//6 Table 1A Montecito SPA-Sectional GDP Land p 118 Amend'SF',MF',`Total', 'Res'. 'Den', 'TotalAc.'and'Pop.' Planning Area Use (Village Columns for'LMV', 'MH', 'M', and 'Total" rows SPA-Sectional Text - p. I-19 Delete frst paragraph and amend single family and multi- Area family units, parkland acreage discussion. Planning Area y P. 120 Amend CPF demand discussion Planning Area . Amend CPF discussion iii Sri.% �° o1'/ r;/ L��, j„%/ r„ i; �/'; �/ i 'rli!li��,;i!!ri,!ir %ii'��'! %?, r'i, "!i ;;;i', ri'',io! ii; °`'i�,l' %a'L 'j,, /i ;�!' i'✓ %;;' ii'„ Table 4a Exhibit 9 Amend plan to represent'R -T as 'R-7a' and 'R-7b' ,,'i'i Amend 'du' column in Red and Purple Phase • Amend plan to represent 'R-9' as'R -ga' and 'R-9b' SPA — Sectional SPA Land Planning Area Use Plan p. II -29 Amend plan to represent 'R-10' as'R -10a' and 'R-10b' Conceptual • Amend land use colors in 'R-7a', 'R-9b', and'R -28'to Amend 'du total' column represent proposed land use designations rir r� , r r r i �r i' r�� rrn �ma i i i SPA — Sectional Exhibit 10 Land Use Eliminate Exhibit 10 and replace with Exhibit 10a and p, II -31 Planning Area Summary Exhibit lob (see following line items) ✓a � ,,,, � ", r,,, i „.4,,,, ,,, ,, o „c,,,, ,,, �,, ,, i, i, r„ ,i, ,, Exhibit r,, ,, ,, ,r, , ;,,,;/,,,! „r,,,:Il�s,,,,'/,Li �/I ,,,rx. /� /,, , /,il, {„ ,ri i„ . /,;, , Amend plan to represent'R -7' as 'R-7a' and 'R-7b' 10a Montecito Amend plan to represent 'R-9' as 'R-9a' and 'R-9b' SPA— Sectional Site Planning Area Utilization P -II -30 Amend plan to represent 'R-10' as'R -10a' and 'R-10b' Plan • Amend land use colors in'R- 7a', 'R -9b', and'R -28' to represent proposed land use designations Exhibit Amend table to represent'R -7' as'R -7a' and 'R-7b' 101 • Amend table to represent 'R-9' as 'R-9a' and 'R-9b' • Amend table to represent 'R-10' as 'R-10a' and -R- 1 Ob' Relocate 'R-7a' and 'R-9a'from 'Single Family' sub - Montecito SPA — Sectional Site table to 'Multi Family' sub -table and adjust'Land Use' p. II -30 column Planning Area Utilization Plan Amend 'DUs' and Target Density for R -28 and R -29 • Add note regarding P -413 and P -4C • Amend 'Subtotals' and 'Grand Total' in applicable rows • Amend 'Acreage', 'DUs', and'Target Density' in applicable columns Text Amend single family and multi - family units, and SPA — Sectional parkland acreage p V 89 Planning Area . Add text re: park acreage obligations for additional 197 units. /i ✓ "�'..,,;�'; ✓ii',;,'/ '�� �, �� ern r i � ',,,'i!' %� % / /�; Sri r'�ira /iii � r ����'� ',,,,, .,,�.; Table 2 Estimated Amend 'Single Family Attached'to SPA — Sectional Required 'Attached /Detached' P V89 Planning Area Park Land Amend 'Target Number of Units' and 'Total AC' Dedication columns for'all rows di%' i�� '�,,,! /�riii�r,'i?�; %� /i / %�lir SPA — Sectional Text , Amend Park discussion as it relates to the City of San p V go Planning Area Diego waterline. SPA — Sectional Text p. V -101 Amend Community Park Acreage Planning Area ;�'lif'; % % %�i, ✓iw�, /1i '�'Jry �,i it i, pii /;''�iisr�' / %;,, ��,ie i! i, a�;, i%/„/ 1ir,, % /�� %�ly;oiil�,Lii %,,,!� /,; /,li(fi'�i /i "� a,,," . SPA — Sectional Text „l; G% 1L�r,!! ,,�o „rrlilifi Planning Area - p. V -106 Amend estimated population. Planning Area y P. VI -113 . Amend CPF discussion iii Sri.% �° o1'/ r;/ L��, j„%/ r„ i; �/'; �/ i 'rli!li��,;i!!ri,!ir %ii'��'! %?, r'i, "!i ;;;i', ri'',io! ii; °`'i�,l' %a'L 'j,, /i ;�!' i'✓ %;;' ii'„ Table 4a Montecito ,,'i'i Amend 'du' column in Red and Purple Phase SPA — Sectional Planning Area Conceptual p. VII -121 Amend 'du total' column Phasing — . Add'(Village 4) P -4B' and '(Village 4) P -4C' rows Village Two Add note related to above and a Portion Amend 'Total' row and column of Four U~,,, ,,,,,,, ~ ~ ~ ~ rig, ~/ ~~ ' , , , , „ SPA- Sectional Planning Area Text p. VIII-137 • Amend dwelling unit numbers and numbers of students as annronriate. Text . Add unless otherwise specified to J.2. per City Staff SPA -Sectional p. VIII-141 Amend community park acreage Planning Area Amend 'SPA One'to'Villages One, One West, Five, Six and Seven' Exhibit 1 Village of Montecito SPA- and Otay ' ' Amend plan to represent RM-1 land use district in R-7A PC District Ranch p 8 ' ' and R-gA, and RM2 land use district in R-28. Regulations Business Park Zoning District Map ,,, ~ ~~ / / i ~/ ~/ / / :/ ~ ~~ / ~ ~ / l %~/ ~ i ~ ~ / ~ " M . , /( . .. (i,~ / , io. ./ i o i il / .: .,/rl .// i :,. ( ii. /.. ~ i. .. ,. ;;i /. i(i ~. i .ir i,rc/..i.. ,/iJ /le. i,. „rr/l i. ~ /l. Table 3 Property SPA - Development PC District Standards - 16 Amend Minimum Rear Yard Setback to Garage off an ~ p. alley from 5 feet to DR (Design Review) Regulations Residential Districts SPA - Text Amend title of section 5 to read "Maximum"; delete PC District - p. 22 Re ulations sentence three in first paragraph. SPA- Exhibit 36 Typical Village Design P. 93 Amend Alley Lot Size 40X90 to 35/40X90. Corner Lot Plan /lpi i ~ y,i/ti , i i ~/ ~ // i i/~' ~ 6 / a i z iri r ~/' i~ i t ' / , r , i ,i„ i, ,,,, ~i~~yJ, SPA - Exhibit 45 40X90 (3,800 Amend 40X90 Plotting Concepts to include 35X90 Lot Village Design sf) Plotting p. 102 Plotting Concepts Plan Concents SPA- 45a pack Village Design Detailed p. 102a Add detailed plotting criteria plan for 4-pack configuration Plan Plotting Criteria SPA- Text Affordable Housing - p 5 Amend text regarding Obligation. Program OTAY RANru CITY O F C H U L A V I S T A CxENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN ~~ COUNTY' OF SAN DIEGO OTAY SIIBREGFONAL PLAN, VOL, 2 Rarzch GDP/SRP ~ Part II PARS' II THE PLAN ~~ Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Page 59 Amended November 10, 1998 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13,2005 w m a Q c7 v k t~ .. c:n ,~ o~ ~ ~ a u•~ c`~ u7 a o ~ ~ cv m ~ ~ ! -+ W x' i ~ N ~ ~r~a ~ ~. ~ y r a ~ ~ ~ Oi ~ N ~ ~ U O ~ ~ ~ ~ F a, ~ vi N N y", ti ~ '" ~r m r; ~ v vi ~ ~ ~ ~ m ~n N y 0. .~, O ~ p 0 u1 N ~ O O ~ lfJ d- m ti O O ~ ~ N N m ~ 'd d ~ @ o ~ ~ o ~ ~ d ~ i0 O O~ m ~ U ~ r. N m ri ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ W ° ° d V1 ~. vi ~ ~ ~ N O a a .~ i w ~° ,~ m o c o ~ +~ a m a~ ~ d' N ~ri a~ ~ ~ M ~ ~ ~ ~ - -~- U a ~ ~ o s ~ N ~ ~ ,o ~ c~. ~. O Q CV ,..~ N Cd ~ F ~ ...< ~H N ~ !` 4 r ~ "` ~ - ~ W ~ a rv ~ r; ~ (sr w ~ ~ , ~ e-p ~ ~ c7v ;~ ' ' ~ C CV ,_, C8 ~ 3 Q <° ° p' ~ ~ W ~ ~ Y ,y ~ ti h Ca V! 47 ~ ~ ~ ) N ~ "~!' CfJ N r ~ `~ M N U U N fq !tl ~ ~ ~ a0+ ~ d ~ i'. L .. ~ " ~ 0 ~aa a , w w~a H F ta U d .O H N ~M Proposed n m m a. r. 0 O N m N R 0 U O 'd N w rn 0 ., v Z v "'y "~ r; ~ 47~ ,_ N :.Y ~ c. ", C c.„ ~~ 7 ~° a `y ~m ~N Q N b C 4J N O m O ~ N W v N p aLi A ~ U O Q ^d a~ 0 ¢¢ b ~ E r ~ i eE _ ~ ~ c of ~ `r ~ra i8a ~~ ~ 4 F & _ ~ ~ ~ 4 S s @ l ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~A ~u~u ~ wlu~u uu~i ~~ I I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ „ . ,,_ ~% ;% ,,; , ;; ,~ ,~ ,,. ~~'~~~~~ i i iii~'~%~~~/ 5~~555,e ~ " , M /i ~~ ~%/~~c ~'fi;!I ~ ~~ ~~~~aE~ P £[~' a~ ~~# ~.~~ y ~-s~g ,~;..~ . ~~kt.~ ~Exc6gt~ ?g 6f ~- ap e? ~',~a N a 0 O e v c a i...,.__ L., ia. ~m ~k C5 Proposed m a a n y `a V N O _m II 0 A J J Z v ~ ro O vN ~ ~i Q N T O L b YY ti K d vQ 7 vG c Q l7 O N m Mi N m .~O O .~ V ~e p ~ en v~ in ~p ~ c ~ V °' °° 4 ~ L a ~ I h n O ; C ~ 7 GL h vl M N ~ ~ ~ ~, C"'?~ ~' X+ ~ o r t ~ V V d' N ~ c d WJ ~ n d" 00 d" V' r W ~ O N O t` 00 O O ~ w ~ ' r ~ O O ~ ~p d a0 h- D M -~ N ~ _ ' ~ O b ~ ~ F h- Vl V M GY M ~ N N ~ M N N '-' 91 [V s^ U b W V ~ ~ m ~ 7 ^' \D O O N ~ a\ ~ Q Q d' m M M Vi ~ ~ \D N b ~ ~ lD N F o~ O L1 ~ • • p '~ rn 4 d ~ O rn m ~- r ~. M ~ O ~ O. V O~. i0 Q~ ~n o Q~ ~ ~ O N V N ~ b vj ~ W o N N N N ~ C N • V O O O ~ p i b ~ V V M \O _ Vl W F N iD Q C ~ V1 00 N 'O U 'V vl O N i-r d ~ ~ 7 bA N ~ d _ - _- C L N u Q ~ ~ M rn c r N `~ ~ o ° ~ ~ ~ Cn O a M U Q \O ~ N ~ ~ M W N C O _ _ U y L Q O M O O O O ~ ~ O O ~ O O O O vi O ~ M F a U W O O M rn O ~ N N ~ - - G T ~ a i ~ G w V M N ,~ rn [~ M O ~ ~ ~ O~ ~O ',~, y r y ~ M ~ O N M ~ ~ ~ O a. V ~ rn ~ W CC .G O Y _ bA y o ~ ~ F •-• V 00 ~O • ~ O ~ M " R 9 V V b M ~ O ~ o O 0. Q N M b `~ t` rn oo O V N ~ N . - M f3 __ ___ N k1 b h ~ O w O N ~ ~ ~ ~ M M N N N M ~.j F ~ ~ ~ O R ~ M _ # iF O q~ Q' 0 [C !" a.~ ~ O^v M . -~ O1 O Vl ~ ti p. G O 01 I" ~ .,t~ Vl W M Vl V ~ M ~ M C C•1 ~ ~ ice. !- ~ F Ir M d N ~ N N ~ N M C' C"'Y 'CS 7 Y C ~ u N c v C T O Oi Q h r < ~ N ~ ^ . ,~ m ~ .~ n C ~ C v-~ r vi V V r ~ rn `p' ti ti ~ , V O e e! . f•i M ~ b ¢ ^ _ _ U ~ y 3 .,' ~ 4' N ~ O O ~ ~ O cv5 C ] N F ~ ~F ~ J oo in O ¢' O N N b ~ en U ~ C ~ n ~a d N a o + m ~ n m ~ a a o o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~. .. i ~ ue y ~ .~ N M V ~ V P 00 ~ Q, a .-i ti s . N d N d d N d CJ d d d N d N Q ~ Q ' r/] N F d pp bD bL bL bq b0 CU b9 bA bA bA bA b0 b0 s. '~ ', •• ~ F ~ R ~ m w w w F ~ R as ca ti~ un do " ° w ^' ~ n °' _ O a ~ > ~ > ~ ~ ~ ~ ? > rti > ~. a. o. O O ~ r~ C H + d m H h 9 eC V T v R T 0 ~_ a s x W Proposed - ',,,, ', t - ',. i ~ d a ~ ~ ° ~ S c ~ £ ~ y 7 SU ~ O O m c- s s ~ ~€~ K e ?~_ s `E E s 5 ?,s ~ N a n S s~~ a& 8~ .~ x° 3 z~ 3 P S ~§~- s e e >i r l ri r ~l ~ r~r'~ r~r%~J~/lri€%//rfri//I , //l~~/iil / r / r / % /i~/~irrrr/i rr~ 1J i~ ~/ri~// liirr /~~ /i/d `~ ~ r~ ~~~~~/%~ // j/i~ /pi r ~"' ire/~~~~ ~/rj//~/i x ~ // r/rr ~/~/i g 5 r ~ ri/ 1/~/,, r ~i//~// /r ~ r~ ~~f~/~~//~~/ / a ~~~~~~/ rl ri ~, /ir ///r/~/~i~r. d v ~ %'d'.ry~r4r ~ ~.., 11 y r/~../rep /~~~ ~%%/1rr ~ ~~ s~ Q I ~~/ ~ii3 ~r„ ! r ~ ~ ~%GI%j %~~~i ~< ~a~ Ear r/ ffi ~l//%~~/i rf I r a ~£ ~ // iii/ ~ ~ r r ~ / rl/ /i i ~ ~ ~ x '~~~ p////' I r /i r i~l~%~ ~ ~ ~;8 ~ /~~f ~~/~ r 'ix ~Y sF t_~ „ r r -, ~~ ,i/c. ,,,€. ,, ,,, ;,, ,,,,, r,, .,, ,,,,,, ,~pr,i„<; ~,,,, G,3. - Sae ~?~ r "W~' v a C m e 2 m m v a E m a 0 2 ^.Y ~C ,~ o d~ E ci CN a ev a~ ~ w v E v C c 7 v m ro e m 'c L! O O O ~ ~ ryj Proposed N N A y& y ~ ~ Tf N wro ~_ e~ - ~- -- i e '~ ~ u d~ n Q 2 g a a a o ~ r a ~ :I 99 gg „ll ~7 X fg 8 ~ ~ E T ~ ~ ~ ~ ) F i ~N ~i ~ a I c O~ X ~ g V ~ d ~ $ ' ° " a d ~ o ~# s£ x~ r e s m s s s s a s t s ~ ~~ ' ~ ~ ~~ p ~ ~ %~ ~ p~ p 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~, i ~ ~B i ! IttW ~ 11 i N U b N Q R V ~ V ~'~ ~: Ca ~ 4 C ] C o G q c V F n ~ e 0.S W iy gv ~i ~" ~~~ +r, ~` ~~ „ri^N i 'dy e3 a ..y R ' y ~ ~~~~ ~ _CJ y -.. ~Oi iS~ ~ •~ i .Li ~y y R •M~ V V '~ H V ~ O O U ~ i 5gx-. gg-x az'g~ ~~~~ i.+~ ~i'e +RF~ iP. °'.,n&~ So g~$os -2&3 zVisa ~ ~ ~ w/ .. i r r~ C ~ ; ~ \ ~ y b h 4N w IK a M `~ Dr.~r~.~..-.~~... ........ ....__...__ _.._ Ranch GDP/ SRP ^ Part II villages) as well as a modest increase in single-family densities outside the village core. The western portion of Village Two is separated from the core of Village Two by Heritage Road. This close re]ationship may influence the design character of Village Two West. Village Two contains: ^ A maximum of ?'d4-~ii'~...single-family residential units ^ A maximum of -2;fb1~,~,~09 multi-family residential units ^ Build-out population of approximately ~7?13£3,,1,7;3 ^ A High School ^ Two Neighborhood Parks ^ A Fire Station ^ A village core area containing: • Mixed Uses with 11.9 acres of mixed use commercial Public and community purpose facilities • A transit stop/station • An elementary school • Multi-family residential • A Town Square/Main Street • Affordable Housing Village Two Dwelling Units Acreage Use ' Open Approx. SF MF Total Dens Res. Park* CPF** Sch. C ml. Ind. Art. Total Pop.++ S p.+ LMV ``~' 223 ' 5.9 .2. `i.D @<"iS-D 2,4=1;? 480 703 2 B.IS 118.8 2 273 MU 60 60 8.8 ~ .8 6.3 11.9 25.0 155 MH 4`'1D`' -1,4k75 4`''D 9 .6 15.4 1D.3 119 3 3ra12 ' tl 553 1; 553 X5.6 . 4.00 7 M K32~i 324 9.D dl a64Y "d,,{h'~7 --- _87:3 473 5 ...~ `a2.2 9.20_ LM 130 130 3.1 4 h.5 41.5 413 L 64 64 2.8 2 k.2 22.2 205 IND ~ 87.9 87.9 OTHER ~ 239.D 68.8 3D7.8 TOTAL 77~ ' 2' 8'3 3 5.1 75.4 6.3 10.3 71.9 87.9 239.0 68.8 774.7 7;7 67 4 2 309 2 983 8.9 $°773 `Part of park acreage requirements have been allocated to community parks. Actual park size to be determined at the SPA level. Park acreage based on ratio of 3.0 acres per 1000 persons. _ _ `*6.3-Acres CPF will be provided with balance to be provided in Village Three; CPF acreage based on ratio of 1.39 acres per 1000 persons. Exhibit 4D Village Two Land Use Table Adopted October 28, T 993 Amended June 4, 7 996 Amended November I0, 1998 Page 122 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended May 23, 2006..rev_,mlaarx;, ,1 ~,_ ~l)Xl Ranch GDP/SRP o Part II Parks and Open Space Policies: Application of the 3 acres per 1,OD0 residents standards would result in the development of ;Io3.~2~.CY acres of local parks in Village Two. To satisfy this requirement, §~.=FCS~(;1 acres of neighborhood parks/town square are planned. The following policies shall guide the design of parks and open spaces in Village Two: ^ Open space preserve areas adjacent to Wolf Canyonidentified on the GDP/SRP Land Use Map shall be preserved outside of individual private lots pursuant to the adopted Otay Ranch Resource Management Plan (RMP) and the Chula Vista Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) Subarea Plan. o Development adjacent to the preserve shall adhere to guidelines in of the Otay Ranch RMP and Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan. ^ Lot lines and grading shall not extend into the open space scenic corridor along Wolf Canyon or the Otay Ranch RMP boundary without appropriate environmental review. Modifications to the preserve boundary must be consistent with Otay Ranch RMP and Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan policies. ^ Setbacks and landscaping shall be provided along Poggi Canyon in keeping with open space scenic corridor guidelines which are contained in the Overall Ranch Design Plan (see Section E). ^ View opportunities shall be provided in the design of the village. The village boundary along Heritage Road and La Media Road should consist of a landscaped buffer which shall provide the transition to Poggi and Wolf Canyons and the Otay Landfill. ^ The broad valley of Wolf Canyon should be retained. as an open space amenity. Surrounding uses shall be consistent with the findings of the Wildlife Corridor Study, the Otay Ranch RMP, and the Chula Vista MSCP Subazea Plan. ^ Grading and landscaping along the village edge, adjacent to Wolf Canyon, should be conducted in a sensitive manner consistent with the Otay Ranch RMP and Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan to minimize conflicts with the adjacent open space preserve area. ^ Wildlife corridors shall be provided across Heritage Road linking Wolf and Poggi Canyons as shown on the GDP/SRP Land Use Map, input should be solicited from the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. (This policy applies only to the City of Chula Vista.J ^ Wildlife corridors shall be provided across Heritage Road linking Wolf and Poggi Canyons as shown on the GDP/SRP Land Use Map, input should be solicited and recommendations be considered from the U.S. Fish 8v Wildlife Service. (This policy applies only to the County of San Diego.) Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Amended November I q 1998 Page 124 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended May 23, 2006_Peµu,..,~~rn. ,l,i~,..2012 Ranch GDP/ SRP ^ Part II Legend !RESIDENTIAL { .. Low Densely Residential (L) Low Medium Densely Residential (LM) r~ Low Medium Viilege Densely ---' Residential (LMVJ ~~~ ~~ Medium Densely Residenfial {M) Medium High Density Residential (Po1H) GOMMERCIAL Mixed Use (MU) INDUSTRIAL ~~~~~~~~~ Industrial (I) Carraider Adjacent Sunbow and Landfill Uses „zi'i PUBLIC 8 OPEN SPACE °%%~ Open Space Open Space Preserve Park (P} School 1 FS Scenic Corridor- Create Slape and Landscape: ,, Utilize Larrd Porm Grading _.,;,;ra Exhibit 41 Village Two Land Use Map 7S^faot Average Buffer plang Arkerlais Focus Lowor UeiTSlty Along Want Carryon Fdga Transit Raute HORTH Adopted October 28, 1993 Amended June 4, 1996 Amended November 10, 1998 Page 126 Amended October 23, 2001 Amended December 13, 2005 Amended May 23, 2006..pe?xT_I,gr1;,. I ~~.. ~~1.=? Pillage of ontecito c~ tay Ranch Business Park Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan Village Two, Village Three, Portion of Four OTAY RANCH GDP ADOPTED MnY 23, 2006 BY RESOLUTION No. 2006-155 ~"1fLOP0.'~SED.~.iYlt;l'~Dlb'9 B!;N'P 1VdE4N,~'ll-E lid 24~Y ~.2 .._ .............._..._...._..,................._..__..__...n_........._.....~_.~a~............. 1-i IA/~f3Ndl/Sjk2 MON"1'ECITO & OTAY RANCH BUSINESS PAAK SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA YL,AN Otay Ranch Villages Two, Three and a Portion of Four I. Introduction Village of Monteeito c~c Otay Ranch Business Park Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan Village Two, Village Three South, Portion of Four OTAY RANCH GDP PREPARE,]) BY: Tributary Landscape Architecture 33 d~3 541, ,I_Avenida Encinas, Ste. X280 Carlsbad, CA 92008 Contact: Tom Picard (760)438-3304 Hunsaker & Associates Planning, Engineering, Surveying I-AN=r9-f'r'y°n.~!cetasEy%07_Wgples Street San Diego, CA 92121 Contact: Lex Williman (858)558-4500 Development llesign Services & GraphicAccess, Inc. 2538 Via Merano Del Mar, CA 92104 Contact: Adam Gevanthor (858)793-5450 I-iii ~d4M311I-14),RFICrF4k YlS/12 Proposed MONTECII'O & O'CAY RANCH BUSINESS PARK SEC_ TIONAL PLANNING ARPA PLAN Otay Ranch Villages Two, Three and a Portion of Four i. Introduction Lend RESiPENT1AL .l low Pansity Residental (L) ~~~.,~~ Low Medium DansAy Residential (LM) ~~ Low Medium village Density -i RosideMiat (LMV) „~'~~„~ Metlium Density Residential (M} Medium High Density Residential {MH} COAAMERCIAL Mlxad Use (MU) INDUS?RWL Indcstrla! (p Gonsidar Adaacant Sunbaw and LandNll Usn ; PUBLIC 8 OPEN SPACE. ~~~ O nS an./o~ l~ Pew Open Space preserve Park (P) Schooll FS Scen is Gorridar -Greats SMpe and Landscape: „, UUlise Lantl form Grading .::.;;,:: 7S-foot Average SaHor Along Arterials poeos Lowar Oanslty Along Wolf GanYOn Etlge NOPoYH Exhibit 6 Ranch GDP Adopted Land Use Plan trarlsht Rowta I-I7 ~ ~<n~a(~,~a+r~sk~5~2 Existing MONTPC[TO & OTAY RANCH BUSRJBSS PARK SBCTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN Otay Ranch Villages "rwo, Thrcc and a Portion of Fonr I. Introduction LLLLLLLLegend RESI4ENTIAL ___J Low Density Residential (L) ~~ Low Metllum Density Residential (LM) ~~~ Low Medium Village Density -- J Residential (LMV) ~;,//ij;~ Medium Density Residential (M) Medium High Densely Residential (MH) COMMERCIAL Mixed Use (MU} INbUSTRIAL ~~ industrial (p Consider Adjacent $anllOW arM LandPtil Uaea „ram PUBLIC & OPEN SPACE ',',/,/r~i^ ;;,%/G~ Open Space Open Space Preserve Park (P) Schopl(FS s4an14 C4rdd4r ~ Cleats Slope and Lande4ape: „ UUllm Land form Grading ,, Ranch GDP Montecito & 7S-loot Average Hopper Along Artarlala ~ Pocum LoWar 6enalty Al4ag W41P Canyon Edge N9RTH Exhibit 7 Ranch Business Park Land Use Plan Tranatk R4dM I-17 ~ toia~rlos(l~~;ir,snz Proposed MONTECITO & OTAY RANCH BUSINESS PARK SECTIONAL PLANN_IN__G_AREA PLAN Otay Rat3ch Villages Two, Three and e Portion of Four I. Introduction I. Land Use Consistency This SPA Plan contains all the requisite land uses comprising atransit- oriented village for Montecito as described by the GDP: A variety of single and multi-family residential housing densities, mixed-use development, community purpose facility, elementary school, high school. and parks and open space. The Otay Ranch Business Park land uses are also consistent with the GDP. Table lA, 1B and 1C lists the proposed, amended GDP allocated acreages for each land use and the number and type of residential units. Table IA- Montecito GDP Land Use (Village Two) u:e ~ sF LMV I rF104$0 MU 60 60 6.8 88 6.3 11.9 25.0 155 MH ~ IdN91,bg,? 1405(,$;,t 93.6 _.. d5B(§„¢ __ 15.4 10.3 119.3 3Ff]4~SMT M ~ 3e4k(3 3JagY4 36952,2 9.D 96td5),? xasj.;d~IP LM 130 130 _- 4L9 -~~~- 3.1 41.5 413 L 64 64 221 ~-- 2.8 222 205 IND ( 8].9 8]9 OTHER I 239.0 68.8 30].8 TOTAL !]4G7R 2042],,109 k18fi,7, 4qi 335.1 n1~,A 13.4 6.3 10.3 IL9 8].9 239.0 6B.B ]]0.] f{ayEy C;(,;5 Table 1 B- Montecito GDP Land Use (Village Three) _ -..--- VILLAGE R ......___ .__ SF MF Yobal ~-.~-.-_. Res Den Park CPF Sch C'ml Ind OS Art Total AC Pop IND U6.5 _...__. ____ V65 OTHER I 10.2 146.9 34.8 1892 TOTAL ~ 0 0 0 0 0 10.2 0 0 1]9.1 14fi.9 34.8 368.4 0 Table IC Montecito GOP Land Use (Village Four) ~_~~~ VILLAGE 4 -~ Use SF MF Total Res Den Park CPF Sch C'ml Ind OS Art Total Ac Pop L 51 51 51.3 10 51.3 163 L 156 156 156.1 L0 156.1 499 MU I L0 IS 25 - LM ~ 68 68 34.1 2.0 34.1 218 LM I 50 50 126 4.0 12.6 160 OTHER I 44.6' 10.0 2610 35.0 350.6 TOTAL ~ 325 - 325 254.1 44.6 I.0 10.0 I.5 - 261.0 35.0 60].3 1,040 1-18 Proposed MF Total Res Oen Park CPF Bch C'ml Ind OS Art Total Ac Pop 223 Otl]9tYd tY't4118,1 5.9 49601 If},~ d4{2,(, I'/,3 MONTECITO & OTAY RANCH BUSWESS PARK SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN Otay Ranch Villages Two, Three and a Portion of Four 1. Introduction VILLAGE 9 ~ Use SF MF Toml Res Den Park CPF Sch Cml Ind OS Are Toial A< Pop L 51 51 51.3 L0 31.3 163 L 136 156 136.1 10 156.1 499 MU 10 IS 2.3 - LM 68 6E 34.1 2.0 34.1 218 LM 50 30 12.6 4.0 116 160 OTHER ~~ M,b' 10.0 261.0 35.0 3306 TOTAL 325 - 325 154.1 44,6 L0 10.0 L5 - 261.0 35.0 60`!.2 1,090 2. Parks and Open Space Consistency k &rr 4~t~y+- ~aat~la..f4E8N....re'9q+aet~^.~$a Yo-gat~ttiarca-~a4....{9rrtr~clao-kd--i,eCl--~r~t--olio 4)!tao-ralry-,h~ t...sGauarFaltt 4g#.:3..~rur°e-<~f-rroagLakah~lR~oE1-a~rt:Y-~crrr~Ha:t~rree~.-par. b.~aad b~w~~sv~:~:~:.. N,94bYg...rrni~le~w1~:--.13a~tF#-crag--,.~-Mc~rt+s/eitar ~J~a~~--&wo--rti^sid~rrt R~:rlrt~4~t&kr~t~~f-&E-~9,4iC...flr~:rlx~all~-&:1-F1~~-pay-~;a~ns-.~,~l~w~ew~?-5 4=?-3;~s-a~°-~~~ 09...parltilaa~ti i:~-r~rpLti~ea~~4 ~td1r~^ auk=FP-Yrlata-Nerir~& `~~t*~-adt4afiiaypal 197-luffratLy. ~Fe~a~v;~w~-nr tl X4):41 f?~rderrdrr;~wth ~4~~rlt era ~ :c9rffraa~4-H~.-' ,-«.-~.,~~-a~#' _. ~S+ukl~tut~;_ rLt4€~rufm•-iw~-a-F €~~&i~rpF'-t9_(t+grb- r~avtr 9r,~r;~4~nkE a4~1.s~E~~~n a36 7r,- a~r~s_-_.~rrl-4:crnrpal+an~~....weafk.._Yl~a~ -~r17ts;..th~...~h€~r°aw~3-SPIN. ~r4anr-pao-l~: rr&3afi~r~P:-~~ae-..rets€-t4arcirry;4a-tl+rro-prow-asaea+t w~Y-tv~r_-rtr:,o-ghl7rrrlra~~r1-}ire-a toawrrxltaarrr~-art~9-a-pFak~ar..c~&=a ~.€~aa~rr~kHrrid~+-}perk-wai&taiga-tl-A4rrsatc~er4rr-w~I'-A yal;dwa-~r~a--I=RS -ir~Ir~sYaaiwtl- #r~gtai- a~~=s -i~a--4ho -4~&2ty..f~;~avta--l~uaar>e:-r9c--dcro raF~t-er~artr~.;a-<leaansaact-tla~ a>o:..erF~Yigrti¢rw-trrpa°cawo-dw-trfnx=kkaaat6: The City of Clmla Vista Municipal Code, Chapter 17.]0, Parklands and Public Facilities (11/02), establishes the method by which actual required park acreage is to be calculated, based on the number and type of residential units determined at the Pinal Map(s) level. The City's 2002 Park Acquisition and Development Fee Update determined that each single family (cfeta;h~~dwelling unit generates a need for 460 square feet of developed parkland and each multi-family jLtlmcNagdi.._unit generates a need for 341 square feet of developed parkland. ---Based on 1,288 single family (tfg:_ggcile,~i)-,,,and 1,498_multi-family ~~~V:aclted~ units, Che parkland obligation for Mfrnt~cater-Vallg-ge ltvct,._is approximately 2,4::325._3 acres. Nipe„additional -~7„ nrw.tuftat~ rexuiY...irfl a derrl~apd (cry--_--_~7 c4c~a_eI off' ~~arkiancf„.._arsu9tiglg-.eaa a c<nntrbned ~rtl(a~e l=~na~_~rklaaur~_vbht.,~atiae?__o1 7,GJ ~cres seri._l_rablc. 2 :_~E,tarre Ieed 17r a ucrc_ci_P~rit l.ancl 1"„ 2~ .._ ~ ~ ~ ~° ~-.. i - .. _5edaca,,,tagta:. The Montecito plan provides a centrally located 7.1-acre Neighborhood Park (P-11), a 6.9-acre Neighborhood Park (P-3) in the eastern area of the village, a 1.4-acre Town Square (P 2.L) in the village core and 44-L-~40 I-19 Proposed MONI'ECITO & OTAY RANCH DUSMESS PARK SECTIONAL PLANNIA'G AREA PLAN Otay Ranch Villages'fwo, Three and a Portion of Four ~ I. Introduction (~a~t}~-acres of community park (P-4), for a total of `i4 fS,S r~8~ acres of ur~adi&~d-VcYC~rl_Parks. -i9r~p~if~-~~&rlat;uts~ta~~aast#dlvy @q~_rtF~rr-rzrrnd~-{fix of f~arh.i_atrd vvYthafl_~aatuoc,lJlaly Rsuxch fs4rks,_tlu~_laayn~rP~fi u&:.fez's. and(crr- d oanhr}igtgoon art )~~s and B4ncY- dEduo«atic>?t Ylr~~rpa~-d~n~t~a~si a e8~t~da9a~sw tlta6 u&±&a~a~-&_+D&~._lc~voNC-;p4ri~ta_l~auroua-e.~i€~w~ -a;e~l{~ na-.~a-:~~41-g#at&~ lrrt Pa~*-.~r~~raat~nac__q"s-€omta~~~^d-Ecs E)u~--~o-ty,r~-_-F'arlm t~awc~--1-3~waFic~aa dTrcfrra~r~r~n~l?&dDC4~ 99owvgd-t~srPc--y~ark-a~rraaga„--gvsiroar7c~tt~-~~+a4i--A r a~eriated -basea9-tare tFo-a ~=ata~-1rS~DfJ~.:&agr-41r~ Yaa~~r~l-ruraar4~~r-c*8=r~re~tt;rrtiaN _.- _._ - uruk~<nxa~~a~~~t &yr$e#adui~c4-a~:-r~tt~rcc-Hc~ti-usaa~NrE:aaat&-prs+.tr~EOd-firog~ulxrditrrr9 ,at7g>rfr7^ii--t~rt #......sa+t~;ualtsesat-.~r,}-..Meap~ &tipr_ @aedonkifir,.,..._.~'Fc P;xmk Rtt°;r~~tacar~-&r~-~y~utsw-;swd=SrR~aN,-1kNan-Prcaa~r<das- trfrrta9-iraftiac+aataoai ost f~arHt aaftt,catdosarYix#I~:~rili4at*c 3. Community Purpose and Public Facilities Consistency The Otay Ranch General Development Plan requires designation of Conununity Purpose Facility (CPF) land area at a ratio of 1.39 acres per 1,000 residents. The 4noPaasr~d-t~aflfigdnG-2,786 units tn-}~f~reaa~; rtoa_p~?rcbyea) xxa„J,(D,db,( generate a population of approximately 8,458 persons (population is based on 3.036 persons per residential unit), requiring an estimated 11.8 acres of CPF land in the SPA Plan area. The cJcxaxantl fz>r the t';PF lanai g~nar<tt~a.1...Pry:_B:hc 1"~7 ntav ¢ugptit~ prc~o;>E~q~ au~ tht^.L011 4aP~ /°,mY.audmr.eut.ms lasascd r~r¢_ u, pa~fruudatuorl. ~o~SSaslcr,IZ cr9' i)ll .-txfr~xcrns -pytr Vuousehodd orres~ultan~_r ~Nti~ru_t~and Vor ,db, q acres of C lnl _1~s~4&=._"~hv ~ap~aVra.~arrV, wai@fl ~'ecou•d a. do<d rrsstri~ction over 0 ~~ xults ot'tlao R-28 situ to In€et Phis ('F"F - _ ... _ ob~atYZ~,u„~.._.........ln addition to the CPF requirement for Montecrto, an obligation for 4.6-acres of CPF land required for the village of Heritage (Otay Ranch SPA One) will also be met in this SPA Plan area, for a total estimated requirement of -1Fi ~ 1'7,3 acres. The Otay Ranch GDP and City CPF Ordinance also provide options for meeting the CYF obligation, such as providing private recreation facilities or building square footage instead of land. The CPF obligation is met through provision of five CPF sites in Montecito, totaling 6.3 acres of land area, and a "floating" 10.2-acre site in the Otay Ranch Business Park. However, an additional 3.0 to 5.0 acre CPF site will be provided in the Village Two Core area and the Village 3 CPF will be correspondingly reduced pursuant to a subsequent SPA amendment. The Community Purpose Facilities Master Plan provides additional information on CPF allocations in the villages. Other public facilities needed to serve the project arc identified and evaluated in the SPA Plan Public Facilities Finance Plan (PFFP). i~2,& e(rvif Sarp 1, rel ~e eeY ei nA ~iral5.e C lowq,.dl rtnt ~l 0t ~^P444.fl ~ktsVSl ~thi~_th P?pm k. n~nype elgblefi y~w,k. reAn rtl e,Ym z_.h l . ~kgps211 kl A [jUgG(19 ~ i " a£rS.9..f61n1 GjAk 74dI1411L-i ~+ ut e V Iinge n p d b I I y % ~ p~5p I vt I lv n tF< 1?-4 ( m f Yi r{£, I-2~ d~~tW~ktf}a+F+H Fn'-Y 1115(J.Z Proposed MON'fEC1T0 & OTAY RANCH BUSINESS PARK SECTIONAL PLANN WG AREA PLAN Otay Ranch Villages Two, Three and a Portion of Four Il. DevelopmenC Concept N(I~9~1/P/lJPe /{^1tTP4~dff/7" irerrruseavrs ~uwr wmwr rvnrpnn)1 ~\..~1 ®/919 h"'.a'NG/G .~u5/f~!5` fdC~c rrx. PIOt(a: Neaigl7t~rrrYrC~gd !'t-2 han a urmt7ined RM-71RhA-J Zone! iX ~N ~.x omy.wwh nwtipno-; l~wnvv amw, Exhibit 9 SPA Land Use Plan 1130 ~~"~"~~'.~ls~~~ Proposed MONTECITO & OTAY RANCH BUSINESS PARK 5ECTiONAI, PLANNMG AREA PLAN Ofay Ranch Villages'Pwo, Three a~~d a PorCion of Four [I. -evelopmeot Concept ~-f w i z ~ "' ~ w, ~~ a c:__„~d g ~~ Exhibit IOa ]I-31 ~ 'E`~u.u„rs~'_z Proposed MON'I'EC1'PO & 0"IAY RANCH BUSINESS PARK SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN IAND UBE SUMMARY LAND USE BUMMA0.Y Ne~ghbotM1OOd ugh Type Aveage DUa Target Demity NNgbbovhootl wm Type Aneage Du. Ta.ga<Daa:iry L.aa w. Mi.ea uae _ _ R-0A SF V.I 62 l6 MU-I __ MV _ LI 10 RAB 61 [ Il illl II/1/ SF Li ~: 244 ;~/ /I I~ 68 ~~~~~U~~~I~ 28 J /f~u~//(/^l// MV-2 MW MU MU 1.4 43 12 38.. / R-Bgll rl~~/.lF/~~~~~~~~~r% RIS SF ~//~/t~~j SF ]5~/ . ~~~~~~~i/l% L ]2 9B // ~w~l~~~~~~~~/~ 3] 6.9 ~~ %/ ///~~~~~/ihfJh 5.1 BvbeOW MU ,:,. Commemid 6.0 60 R-IBA BF 119 49 9.6 C-I Com'I 119 F188 SF IOA 48 4A R-19 SF 109 63 ]] IndmrHai R~1D SF 193 IS l.9 IN0.1 IND SLS R-21 SF 22.2 6q 39 IND-3 IND 6] R83 SF 13.1 48 3] IND-3 INO 29] ft-24 3F J6 2B 3] suetoW Inaustrlal B1.9 R~29A SF 4.6 24 S2 0.-23B SF 4.9 24 4.9 Note: Indumial parzelx may be dev¢lepad as re9denrval and CPF uses subject [o fuwre umirunmenml evuw and SPA POIIdes and Requirements. aher 6ntlllll operrtions cmu a[tl~e OOy End FJI. ettl Singe Family .-A a,ofhP:R TB4...S]9 ~~ sgg,p Mulai-FVnily _ pyyF RS MF 13] 130 93 P-I P 11 R-6// ~~~/14I/~~~J//~~/,~//~ R~66 M/'F ~I ~%% MF 126 l~F%~Ifu~/r "% 29 46 j_~G~~~~/I~/~:/e l9 100 l ~~I~I~i%I~~?. 116 P.2 P ]I ~~~~~~~~/S// /~ / ~~~ll ~/ //v // y~ ~ ~/~~~~1/~~~ ~~///L~/~/ f, !flfl4// //~~~//yf ~w`~/ff/~~ 1/s /: ~ / // ~/~/'~ ~ ~~j~~~J/~~ P-3 P 69 .. R-98 ___ MF 6.5 66 105 0.-IOA MF ____ 2.1 34 16.1 Pq q P q04 R-108 MF 24 31 _ _ 213 PJB P 19 City of SD Watedlne Hrul R-II MF 99 196 14.I PiC P 2B Cuy of SD Casement R-12 _ MF 240 325 13.5 Bubtatil Parka 600 R~13 MF 103 13] 13.3 ~~)fh VqB IPA(. µ/~o y epre~J. (n[µn atl xhe4iry9CFtIl[2jFg4. W I ty wuS 0.14 _ MF ].6 165 21] R-16 MF 35 J? 20.9 R~I] MF IL5 119 103 CPF•W Rd6 MF B.B ]5 0.3 CFF-i CPF L2 R-2] NF 88 61 8.1 CFF2 CPF 09 GG // (s// / %~~~fl~~~/~/~ ~~~/ G~I /i~~/ /r /l/(/I t/1~//, ff~/ l(if.. ~// I /v/r.' (/i // O///f ,1~~~~~~~/~ ILYLv~~~~l/~ ~ /// ,,,/,/ /// /I/80~~/~~~~~% ~q%// O//~I/ii/r%/% ~/~~///Yl ~~~~~ ~~ IVI / ~~%~~~ __ CPF-3 CPF 9 CPF CPF 1.9 IS R-3D MF 102 2]8 ].]3 CPF3 CFF 09 Subtotal MUl[4 FamYy bin4dNd].d 6~Wg2,2A9 4Y1113.R Bubtotal CPF - 6.3 -- O[her 5~1 School 103 Opm Spare OS IW.S Feserve OS JI] 6c Cbrulauun 262 In[Cirruhslon 426 ___ Fuw DevelDpmen[ 33.1 Bub[oW Othee 316.1 Village 2 Gvand Total 619.] $.Ylln;,4lFa [I-32 dd)6?BFd01 /5/IY Exhibit IOb Montecito Site Utilization Plan (Table) Proposed MON'CECCI'O & OTAY RANCH E3USINESS PARK SEC7ipNAL Pl„ANN(NG AREA PLAN _ O[ay Rench VHlages• Two, Three and a Portion of Fom Vl. Community Pm~pose Facility Master Plan 3. Park Requirements Otay Ranch GDP H=1._~l~ay- _I&~erae la- t~l~i~'_..¢ ectu try--d~*siiweatirau$._c-rS=Yrarl~ i;usd--kta a~d...~~n -t#ao t:)irsa~rYksy-_A~...~taaroaiaro-~#-~>f~~--ae;a~~; erd-~='ltlrerr#uf~s~ai-aswt-e~~narKaau~ity-tV€ lrrru3-t~rr-*rY--& dhCBEb..roaitl~~ttts:._BaS:@-a~a..arPr~t€&~~-r°e~;aalrwaat-l~opuN~Eitn`t tra~se;~-err ~a,~&-} ,~aac~ta~nt r~~r44-In ,a...~k_sata~?a~ f<~a=-Y-a-gas-~o~; f,_6 rrnet t}arrrao-g}1-#tae-Csce~/isiarra-~~f-YavQr-Rd~ig#rY~+-a~rocl Parks;~-~ uavt°r `Yurrru-;end a.-alit+aa-e~€ ar ~auart~Itrriky-Park-a~a%d{saaa-tbro ,"~kaA- ptaar :.arc: a-=f=hw-o-radtae~tr~al ltenad~~e;~:,-'rra-the-d--tay-N~aeatta Btlaay...Par{~,-¢4c+aas~t--era~t4~^r,+a:&anrTt;an~#....f~ra=aa, ~ro4~tagsrkatr~ vo-slr;-prttrlclaaaaa9: Chula Vista Municipal Code The City of Chula Vista Municipal Code, Chapter 17.10, Parklands and Public Facilities (12/94), establishes the method by which actual required park acreage is to be calculated, based on the number and type of residential units determined at the Pinal Map level. The City's 2002 Park Acquisition and Development Fee Update determined that each single family jd~tatih~d,~_dwelling unit generates a need for 460 square feet of developed parkland and each multi-family (attar Ia~d~ unit generates a need for 341 square feet of developed parkland. Based on 1,28% single family and 1,49% multi-family units, the parkland obligation for A~ienteeite W19-~e Q:'-wo is a roximatel 25.3 acres ~'~ae~a<I~gataorlgl .-.~l nc¢o4s (4q sinizle_tituamlR~ c-ei~~8otd amts-_xrad -48 anu9TS ~dfr¢r~.~gtaclac;d adrrapts~YeSullsrra _. _- d dernae,YtN for 1 ~"7.,acres of-yr~axkVaaad rr~°taVflant; tea ~._crrum9roryerl_"e/a-lae :F'wea ar~aalclaarc9_-rbi~dtxon-rat d~s~27~0 dcrq~_;, Table 2 -Estimated Required Park Land Dedication DWELLING TARGET NUMBER PARK TOTAL UNIT TYPE OF UNITS AREA/DU AC City of Chula Vista Landscape Manual Part Three of the City Landscape Manual addresses the requirements and criteria of public projects, includhrg parks, open space and streetscapes (whether a City Public Works project or a private "turnkey" project). The Manual provides the requirements for submittals, graphics and standards, design standards and criteria, landscaping, irrigation and trails. SPA Plan The GDP requires that the SPA-level planning include definition of the location, acreage and boundaries of neighborhood and Community Parks and open space. A component of the SPA Plan includes a Public Facilities Proposed V-89 +(9/.L•hf14)V./5:12. MONTLCTTO & OTAY RANCH RiJSiNESS PARK SEC'CIONAL PLANNING AREA P_C__A_N_ Otay Aaneh Villages Two, Three and a Portion of Four VI. Community Purpose Facility Maser Plan Finance Plan (PFFP) which further analyzes and determines park requirements and phasing. The SPA Land Use Plan provides the following parks in Montecito: a centrally located 7.1-acre Neighborhood Park (P-2), a 6.9-acre Neighborhood Park (P-3) in the Town Center area of the village, and a 1.4-acre Town Square (P-I) in the Village Core. A Community Park is located in Village Four, included in this SPA Plan area. The portion within the SPA Plan area (P-4) is 44~!-0(d,4-acres in size and will satisfy community park obligations from several SPAS. The total credited parkland in the SPA Plan area is -~S.'.i.8 acres. A > 8 eg.,~a t~dtv....ot_Sian, 17uc~o ew.ttbesiune eas~mcnt <cfrci 14 acaYl_.parc.tl_4>evlrud fltv.aPt~. t Ity of_S~rcra; Otie;~o tlagated waatPrpiir the F~--~) C oa~lmul?i,Cy Parris (tert~aN of 4,~ acres) lugy_P~r^^. ~llflgt6r-e~ 1€ql pank creciut in d.'Yuga_Euturra; If_ghe & d~_a~&=_~,~cCt [~p~t~t~ vvatou`Giata us -- .__. r~ tlocateai. _The actual park acreage requirements will be c;~°tlruiaY~ d based on the C itv PI,k)t~ fryr aotual number of residential units end unlA tq!pg (drrpgcl_ogd__~anc9._aktm~IL~<~ _gapxY:s,_and projected population) approved on the subsequent Final Map(s) for Montecito. B. VILLAGE PARK AND RECREATION PROGRAM 'this section describes the park, recreation, open space and trails facilities provided within the SPA Plan area. The Otay Ranch Parks and Recreation Facility Implementation Plan (adopted by the City Council on October 28, 1993) identifes the parks facility improvement standards for Otay Ranch. The City of Chula Vista Recreation Department and General Services Department conducted subsequent facilities needs assessments and proposed some modifications to the adopted Otay Ranch Plan. This SPA Park Master Ptan strives for consistency with the Otay Ranch Plan and the current proposed. plans and policies of the Parks and Recreation Department. This SPA Park Master Plan identifes the proposed types, quantities and location of the facilities provided at each park site in the SPA Plan area. In addition to identifying specific facility needs and requirements, the goal of the SPA Park Master Plan is to desceibe the elements necessary to ensure a rich variety of recreational opportunities, while satisfying identified recreation needs. The variety of recreational elements proposed and the recreational opportunities envisioned are discussed below. I. Recreation The village concept organizes land uses to create a cohesive, pedestrian friendly community, encourage non-vehicular trips and foster interaction between residents. The SPA Park Master Plan provides a variety of recreational opportunities to support the village concept. The recreational plan is based on the following principles: • Recreation standards such as total parks and recreation acreage, minimum park size, and facility design shall conform to the City of Chula Vista requirements. v-9o Proposed MONTFCITO & OTAY RANCH BUSINESS PARK SECTI_O_N_A_ L PLANNING ARHA PLAN Otay Ranch Villages Two, Thcee and a Portion of Four VL Community Purpose Facility Master Plan Community Park A ~4:;?;~f0 <4-acre community park is located south of Wolf Canyon within Village Four. The Park will provide active recreation facilities per the Chula Vista Parks and Recreation Master Plan. The following ~rnt~~iFrg4e;~i. amenities a+aT-r-ee¢uttrr e3~n~;~llt).as: • 10 Ball Fields with lighting • 6 Soccer Fields with lighting • 4 Tennis Courts with lighting • 4 Basketball Courts with lighting • 45 Picnic Tables, (quantity of shade structures to be determined through the individual park design process.) • 3 Play Areas with Play Equipment, (age appropriate equipment to be determined through the individual park design process.) • Restrooms/Maintenance Building • Full Size Gymnasium w/Teen Annex (20,000 sq. Ft.) • Aquatic Complex (63,'710 sq. Ft.) • Open Lawn Areas • Paved Walkways with lighting • Parking Lot with lighting (quantity of parking spades to be determined through the individual park design process.) ' Skate Boarding/Rollerblading Aeea Ownership, Funding and Maintenance The Neighborhood Park sites will be dedicated by the Master Developer to the City of Chula Vista. The parks will be owned and maintained by the City of Chula Vista. Funding for park improvements is governed by Chapter 17.10 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code (Park Lands and Public Facilities). Included as part of the regulations are Park Acquisition and Development (PAD) fees established for the purpose of providing neighborhood and Community Parks and improvements. 1'he Ordinance provides that fees are paid to the City prior to approval of a final subdivision map. In addition to PAD Fees, the City of Chula Vista adopted the Recreation Facility Development Impact Fee ("Rec. DIF") as a financing mechanism for recreation facilities such as community center and gymnasiums. The Montecito developers shall pay the PAD fees. The SPA Plan Public Facilities and Finance Plan (PFFP) provides a detailed description of the fnancing of park, open space and trails facilities. v-im Proposed dtuuzbf/tt)l:~lu3 MONTEGTO & O"rAY RANCH BUSMESS PAKK SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA P_L_A_N Otay Ranch Villages Two, Three and a Por[ion of Four V[. CommwtiTy Purpose Facility Muter Plan C. CONTRIBUTIONS TO OTAY RANCH OPEN SPACE Open space within the SPA Plan area is comprised of Wolf Canyon open space (part of the Otay Ranch Preserve) to the southeast, graded slopes within and surrounding the villages, a Community Park, Neighborhood Parks and the 75-foot (average) landscape adjacent to surrounding major streets. These open spaces provide pedestrian connections within the SPA Plan area, passive recreational opportunities and view opportunities. Open space lands indicated on the SPA Land LJse Plan (Exhibit 9) will be preserved through the dedication of open space easements and/or lots to the City or other appropriate agency, or to a Home Owner's Association. Uses will be strictly controlled through the PC District Regulations. This SPA Plan adheres to the following adopted GDP policies that guide the design of open. spaces: • Natural open space areas adjacent to Poggi and Wolf Canyons identified on the GDP/SRP Land Use Map shall be preserved outside of individual private lots. • Lot lines and grading shall not extend into the open space scenic corridor along Olympic Parkway or the RMP Management Preserve. • Setbacks and landscaping shall be provided along Poggi Canyon in keeping with open space scenic corridor guidelines of the Overall Ranch Design Plan and the Olympic Parkway Landscape Master Plan. • View opportunities shall be provided in the design of the village. • The village boundary along Heritage Road and La Media Road should consist of a landscaped buffer which shall provide the transition to Poggi and Wolf Canyons. • The broad valley of Wolf Canyon should be retained as an open space amenity. Uses shall be consistent with the findings of the Chula Vista MSCP and the Resource Management Plan. • Grading and landscaping along the village edge, adjacent to Wolf Canyon, should be conducted in a sensitive manner to minimize conflicts with proposed open space and recreational uses in Wolf Canyon. I. SPA Open Space The Otay Ranch GDP requires the provision of open space in addition to local parks at a ratio of 12 acres for every I,D00 residents. Based on an estimated population. of 7;7-~?)il 173 residents, approximately ID1 acres of open space is required. This requirement is met through the provision of 164.5 acres in Montecito and 39.0 acres in the Otay Ranch Business Park (2035 total acres) of open space in the form of manufactured slopes and other interior open spaces within the SPA Plan area. vane Proposed ~ taualuaair~>~i2 MONTF,CIT'O & O'TAY RANCH BUSINESS PARK SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN Otay Ranch Villages Two, Three and a Portion orFOUr VL Commm~ity' Purpose Facility Master Plan GDP shall be done through a SPA or GDP amendmentladoption pursuant to Sections 19.48.080 and 79.48.130 of the CVMC (P-C-Planned Community lone: .080 =General Development Plan -Modification Requests and Procedures and .130 =Sectional Area Plans -Modification Requests and Procedures)." The total acreage required may 6e reduced by the City Council in certain circumstances such as when shared pazking facilities are available with other facilities. B. COMMUNITY PURPOSE FACILITY REQUIREMENT The prepsl-ox gatap. 2,786 units gpprc_rve+d„in ~d7ea~ta~ it~~ z_ f9(Y(i_generate a population of approximately 8,458 persons (population is based on 3.036 persons per residential unit), requiring an estimated 11.8 acres of CPF land in the Plan area. An obligation for an additional 4.6 acres of CPF land required for SPA One will also be met with this SPA Plan for a total requirement of 16.4 acres. The CPF requirement will be met through the provision of six sites totaling 6:1-:il,acres in Montecito. The remaining requirement will be met through the provision of a "floating" 10.2-acre site in the Otay Ranch Business Park. The "floating" CPF sites will he programmed and designed during Site Plan Development and Review of specific development areas identified by this Master Plan. All CPF facilifies will be in conformance with the City Ordinance and the SPA Plan Public Facilities Financing Plan (PEEP). Ills 1.,f91t~ Sl?A.~ko~ryeradui€,gig._ic7cacFn~ss bl~~ Teo~rulatag~n r*vitluAn V,Itlfl};c fw4a _. h2 4~F-1-632 ~arwd cOrrF~pcroea~i_ngt~lafl~,e~a.F=~ ¢hr al€xnaquod for fl'~'~' -an~9 day-~-_? ~a~se~, ~fl~r~ appi¢c~rlt wu4V recryrd a ~Reea#._l,:estrtctlcru cveu 0."~ iecaov erot t9~e_1~._ >8 auto tcr_ssue~t Yhtg._r_I'1' crob9~~g&_ia~m, An additional 3.0 to 5.0 acre CPF site will be provided within the Village Two Core area and the CPF-6 site will be reduced in size pursuant to a subsequent SPA Amendment. C. COMMUNITY PURPOSE FACILITY IMPLEMENTATION The SPA Land CJse Plan distributes CPF sites throughout the Plan area as shown in Exhibit 44. A conceptual plan for a private recreation facility is provided in Exhibit 45. The following describes each of the CPR facilities. I. CPF I CPF I is a 1.2-acre private recreation facility located in the northwestern area of Montecito. This facility is centrally located in residential neighborhoods to create a village focal point. The location. is within walking distance of the residences that it serves and is linked to the village v,-„3 Pro osed MONTECITO & OTAY RANCH 6USINESS PARK SECTIONAL PLANNWU AR&A PLAN Olay Ranch Villages'1'wo; 'Fhrcc wad a Portion of Fonr VII. Development Phasing Table 4a-Momecito Conceptual Phasing - Village Two anda Portion of Four ' ' Blue I Red ' Yell ow Green Orange Purple Teal White '. a< ~ du du du '~. du d du '. du coal Total RESIDENTIAL ' ~ _._ : ". - ~ --- R-4a I SF j I].I I 62 ', ~ ',. '. -~IZI -i 62 0.4a I SF 24.4 I 68 ':. ' '. '. '. I 244 ~ 68 Subtotal ', ~ 41.5 ". 130 ! j '. ' ' 91.5 'i 170 R-5 MF ' IS] ! 130 - IS] j 130 R-6I MF ' 136 126 - ' ' 12.6 ' 126 _.. R4a ~ SF ~ 9.4 f 4482 I I ~ j I 94 ~44~% R~Sa ! SF ~ ].S 48 ~ ~ ': 7.6 '. 48 R-Bb f MF ~ 25 ! 29 ~. : j 2.5 I 29 RAa i SF ! 68 4A6] : ' 68 S66] R-96 I MF 65 ' 66 ! ' 65 I 66 R-IDa I MF ' - 2.1 _ 34 I 2.1 ': 34 R 106 '. MF '.. Z4 SI ', '. '. '. 2.4 51 R-28 I MF 5.9 '~. 98114 _, I '' ' ~-_ -- ! S.9 4&135 MU-I -- MU I 1.1 10 '~ '~ ~ j LI I 10 Subtotal ': ' ~ 82.4 1 T8692/y ' 82.4 8669R¢ R-20 6F ' ' 195 i ~ ]6 '~ 19.5 ]S R-21 -~ SF 22.2 ': ~ 64 ~. ~-~~ I -_ 22.2 64 R-23 I SF 13.1 ' 48 I ' ' 13.1 '~. 48 ~ _ R-26a 'i SF - ! 4.6 24 '.. ' 46 ! 24 R-256 '., ' SF '.. 4.9 I 24 ' ' __ I 4.91 24 R-26 I MF ''. : 8.8 ]S '. I ! 8.8 ' )5 R-2] ' MF ' ' BB '': 61 ' ' 88 ~ 61 Subtotal ! -__ '. ~ 89.3 ! 399 ' ': 89.3 j 399 R 19 ! SF '. 10.8_'- _ 83 ', : ~ : 108 ..._-~83 R Ib ': MF ' _ 3.5 ~ 73 ! '. 35 '. I3 R-I] I MF 1 ~ - I ILS j 119 ! ILS ~ 119 R-18A I, 6F 11.8: 6S I ' --- 11.8 '. 65 R-186 ~ 6F '. : 10.4 I 48 10.4 ! 46 Subtotal ~ I ' 480 ': 388 ! : 48.0 388 R-12 i MF '~ ' ~ 24.0 1 325 ~ - ' ~ 24.0 '- 325 R-13 ': MF ' ', 10.3 13] ' ' 10.3 13] R-30 '': MF ! '. ~- 10.2 '' UB 102 ! - - 2l8 Subtotal ': ' I ''. ' 44.5 I ]40 : 49.5 7411 R-IS ', SF '. '- ~ 72 ! 3] i .__ 72 3] R-14 MF ~ - ___ ~ I ]6 I. 16S ! --- ].6 '. 165 R29 ': MF 89 -'. ~ H914`~ ' ! 8.9 89.1$4 MU-2 "'. MU ( ''. ' '~ --14 ': 12 '. 2.4 ' 12 MU-3 ~~: MU '. I I : 4.3 38 ' ~I 4.3 38 Subtotal ~ '~ '. 4 29.4 ~! RALAgW ~ '~ 29.4 346R.{(L~ NON-RESIDENTIAL ~- -- IND-1 ~ IND I : 6I6 : ' -~~-- SLS ~ IND-2 ! IND ( '. 6) ',, 6] ~ IND-3 I IND ': ~ ',. ', ___ ._ 29] ': '. 29] ! Subtotal : '. '. '. ~- B1.9 I 87.9 ' CPF 1 '.: CPF : 1.2 ',, I I I 1.2 .__ CPF-2 ':. CPF : 0.9 ~ ', ',. I ''.. 0.9 ':. CPF-3 j CPF ' L] ' '' ~ 1.9 '. CPF-4 CPF - ~ ! IS 3 IS ' CPF-6 'j CPF I '" ! O B : 0.8 '. GI j, Coml - - ! 11.9 "~ ' 125 'j P-I I Park I 14 ' '~ I 1.4 P-2 ~ Park ~ - Z I Y '.. ~ ._. ~ Z I I P-3 Park ', I I : 6.9 '. I 6.9 ! (Village 4)P-4 Park ~ ' : ~ ~ Mbb04 44440.9 j C17J3L° 4) P 48 Pant '.. ~' I '. 14" 1.4" ~'RI9t521 PAC Pslt I I j j ''. d 8' 7 ~ !. 5-I ' School ' 103 '~. '~ ~ 10.3-. Subtotal ', D I. 0 200 '. 0 0.9 1. 0 ~ V i 0 DB 0 20.3 '~. 0 0.0 '': 44.6 89.1 :. TOTAL ~ 1 415 ~ 130 1024 I 2&7p2b ~ 89J 1 399 0.9] ( 388 { 45.3 ]40 ~ 49] , 344dOD ' 8].9 j 446 'i S V.fi 2 ]862 $83 "NOiE'P4R OdP 4lgyr rlYlea~te-tbd..l_A Pdrk 5d5D111dt~el, o(tani)r~rp eexi ne srel116aAYF1, VII-121 .u;<?~~N31 5/12. Proposed MONTECITO & O"rAY ILANCH BUSINESS PARK SECTIONAL PLANNMG AREA P1,AN Otay Ranch Villages fivo, Three and a Rprlion of F'aur b'711. R~blic Fad1777es E. ROADS Roads included in this SPA proposal are addressed in Chapter III, Circulation, of this SPA plan. The PFFP details their phasing and financing. F. SCHOOLS The Otay Ranch GDP requires preparation of a School Master Plan for each SPA. This section addresses and satisfies the requirements for such a plan. Additionally, the phasing and funding of school facilities is addressed in the PFFP. The construction of up to /k1--6,'7~._single family dwelling units and >?~-i-22 3j3~? multi-family dwelling units is planned for the Montecito SPA Plan. Based on Chula Vista Elementary School District and Sweetwater Union High School District student generation factors (students/dwelling unit), there is a need to accommodate approximately q=~d-~71; elementary students, ~.~~ 'Y51,__middle school students, and ~flq Fc4,~._high school students, for a total of -k~` j,~ 73 students. I. Elementary Schools To meet the elementary school requirements, the Otay Ranch General Development Plan (GDP) provides for the siting of one elementary school in Montecito. This SPA Plan reserves a 10.3-acre (net) elementary school site, Parcel S-I, in the village core adjacent to the neighborhood park to facilitate joint use opportunities. The site will be reserved for acquisition by the Chula Vista Elementary School District, as provided in the PFFP. The construction schedule for the school will be determined by the school district. Students in Montecito will be accommodated in neighboring village elementary schools until the Montecito school is constructed. 2. Middle Schools & High Schools Middle school and high school requirements are met by the existing Rancho del Rey Middle School located. north of'lelegraph Canyon Road, the 52-acre Otay Ranch High School located adjacent to the Montecito Town Center and the Village Seven high school currently under construction. 3. Adult Schools Demand for adult school facilities will be satisfied within existing facilities in the Sweetwater Union High School District, until a new facility can be constructed in the Otay Ranch Eastern Urban Center on a site reserved pursuant to the Otay Ranch GDP. VIII-137 {61f'~?(}/.k CIS/12 Proposed MONTE_QITO & OTAY RANCH BUSRJESS PARK SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN Otay Ranch Villages Two, Three and a Portion ojFour V!/1. Pub(!c Fac7(i17es I. LIBRARY SERVICES Library services are provided by the City of Chula Vista as described by the City Library Master Plan. Using fire threshold of 500 square Peet of adequately equipped and staffed regional library facilities per 1.,000 residents, the population of Monteeito generates a demand for approximately 5,000 square feet of library facilities. The demand for library facilities generated by the build-out of Monteeito will be satisfied through pari~icipation in the City's Public Facilities Development Impact Fee Program as identified in the PFFP. J. PARKS, RECREATION, OPEN SPACE AND TRAILS FACILITIES Parks, recreation, open space and trails are addressed in Chapter V, Parks, Recreation. Open Space and Trails Master Plan and the PFFP. A synopsis of these facilities is provided below. I. Neighborhood Parks In conformance with the Otay Ranch GDP, a 7.1-acre neighborhood park, a 69- acre neighborhood park and a 1.4-acre town square park are provided in Monteeito. Facilities within these parks may include ball fields, tot Tots, picnic areas and other amenities as required by the City Parks and Recreation Master Plan. 2. Private Recreation Facilities Four private recreation facilities are located at focal points within Village Two and in proximity to residential neighborhoods. These facilities are zoned Community Purpose Facility and may satisfy multi-fvnily common open space obligations„ uayYa.~s_crt4ec_Iv;~ sl~~cfgecV. 3. Community Parks The community parka obligation is met through the provision of a ~&r24!J_~4~-acre site in the eastern portion of the SPA Plafi area. Approximately 2~--3.2.0! acres of ¢d~e.__P-4 Park will txY_scr meet the applicants', ~~:Iz~..~~waa~ Vlll;~~s=~ One, (;bne ~h/~St,_.tave `si~.algd Srv~ru Community Park obligation, as contemplated in the GDP and discussed in the PFFP. 4. Compliance with Regional Park Standard The Otay Ranch regional park standard is met through identification of the +3000 acres for the Otay Ranch Regional Park. 5. Local Open Space The requirement for approximately A4b-1---104 acres (12 acres/1000 residents) of active or passive local open space is met through the provision of manufactured open space. The open space requirement is A2p_e~ Cry <J Snr t3~gq ere Lie eaa~.neni nndtaxrt. Un I nc~Lr, ~~S,C~ p}§.~J)hfdt4,]llulrfA ~~llh~n ~he['_'4komrzurrcy P.u$I~rznl or lac es}mny he elgble$~ f~ {I{g.f{ fitl„. d6Glj9.&61S relyrrgg„y(, Vlll-14I 4FNx~47r~1P3I/S _11 Proposed ADOPTED MAY 23, 2bb6 BY RESOLUTION NO.2bb6-155 Prcao~ea~ Ap~ro~rl~lrrr~;rs>~ qu~a~~9t 'B 4, ~b~~ t..r-~~rae~s--r-~-na ~~-sa-~-.. a~~ ~'~nc~ Y~~~c ~irra OTAY RANCH VILLAGE TWO MONTECI7O VILLAGE DESIGN Pl. ^~N IV. Residential Guidelines .~~.~~~ ALLEY ~,~~ CORNER LOT K9TN YARD AWAY FRAM 57REE'T 74' ur% '~ ~,~14(7X90 ALLEY LQT CORNER l.or wrrN YARu AWAY FROM 57]~EE7 asr4o' MhV. Exhibit 36 TpicalGm°ner tat GORNER tOT WITH YARD DN Sl'RC:ET GQRNE'h" tO7" Wl'fH YARD JN S7RE`E'T 10' NlN. Proposed Not m Scale 93 1 /5/12~-~l~'rf~b... 3A` MtN. ~~._....._~C.. OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 7b~o MON1"ECSTO VILLAGE DESIGN PLAN 90x90Lot 3,800s P/ottingCancepts 35 x 90 Lot 3,'650 s~ Plotting Conoepts Characteristics: • Optimizes architecture on the street frontage. • Garages via alley at the rear elevation. • Provides fox undulated building massing and varied setbacks appropriate to architectural style. • Provides for varied roof pitches and directions. ^ Orients fi-onr doors and entries toward street where possible. • Provides for private, Atiey usable side yards. ••- • Curb separated sidewalks ~~ ~.. provides a traditional ~ ~0` tree-lined foreground for homes. ~ ~~ JaEnf klaa 7f1' Caaomernt indicakea Prarcl~, TrolHa ar Sddnwalk Landacxrya Parkway ~'~e;~~J mot. C~' • . ~. ~~ ' . . ~. .. ....... •..~v' n ~~.~.W..w."a,.,.... ~,...,.._.,:_............._~,_. p. Ftas9dankinl Skraot Note: All dlmenatana ere minimum. nne elda may be "zero lot Line" wlth tp' on oPPOafte aide. Exhibit 45 3 z x 90 (3,150sty 6 40 x 90 (3, 800 sfJ Plotting Concepts Srsra//to-tAt/ey fna7`ry Z-Car Gjaray~Gmur~t -Nat to s~/~ 102 a~z~ rr5rrz Proposed O"TAY RANCH VILLAUE ZV90 MONTECITO V L1..LAOE LESION PLAN rsakr~~rar~~' ~&w&~ara~ ~axra~~;~ro~s G~ atp•~e~t~~i~&u~s: C7ptirndzes architecture aan the street fccraxtagc. ~ ~iara~es w.ia cax~.arty~ard and f"rprrt lrr sscle elewaticnx. ~ ff"rarvides k'car randulated Esrar'taJing rrr~assiaa~ anal varied setbacks appr~pria'te ~ architecY.rxra! ,tyie~. ors>vides ~fi~r varied ra>of ~atrhe~~r and c~iirectivns. ~~ C~rienes ~rr~nt dcrars aaxd entries toward street where txarssib(e. F'r°ovides ftrr prx•vate, Ixsakrle, rear csa• side yards. ~ f rarely separated sidewalks Carabvides a tr<rtlitiaaaaal tree-laneaf ~'oregra7axnd Ccar Naarnes. ''~ Iv JJ I ~`_ i I -- -- -- 08'ZL I ~ , zo o' G~ ,BLI `~ v, I Cl ~' s. o' ._. _ 8'll ° 051 ~ B, ~ _ --~ ~ I e, a' o _ o '~ c o ~ ,8'sa~~ ~ o ' I ~, 08'ZL i r. ~s - ... ~~ ~ o I ~ i [~ c„ I J - o I ~ 5.0' o~ ~ I v - °I I ~ -- -` ' Off, ~- - -- "`~ / - _- - - - ~ o ~' - - - -„ 08'59 ~ ~ - _ . _ - = -- - - Cn p, - ---ccs- `_ 6L Z5_-- 0 0 exhibit k5~ Cot~rkq~rd W'icsttiroy ~axnc~pts Not to scale ioze Proposed s~ 1~~/12 o f ?l~lov~tecito r~nr~Plta~a~'anc~i ~usiness~ Par ~~~ n e ~G a Y y l Y Y l G l Y l J ~1 z~~ c t ` ~'~ r~~ ~ a~~ Adopted May 23, 2006 By Resolution No. 2006-156 By Ordinance No. 3036 FTewused ¢~avch t4, 14bt2 THE OTAY RANCH COMPANY Ocnv zwm avnvrrn uwrn~tLV.+ N010: For Lantl Vse Alfernalive Pq4 changes la B.6 acres antl t45 DUs antl R75 changaa to 5.2 anon end 87 cols. lantl UOb Bmain5lhn tame. ~.. Inning L7isn ict Mctp $F2 )I(yuP /AN!(/!J~ , ' eaa smytiar,PUn/~ ~~ ~P~ s~ys~~~,u~y~ ~, [R611 Mwl1/ farer!/ 1 RMZ /rfie//r Yaxrr/yd 0/kw• CPF ComnrnrcMj /brie ~d/~y C~ Corvoerw,ne,e! Mu M.'.vm'!/rm ~P1 Kaslm?m Perrk RP2 C+wmmyrYsrk Exhibit I Village of Mantecita and £7tay Ranch Business Park Zaning district Map c1f Montecieo ~. Ur~ay Rnnch Business Park mch P[nrufed Cvmrvn4nit~ (Jisrrict Kegz~flnnons s Proposed ro1~x/st 15R3/ar,= Village of Monteci to & Otav Ranch Business Park Otay Ranch Planned Comtaunity District Regulations Residential U.istricts Table 3 - Property Development Standards -Residential Districts Land Use Districts SF2 SF3 SF4 RMI RM2 Notes to Design Review. To side entry (swing in) garage with or without residential 10 10 10 DR DR Maximum driveway approach shall be 16 feet. above. To main residence 1 S 1 S 1 S DR DR May be reduced to 10' for alley product. Minimum 66%, depending on number of To porch, patio, ent 8 8 8 DR DR models, shall have at least one pedestrian feature, or veranda oriented feature (see page 18) To semi-private 6 6 6 DR DR courtyard Minimum Side Yard Setback (Feet): To adjacent residential lot S S S DR DR May be reduced for Zero Lot Line concepts Distance between 10 10 10 DR DR May be reduced to zero for certain building detached residences types. Refer to Village Design Plan. To porch, patio or 4 4 4 DR DR Measured from back of sidewalk veranda on corner lot . RMl shall have a minimum S foot setback from To property line 10 10 10 DR DR the property line; however, porches and verandas may encroach into 5 ft. setback subject to Design Review. To garage with minimum 30 foot 0 0 0 0 0 driveway setback Minimum Rear Yard Setback (Feet): To main residence -- 20 15 10 DR DR Second story (and above) may project 3 feet into rear yard setback. To garage with 30 foot front yard S S S DR DR Second story (and above) may project 3 feet setback and with into rear yard setback. living area above To garage off an S 5 5 s I>R Second story (and above) may project 3 feet alley , , - ~1}R - into rear yard setback. 16 4~fE3~%43ti1 U/~1; 1T Proposed _....._ _ _. Montecito & Otay Ranch Business Parl< Sectional Planning Area P3an ~~a ~r~ Ado d May 23, 2006 ey Resolution No. 2006-I55 Devised Larch 14, 2&712 MON`PECTIO £~ OTAY RANCH BUSINESS PARK SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROGRAM II. VILLAGE OF MONTECITO AFFORDABLE HOUSING OBLIGATION, LOCATION, PHASING, DESIGN AND UNIT MIX A. OBLIGATION The City of Chula Vista Housing Element and the Otay Ranch GDP provide that ten percent of the total emits will be affordable to low and moderate income households. Of the ten percent, five percent must be affordable to low income households and five percent must be affordable to moderate income households. "1'he estimated Village of Montecito (Montecito) affordable housing unit obligation is based on the Montecito SPA entitlement authorization of ~SEsz,9£33 units within the Village. The affordable units required for Montecito are t-~J-1 X49„_low income vid -13p-:1 X69. moderate-income affordable units. B. TYPES OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING The housing policies established in the City of Chula Vista Housing Element advocate a broad variety and diversity of housing types. The affordable housing obligations of Montecito will be met through a combination of housing types including rental and "for-sale" housing. In general, low-income housing needs will be satisfied through the provision of rental units. Housing opportunities to meet the needs of moderate income households will be provided through a combination of market-rate rental units as well as "for-sale" housing in medium-high to higher density developments. C. LOCATION The location of affordable housing developments shall take into consideration proximity to and availability of the following: • Existing or proposed public transit facilities or transpoRation routes; • Existing or proposed community facilities and services, such as shopping, medical, child care, recreation areas and schools; and • Existing or future employment opportunities. Affordable housing sites within Montecito are located within or adjacent to the Village Core, in close proximity to parks, schools, public Transportation, retail commercial and community purpose facilities. "For-sale" affordable housing for moderate-income households may be provided within multi-family development sites. Affordable housing to accommodate low-income households may be provided within rental housing developments. Depending upon the availability of adequate subsidies, incentives or other financing assistance, a limited number of "for-sale" multi-family housing units affordable to low income households may be available as well. Proposed [ ~e 5 DRAFT Village 2 Supplemental PFFP DRAFT OTAY RANCH -VILLAGE 2 SPA PLAN AMENDMENT SUPPLEMENTAL PUBLIC FACILITIES FINANCE PLAN Village 2 SPA Plan PFFP Approved by: Chula Vista City Council Date: May 23, 2006, Resolution 2006-156 Village 2 SPA Plan Amendment Supplement Approved by: Chula Vista City Council Date: ,Resolution Ilraft March 5, 2012 Prepared by: Otay Ranch New Homes, LLC 1392 E. Palomar Street, Suite 202 Chula Vista, CA 91913 March S, 2012 DRAFT Village 2 Supplemental PFFP March 5, 2012 DRAFT Village 2 Supplemental PFFP Table of Contents I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................... ........9 11. lntroduction ............................................................................................................................... ......16 II.1 Background ............................................................................................................... ..... 16 II.2 Purpose ...................................................................................................................... .....16 II.3 Assumptions .............................................................................................................. .....17 II.4 Threshold Standards :................................................................................................. ..... 18 II.S PFFP Boundaries ....................................................................................................... ..... 19 11.6 Development Summary ............................................................................................. ..... 23 II.7 Development Phasing ................................................................................................ ..... 23 II.8 Development Impact Fees ......................................................................................... ..... 24 11.8.1 Transportation .................................................................................................... .....24 Ii.8.2 Public Facilities .................................................................................................. ..... 25 Ill. F'ACILI'TY ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................ ......27 Iv. TRaFF'IC .................................................................................................................................. ......zs IV.I Threshold 5tandards .............................................................................................. .....28 IV.1.2 Level of Service (LOS) Definition .................................................................... ..... 28 IV.1.3 Freeway Segment LOS and Thresholds ............................................................. ..... 29 IV.1.4 Segment LOS Standards and "Fhresholds ........................................................... ..... 30 iV.1.5 Roadway Segment LOS Standards and Thresholds ........................................... ..... 30 iV.l .6 Intersection LOS Standards and Threshold ....................................................... ..... 31 IV.1.7 Chula Vista'1'raffic Monitoring Program .......................................................... ..... 32 IV.2 Service Analysis .................................................................................................... ..... 33 iV.2.1 Background ........................................................................................................ .....33 1V.2.2 Traffic Modeling ................................................................................................ ..... 34 IV.2.3 GMOC Analysis ................................................................................................. ..... 34 IV.3 Project Processing Requirements .......................................................................... ..... 35 IV.4 Existing Traffic Facilities :..................................................................................... ..... 35 IV.4.1 Intersections ....................................................................................................... ..... 35 1V.4.2 Street Segments .................................................................................................. ..... 36 IV.4.3 Growth Management Oversight Committee (GMOC) Near-Term Analysis .... ..... 38 IV.4.4 Transit ................................................................................................................ .....4] IV.S Trip Generation and Phasing ................................................................................. ..... 42 IV.5.1 Project Trip Generation ....................................................................................... .... 42 IV.5.2 Project Phasing .................................................................................................... .... 44 IV.6 Adequacy Analysis ................................................................................................. ....44 I V.6.1 Intersections ........................................................................................................ .... 47 iV.6.2 Roadways ............................................................................................................ ....47 iV.7 Financing Traffic Improvements ............................................................................ .... 48 iV.7.1 Transportation Development Impact Fees (TDIF) ............................................. .... 48 IV.7.2 Traffic Signal Fees .............................................................................................. .... 48 IV.7.3 Transit Stop ......................................................................................................... .... 49 1V.8 Threshold Compliance and Requirements .............................................................. .... 50 IV.8.1 intersections ........................................................................................................ ....50 1V.8.2 Roadways ............................................................................................................ ....50 V. POLICE ...................................................................................................................................... .....55 March 5, 2012 3 DRAFT Village 2 Supplemental PFFP V.1 Threshold Standard V.2 Service Analysis ............................................................................................................ V.3 Project Processing Requirements ................................................................................... V.4 Existing Conditions ........................................................................................................ V.4.1 Police Facility Inventory ......................................................................................... V.5 Adequacy Analysis ......................................................................................................... V.6 Financing Police Facilities ............................................................................................ V.7. Threshold Compliance and Requirements ..................................................................... Vi. FIRE AND EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES .................................................................... VI.1 Threshold Standard .................................................................... VL2 Service Analysis ........................................................................ VL3 Existing Conditions ................................................................... Vi.4 Adequacy Analysis .................................................................... VL5 Fire & EMS Facility Analysis ................................................... VI.7 Threshold Compliance and Requirements ................................. VII. SC HOOLS .................................................................................................. VIL1 Threshold Standard VII.2 Service Analysis VII.3 Project Processing Requirements ..................... V11.4 Existing Conditions .......................................... ViL4.1 Chula Vista Elementary Schoo] District... VIL4.2 Sweetwater Union High School District... VILS School Sizing and Location .............................. Vi1.5.1 Chula Vista Elementary School District... VI1.5.2 Sweetwater Union High School District... VIL6 Financing School Facilities .............................. VIL7 Threshold Compliance and Recommendations Vlil. LIBRARIES ................................................................................................... Vlll.l Threshold Standard ....................................................................... VIIi.2 Service Analysis ........................................................................... V1II.3 Project Processing Requirements ................................................. VIII.4 Existing Conditions ...................................................................... MILS Project Demand ............................................................................ VIII.S Adequacy Analysis ....................................................................... VIIL7 Financing Library Facilities .......................................................... VIIL8 Threshold Compliance and Recommendations ............................ IX. PARKS, RECREATION, TRAILS AND OPEN SPACE ............................. IX.I Park Threshold Standard ............................................................... IX.3 Project Processing Requirements ........... 1X.4 Existing Conditions ................................ 1X.5 Project Park Requirements ..................... IX.6 Adequacy Analysis ................................. IX.6.1 Parks and Recreation ........................... IX.6.2 Open Space ......................................... IX.6.3 Trails ................................................... iX.7 Financing Park and Recreation Facilities IX.7.1 Financing Park Facilities ..................... 55 55 55 55 55 56 58 58 59 59 59 59 60 60 61 ........................... 62 ........................ 62 ........................ 62 ................ 63 ................ 63 ................ 63 ................ 64 ............... 71 ............... 71 ............... 72 .............. 73 .............. 73 .............. 74 .............. 75 .............. 78 .............. 78 March 5, 2012 4 DRAFT Village 2 Supplemental PFFP IX.7.2 Financing Recreation Facilities ................................................. .............................. 78 TX.8 Threshold Compliance and Recommendations ............................ .............................. 80 X WATER ........................................................................................................ ..................................82 X.1 City Threshold Standards ................................................................. .............................. 82 X.2 Service Analysis ............................................................................... .............................. 82 X.3 Project Processing Requirements ..................................................... .............................. 83 X.4 Existing Conditions .......................................................................... .............................. 83 X.5 Adequacy Analysis ........................................................................... .............................. 84 X.5.1 Water Conservation Plan .......................................................... .............................. 84 X.5.2 Potable Water ............................................................................ .............................. 84 X.5.3 Recycled Water ......................................................................... .............................. 86 X.6 Required Facilities ............................................................................ .............................. 86 X.7 Financing Water Facilities ............................................................... .............................. 87 X.7.1 Capacity Fees ............................................................................ ..............................87 X.7.2 Exaction .................................................................................... .............................. 87 X.8 Threshold Compliance and Requirements ....................................... .............................. 87 XI SEWER ......................................................................................................... ..................................90 XI.1 City'I'hreshold Standards ............................................................. .............................. 90 XI.2 Service Analysis ................................................................................. .............................. 90 XI.3 Existing Conditions ...................................................................... .............................. 90 X1.3.1 Transportation ........................................................................... ..............................90 XI.3.2 Treatment Capacity ................................................................... .............................. 91 XI.4 Adequacy Analysis ....................................................................... .............................. 91 X1.5 Facility Phasing ............................................................................ .............................. 94 XT.6 Financing Sewer Facilities ............................................................ .............................. 94 XL7 'Threshold Compliance and Requirements .................................... .............................. 95 Xli DRAINAGE ................................................................................................... .................................97 Xll.l Threshold Standard ....................................................................... .............................. 97 XII.2 Service Analysis ........................................................................... .............................. 97 XIII.3 Project Processing Kequirements ................................................. .............................. 98 XII.4 Existing Conditions ...................................................................... .............................. 98 XTT.4.1 Poggi Canyon ........................................................................ ..............................98 X11.4.2 Wolf Canyon ......................................................................... .............................. 99 XII.S Proposed Facilities ........................................................................ .............................. 99 XII.5.1 Storm Drainage ..................................................................... .............................. 99 XII.5.2 Storm Water Quality ............................................................. .............................. 99 XIL6 Financing Drainage Facilities ....................................................... ............................ 100 XIL6.1 Onsite Facilities ..................................................................... ............................ 100 XII.6.2 OffsiteFacilities .................................................................... ............................101 XII.7 Threshold Compliance and Recommendations ............................ ............................ 101 XTL7.1 Compliance ............................................................................ ............................101 XII.7.2 Recommendations ................................................................. ............................102 XIIT AIR QUAI,ITY .............................................................................................. ............................... 104 XITI.I City Threshold Standards ............................................................. ............................ 104 XIII.2 Service Analysis ........................................................................... ............................ 104 XTII.2.1 Air Quality Improvement Plan .............................................. ............................ 104 XIIL3 Adequacy Analysis ....................................................................... ............................ 105 March 5, 2D12 5 DRAFT Village 2 Supplemental PFFP XIIL4 Threshold Compliance and Requirements .......................................... ...................... 106 XIV CIVIC CF,NTER :................................................................................................. .........................107 XIV.I City Threshold Standards ................................................................... ...................... 107 X1V.2 Service Analysis ................................................................................. ...................... 107 XIV.3 Existing Conditions ............................................................................ ...................... 107 XIV.4 Adequacy Analysis ............................................................................. ......................107 XIV.S Financing Civic Center Facilities ....................................................... ...................... 107 XIV.6 Threshold Compliance and Requirements .......................................... ...................... 108 XV CORPORATION YARD ..................................................................................... ......................... 109 XV.l Threshold Standards ........................................................................... ...................... 109 XV.2 Service Analysis ................................................................................. ...................... 109 XV.3 Existing Conditions ............................................................................ ...................... 109 XV.4 Adequacy Analysis ............................................................................. ...................... 109 XV.S Financing Corporate Yard Facilities ................................................... ...................... ] 09 XV.6 Threshold Compliance and Requirements .......................................... ...................... 110 XVI OTHER PUBLIC FACILTTIES ........................................................................... ......................... I11 XVI.1 Threshold Standard ............................................................................. ...................... 111 XVI.2 Existing Conditions ............................................................................ ...................... 111 XVI.3 Financing Administration Facilities ................................................... ...................... 111 XVi.4 Threshold Compliance and Requirements .......................................... ...................... 111 XVTT. FISCAI ................................................................................................................. .........................112 XVII.1 Threshold Standard ......................................................................... ...................... 112 XVIll PUBLIC FACILITIES FINANCE ....................................................................... .........................115 X Vlll. l Overview ......................................................................................... ...................... 115 XVIII.2-Development impact Fee (DIF) .......................................................... ...................... 115 XVIIL3 Debt Finance Programs ................................................................... ...................... 115 XVIII.3.1 Assessment Districts ................................................................ ...................... 115 XViII.3.2 Community Facilities District (ChD) ...................................... ...................... 116 XVlIL3.3 Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982 ...................... ...................... 116 XVIIL4 Other Methods Used to Finance Facilities ...................................... ...................... 1.16 XV111.4.1 General Fund ........................................................................... ...................... 116 XVIII.4.2 State and Federal Funding ....................................................... ...................... 117 XVII1.4.3 Dedications .............................................................................. ......................117 XV1IL4.4 Developer Reimbursement Agreements .................................. ...................... 117 XVIII.4.5 Homeowners Associations ...................................................... ...................... 117 XVItL4.6 Special Agreements/Development Agreement ........................ ...................... 117 XVIIL4.? Park Acquisition and Development Fees ................................. ...................... 1 17 XVi11.5 Cumulative Debt ............................................................................. ...................... 117 XVI1I.6 I,ifecycle Cost ................................................................................. ...................... 118 XVIIL6.1 Background .............................................................................. ......................118 XVIII.6.2 Applications for LCC Analysis ............................................... ...................... l 18 APPENDIX A -FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS ....................... March 5, 2012 6 DRAFT Village 2 Supplemental PFFP LIST HF EXHIBITS Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit 1 Regional Location ............................................................ ................................... 14 2 Vicinity Map/PFFP Boundaries ....................................... ................................... 15 3 Otay Ranch GDP Adopted ............................................... ................................... 20 4 Site Utilization Plan ......................................................... ................................... 21 5 Existing Street Network ................................................... ................................... 39 6 Public Transportation Concept Plan ................................. ................................... 42 7 Traffic Signal Plan ............................................................ .................................. 54 8 Trails Plazr ......................................................................... .................................. 78 9 Parks and Open Space Plan ............................................... .................................. 82 10 Potable WaterPlan ............................................................ ..................................89 11 Recycled Water Plan ......................................................... .................................. 90 12 Sewer ................................................................................. ..................................96 13 Drainage Exhibit ............................................................... ................................ 104 LIST OF TAIIL>rS Table Table Table Table Table Table Table I.1 II.1 tI.2 II.3 II.4 II.S IL6 Summary of Facilities ............................................................................... .......... 13 Approved Village 2 Land Uses ................................................................. .......... 16 Chula Vista's Threshold Standards ........................................................... .......... 18 Approved and Proposed SPA Plan Statistical Comparison ....................... ..........22 Public Facility Timing ............................................................................... .......... 23 TDIF Schedule East of I-805 ..................................................................... .......... 24 Public Facilities Estimated DIF Fee Components ..................................... .......... 25 Leve] of Analysis ...................................................................................... .......... 26 GMOC LOS Definition ............................................................................. .......... 27 Freeway Segment LOS Threshold Descriptions ....................................... .......... 28 Chula Vista Segment Capacity & LOS Standards ADT Volumes......_ .... .......... 29 Arterial LOS Threshold Descriptions ........................................................ .......... 29 LOS Thresholds for Signalized Intersections ............................................ ..........30 LOS Thresholds for Unsignalized Intersections ........................................ .......... 31 Peak Hour Intersections Existing Conditions ............................................ .......... 35 Roadway Segments LOS Existing Conditions ........................................... ......... 36 'Traffic Monitoring Programs Facilities LOS Results ................................ ......... 38 Project Trip Generation .............................................................................. .........43 Summary of Intersection Peak Hour LOS Results ..................................... ......... 44 Summary of Roadway Segment LOS Results ............................................ .........45 Estimated TDiF Fees for Village 2 SPA Amendment ............................... .........48 Village 2 SPA Amendment Traffic Signal Fees ......................................... ......... 48 Village 2 SPA Plan Amendment Transit Stop "Fair Share" ...................... ......... 49 Village 2 SPA Amendment Roadway Access/Frontage Thresholds .......... .........49 Iistoric Response Times Priority I ............................................................ ......... 56 Historic Response Times Priority II ........................................................... ..........57 Police PFDIF for Village 2 SPA Amendment ............................................ ......... 58 Current & Planned Fire Station Facilities .................................................. ......... 59 Fire/EMS Emergency Response Times since 1999 ................................... ......... 60 Fire/EMS PFD1F for the Village 2 SPA Amendment ................................ ......... 61 Table Ill.l Table IV.1 Table IV.2 Table IV.3 Table IV.4 Table Table Table Table 1 able Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table 'fable IV.S IV.6 1V.7 1V.8 1V.9 IV.10 T V.11 I V.12 iV.l3 IV.14 IV.15 IV.16 V.1 V.2 V.3 VL1 V1.2 V1.3 March 5, 2012 DRAFT Village 2 Supplemental PFFP Table VIl.l Table VIL2 Table VII.3 Table VIII.1 Table VIII.2 Table VIIL3 fable V111.4 Table V111.4 'fable IX.I Table 1X.2 Table IX.3 Table iX.4 Table Table Table 'Fable 'T'able Table Table Table Table Table 'fable Table Table Table Table IX.S X.1 X.1 X.3 X1.1 XI.2 XI.3 X1.4 XI.S XIII.1 X111.2 XIlL3 XIV.I XV.I XVI.I Chula Vista Elementary School District Enrollment vs. Capacity ...................... 64 Single-Family/Multi-Family Attached Student Generation Rates ...................... 66 Student Generation .............................................................................................. 66 Existing f,ibrary Facilities ................................................................................... 68 Existing Library Space Demand vs. Supply ........................................................70 Village 2 SPA Amendment Library Space Demand vs. Supply ......................... 70 Future Library Facilities ...................................................................................... 71 Library Fee For Village 2 SPA Amendment ....................................................... 72 Villages 2,3/4 SPA Amendment Plan Park Acres and Eligible Credits .............. 74 Parkland Dedication Requirements per City Ordinance ...................................... 74 Estimated Park Acreage Demand Compared to Supply East of I-805 ................ 75 Park Acquisition and Development (PAD) Fees Development Component....... 79 Public Facilities Fees For Recreation .................................................................. 81 Water Pressure Criteria ........................................................................ ............... 85 Water Duty Factors .............................................................................. ............... 86 Projected On-Site Water Demands ....................................................... ...............86 Estimated Sewage Flow and Treatment Capacity ................................ ............... 92 Adopted/Amended Wastewater Flow Projections ................................ ............... 93 Poggi Canyon Interceptor Summary .................................................... ............... 94 Projected Sewer Fees ............................................................................ ............... 95 Village 2 SPA Amendment Sewerage Participation Fees .................... ............... 95 Estimated Max. Daily Construction Emissions (pounds/day) .............. ............. 106 Estimated Maximum Operational Emissions (pounds/day) ................. ............. 106 GHG Emissions for Village 2 SPA Amendment ................................. ............. 107 Civic Fee for Village 2 SPA Amendment ............................................ ............. 109 Corporation Yard Fee for Village 2 SPA Amendment ........................ ............. 111 Public Facilities Fees for Administration Facilities ............................. ............. 112 March 5, 2012 DRAFT Village 2 Supplemental PFFP I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Supplemental Public Facilities Finance Plan (Supplemental PFFP) addresses the public facility needs associated with the proposed Village 2 Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan Amendment (Village 2 SPA Amendment). The Village 2 SPA Amendment proposes to add 197 units to the Village 2 neighborhoods of R-7A, R-9A, R-28 and R-29 ("Project"). The aznendment also proposes to rezone R-7A and R-9A from single-family (SF-3 and SF-4, respectively) to multi-family (RM-1) and R-28 from RM-1 to RM-2 per the adopted Village 2 Planned Community District Regulations. This supplement is a hybrid meant Yo bridge the gap between the current version of the adopted Village 2 PFFP and the City's current guidelines. The preparation of a supplemental PFFP is required in conjunction with the preparation of the Village 2 SPA Amendment. This Supplemental PFFP ensures future development of the Project is consistent with the overall goals and policies of the City's General Plan, Growth Management Program, and the amended Village 2 SPA Plan. Further, the Supplemental PFFP ensures development of the Project will not adversely impact the City's Quality of Life Standards. The Project encompasses approximately 27.6 gross acres within the City of Chula Vista. The site is located south of Olympic Parkway and west of La Media Road. Regional access is provided by La Media Road and ultimately by the extension of Heritage Road south of Olympic Parkway. Internal access within Village 2 is provided by State Street/Santa Diana and the eventual connection of Santa Carolina Co FIeritage Road. Exhibits ]and 2 illustrate the location of the Project site and its proximity to the existing development within Otay Ranch and the Village 2 community. fhe project site is designated as Medium Residential (R-7A and R-9A) and Mixed Use Residential (R-28 and R-29) in the Chula Vista General Plan, and Medium Village Residential (R-7A and R-9A) and Medium-High Density Residential (R-28 and R-29) in the Village 2 SPA Plan. The neighborhoods were rough graded in 2007. In an effort to jump start development in Village 2, the Project is proposing detached homes on smaller lots within neighborhoods R-7A and R-9A and increasing densities in R-28 and R-29 to construct higher density multi-family neighborhoods within the Village Core. Construction of the proposed Project is expected to occur over the course of approximately 5 years based on market conditions. A. Public Facility Cost and Fee Summary The following discussion Identifies and summarizes the various facility costs associated with development of the Village 2 SPA Amendment project. The facilities and their costs are identified in detail in this Supplemental PFFP. Each subsection indicates a recommended financing alternative for threshold facilities based upon current City practices and policies. however, where another financing mechanism may be shown at a later date to be more effective, the City may implement such other mechanisms in accordance with City policies. In addition, Table L1 summarizes the public facility phasing and associated costs in a table format. Transportation Development Impact Fees (TDIF) generated by the Project total approximately $1,561,354. Traffic Signal Fees generated by the Project are approximately $54,522. These fees do not include any credits the developer may have or may receive through a Development Agreement or through previous construction of TDIF eligible facilities. March S, 2012 DRAFT Village 2 Supplemental PFFP Backbone sewer and water improvements will he fimded, in part, through the payment of DIF fees and capacity fees established for these purposes. The Developer will fund on-site facilities. The Developer shall also bond for any off-site sewer improvements with the first final map for the Project, unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. The total costs for the Village 2 SPA Amendment project Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) Potable Water and Recycled Water Faci]ites will be determined by the Otay Water District (OWD). According to the OWD policy No. 26, OWD will provide reimbursement for construction and design costs associated with development of these improvements or pursuant to any agreement or provision in effect at the time. The estimated fee cost for Wastewater for the Project is approximately $599,295 (does not include the Administration Fee for sewer connection permit). The entire project site is within the Poggi Canyon Basin DIF. The Village 2 SPA Amendment project will participate in the Village 2 School Mitigation Agreement with the CVESD and SUHSD to pay its fair share of impact fees for schools. Police, fire and emergency medical services, parks (acquisition and development fees), recreation and libraries, civic center, corporation yard, and other public facilities will be funded from revenues generated from the payment of Public Facilities Development Impact Fees ("PFDTF") at building permit issuance. These fee revenues total approximately $5,153,592. B. Public Facility Thresholds City Council Resolution Number 13346 identified eleven different public facilities and services with related Threshold standaeds and implementation measures. The following is a summary of the threshold compliance by the Village 2 SPA Amendment project: 1. Traffic: Based upon the Village Z SPA Amendment TrgfTe Impact Study (July 2011), prepared by Fehr and Peers, the tlneshold compliance is projected to be maintained with implementation of the improvements identified in Section IV.8 of this Supplemental PFFP and payment of TDIF' fees. 1'he Project shall be conditioned to provide adequate access and project frontage. In addition, the Project shall be conditioned to pay TDIF Fees and Traffic Signal Fees at the rate in effect at the time building permits are issued. 2. Police: Threshold compliance will be met with the payment of Public Facilities Development Impact Fees; the fees shall be paid prior to the issuance of building permits, at the rate in effect at the time payment is made. The City will continue to monitor police responses to calls for service in both the Emergency (priority one) and Urgent (priority two) categories and report the results to the Growth Management Oversight Commission (GMOC) on an annual basis. 3. Fire: Threshold compliance will be met with the payment of Public Facilities Development Impact Fees, at the rate in effect at the time payment is made. The fees shall be paid prior to the issuance of building permits. The City will continue to monitor Fire Department responses to emergency fire calls and report the results to the GMOC on an annual basis. 4. Emergency Medical Response: Threshold compliance will be met with the payment of Public Facilities Development Impact Fees, at the rate in effect at the time payment is made. The fees shall be paid prior Co the issuance of building permits. The City will continue to monitor Fire Depamnent responses to emergency medical calls and report the results to the OMOC on an annual basis. March 5, 2012 10 DRAFT Village 2 Supplemental PFFP 5. Water: Threshold compliance will be met by the following: a) The Developer shall request and deliver to the City a service availability letter from the OWD prior to the issuance of building permits. b) The Developer shall provide potable water improvements according to OWD's Water Resource Master Plan and approved Sub-Area Master Plan (SAMP). c) The Developer shall provide recycled water improvements according to the SAMP. The OWD and The City of Chula Vista will coordinate recycled water requirements for the Project. The phased construction of recycled water facilities, based on the SAMP, will be incorporated into the conditions of approval for the Project. 6. Sewer: Threshold compliance will be met through payment of sewer fees and the Poggi Canyon Basin DIF by the developer, construction of city reyuired facilities as identified in this PFFP and conditions of approval prior to the issuance of building permits. The fees shall be paid prior to the issuance of building permits, at the rate in effect at the time the payment is made. 7. Drainage: Tlu~eshold compliance will be met by the construction of city-required drainage facilities by the developer. Drainage facilities include but are not limited to graded swales, concrete swales, drainage inlets, pipes, headwalls, sedimentation basins, storm-water treatment devices, etc. In addition, the developer shall comply with all Federal, State, City of San Diego and City of Chula Vista water quality regulations and requirements. 8. Air Quality: The City continues to provide a development forecast to the APCD in conformance with the threshold stutdard. Prior to approval of building permits for each phase of the Project, the applicant shall demonstrate that air quafity control measures outlined in the Villages 2 SPA Amendment Aar Quality Technical Keport (May 2011), perCaining to the design, construction and operational phases of the Project have been implemented. 9. Fiscal: Using the City of Chula Vista's SPA Fiscal Impact Analysis Framework, the Village 2 SPA Amendment is projected to generate a positive annual net fiscal impact of approximately $452,000 in Year 10. 10. Civic Center: Threshold compliance will be met through the collection of the Public Facilities Development Impact Fees at the rate in effect at the time building permits are issued. The fees shall be paid prior to the issuance of building permits. 11. Corporate Yard: Threshold compliance will be met through the collection of the Public Facilities Development Impact Fees at the rate in effect at the time building permits are issued. The £ees shall be paid prior to the issuance of building permits. March 5, ZO1Z 11 DRAFT Village 2 Supplemental PFFP General Conditions For Otay Ranch -Village 2 SPA Amendment Supplemental PFFP A. All development within the boundaries of the Supplemental PFFP shall conform to the provisions of Section 19.09 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code (Growth Management Ordinance) and to the provisions and conditions of this Supplemental PFFP. B. All development within the boundaries of the Supplemental PFFP shall be required to pay development impact fees for public facilities, transportation and other applicable fees pursuant to the most recently adopted program by the City Council, and as amended from time to time. Development shall also be responsible for fair share proportionate fees that are necessary to meet the adopted facility performance standards as they relate to the Amended SPA Pian. C. The Supplemental PFFP shall be implemented in accordance with Chula Vista Municipal Code 19.09.090. Future amendments shall be in accordance with CVMC 19.09.100 and shall incorporate newly acquired data, to add conditions and update standards as determined necessary by the City through the required monitoring program. Amendment to this Supplement PFFP may be initiated by action of the Planning Commission, City Council or property owners at any time. Any such amendments must be approved by the City Council. D. Approval of this Supplemental PFFP does not constitute prior discretionary review or approval for projects within the boundaries of The Plan. All fuhu•e projects within the boundaries of the project area shall undergo review in accordance with the Chula Vista Municipal Code. This Supplemental PFFP analyzes the maximum allowable development potential for planning purposes only. The approval of this plan does not guarantee specific development densities. E. The facilities and phasing requirements identified in this Supplemental PFFP are based on the SPA Plan Amendment, which assumes the following project will be built: • R-7A - 82 single family units. (An increase of 38 units.) • R-9A - 67 single family units. (An increase of 11 units.) • R-28 - 135 multi-family units. (An increase of 89 units.) • R-29 - 182 multi-family units. (An increase of 59 units.) If there are changes, the total number of Dwelling Units calculated may change and facility requirements shall be adjusted proportionately. F. The plan analysis is based upon one phase of development as presented in this document. March 5, 2012 12 Txblc L1 Village 2 SYA Amendment Summary of N'acilities' Nacillty Faor,~ity Ueem'htliot Fue kstiinut¢ D1F Progrn'in 'I'kudng i ~ FVtiilin Snurcc if7uaneing '.; "transportation 'I'mmsportation Facilities $1,561,354 'Transportation Facilities in Easlem Territories Pay Pnor to issuance of B ildi P mt D1F cons[./ exaction Fee Progran Tmffio Signal $54.5?2 Tmtf¢ Si al Fee u ng ev DIF exaction Fee Pro ram Subtotal 81,615,876 Potable Water 980 ZOne To be Determined by OWD City DIF fres do not apply to the OWD Prov-ide Ciry Engineer Ol4D wafer availability letter and OWD C[P Fees Capacity Fees and Exactions Recycled Water (IFRequired) g50 Zone To be Determined by OWD City DIF fees do not apply to the OWD requirod imprweo,evts poor ro invmfce vfBnildin Fermat g OWD CIP Pees Czpacity Fees and Exactions Connect ro exist $42,427 Poggi Canyon Basin DLT pay poor to isananee of DIP exaction Fee Pro ram Sewer sewer $556,828 Sewer Participation Fee Building Permit CIP/Development Fee Program Drainage Connect ro exist SD N/A N/A N/A Developer funded Exaction Schools No speciLc facility N/A Sebool Fees per CVESD and SUHSD School Mitigation A eements rroside aocumeoiedev tnac sohooi fens have beau paid poor tv issuance of Building Permit Mello-Roos CFD CFD Parks PAD Fees $2,784,302 PAD Fees Pay pdorm Iswance ofmvliding Peemn PAD Fees Fee Program Recreation Pay PFD[F Fee $2?9,308 Public Facilities DEF Pay pdormisPm~an'n of Building SF/MF PFDIF Fee Program Library Pey PFDIF Fee $302,001 Public Facilities DlF Pay poor wfpwraa'eofBuildina SF/MF FFDIF Fee Program Fire & EMS Pay PFllIP F'ee $209,710 Public Facilities D1F Pay pdorm isavanco ofe,ammg ee~a SF/MP PFDIF Fee Progrvn Police Pay PFDIF Fee $340,301 Public Facilities DlF Pay Prlvnolssaance oruwiamg Pemnt SF/MF PFDIF Pee Program Civic Pay PFDIF Fee $504,974 Publio Paoilities DlF P%y error toiasuance oFBuilaing Permiv SA/MF PFDIF Fee Program Corporate Yard Pay PFDIF Fee $73,410 Public Facilities DIP Pay Pnor w ismanoe ofnuildng Permit SF/MF FFDIF Fee Program Administrative Pay PFDIF Fee S11Q706 Public Facilities D]P P%Y Prinrm issuance oP avilding Permit SF/MF PFllff Fee Program Subtotal $5,153,592 Total $fi,769,468 ~ Fees presented m this table aro esfimares only. The achial tee will be ca]cula[ed prior to budd'm~ permit issvavice. See aecdan l%7forthe demos of[he fn-Ifwi agreemem fm Acgwsieon Fee and[he raluiremem for [he Development fee March 5, 2012 13 DRAFT Village 2 Supplemental PFFP ® C7tay Ranch Village Two Exhibit 1 -Regional Location February 14, 2012 14 DRAFT Village 2 Supplemental PFFP Exhibit 2 -Vicinity Mao /PFFP Boundaries February 14, 2012 15 DRAFT Village 2 Supplemental PFFP II. Introduction This Supplemental PFFP identifies each improvement needed to service the Village 2 SPA Amendment project, with the appropriate funding sources. The implementing actions covered by the Supplemental PFFP are: • Use of Public Financing Mechanisms where applicable. • Construction of major streets, sewer, water and drainage facilities. • internal subdivision improvements pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act. • Provision of other public facilities. • Maintenance of certain facilities such as open space areas and street medians. 11.1 Background A Master Frogram Enviromnental Impact Report (PEIR) was completed for the 23,000-acre Otay Rvrch community in 1993. The discretionary actions associated with the Otay Ranch project, including the coning of the project area and adoption of the Otay Ranch General Development Plan (GDP), were approved by the City of Chula Vista concurrently with the PEIR. As part of the first SPA Plan in Otay Ranch, a Project-level EIR was completed which considered the impacts associated with the annexation of the Otay Valley Parcel, including the project site, from the County of San Diego to the City of Chula Vista. Village 2 is the seventh in a series of approvals addressing development of the Otay Ranch Master Planned Community. The first Otay Ranch SPA Plan, SPA One, covered Otay Ranch Villages 1 and I-West and Village 5. Subsequent SPA Plans have been approved for Villages 6 (2002), 7 (2004), 11 (2001), Freeway Commercial (2004) and the Eastern Urban Center (2009). The Otay Ranch Villages 2, 3 and Portion of Village 4 SPA Plan approved by the Chula Vista City Council on May 23, 2006 permitted the land uses in Village 2 identified in Table II.1 and subsequently modified through two administrative substantial conformance approvals in 2007. Table IL1 A roved Villa e 2 Land Uses Land Use Units Acres Densi SF 978 197.4 5.0 du/acre MF 1,748 128.2 13.6 du/acre MU 60 8.5 7.1 du/acre CPF 6.3 Parks 15.4 School 10.3 Commercial 12.5 Industrial 94.4 TOTAL 2 786 I1.2 Purpose February 14, 2012 16 DRAFT Village 2 Supplemental PFFP The purpose of this document is to supplement the original 2006 Village 2 SPA PFFP and applies only to the Village 2 SPA Amendment. Where this Supplemental PFFP conflicts with or requires more stringent standards than the approved Village 2 PFFP, the requirements of this Supplemental PFFP shall apply. The purpose of al] PFFPs in the City of Chula Vista is to implement the City's Growth Management Program and to meet the General Plan goals and objectives, specifically those of the Growth Management Element. The Growth Management Program ensures that development occurs only when the necessary public facilities and services exist or are provided concurrent with the demands of new development. The Growth Management Program. requires a PFFP be prepared for every new development project which requires either SPA Plan or tentative map approval. Similarly, amendments to a SPA Plan require an amendment or a supplement to the PFFP. The PFFP is intended to be a dynamic and flexible document. The goal is to ensure adequate levels of service are achieved for all public facilities impacted by a project. It is understood that assumed growth projections and related public facility needs are subject to a number of external factors, such as the state of the economy, the City's future land use approval decisions, etc. It is also understood the funding sources specified herein may change due to financing programs available in the future or requirements of either state or federal law. it is intended for revisions to cost estimates and funding programs be handled as administrative eevisions, whereas revisions to the facilities-driven growth phases are to be accomplished through an update process via an amendment to or a supplement to the PFFP. II.3 Assumptions 'T'here are a number of key assumptions implicit to this Supplemental PFFP. The assumptions play a major part in determining public facility needs, the timing of those needs and the staging of growth corresponding to the various facilities. Key land. use vtd phasing assumptions can be summarized as follows: A. The SPA Amendment affects the R-7A, R-9A, R-28 and R-29 neighborhoods within the Village 2 portion of Otay Ranch (see adopted Village 2 GDP and proposed Site Utilization Plan -Exhibit 3 and 4). B. This Supplemental PFFP supplements the Village 2, 3 and Portion of 4 SPA Plan PFFP that was adopted on May 23, 2006. C. SPA Plan Amendment and PC District Regulations will regulate land use allocation and intensity of development for the R-7A, R-9A, R-28 and R-29 neighborhoods. D. The Project consists of adding 197 units to the R-7A, R-9A, K-28 and R-29 neighborhoods and re-zoning portions of the Project. This action, if approved by the City Council, would increase the total of residential units in Village 2 from 2,786 dwelling mtits to 2,983 dwelling units. February 14, 2012 17 DRAFT Village 2 Supplemental PFFP IL4 Threshold Standards: Chapter 19.09 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code provides the requirements for the Chula Vista Grow[h Management Plan. Subsection 19.09.040 provides The Quality of Life Threshold Standards for each public facility and improvement. There are eleven standards that address a variety of different public services and environmental issues. Several topics are related to services provided by city departments, such as police, fire, libraries, parks and recreation, traffia, and drainage facilities. Each of the eleven threshold standards is stated in terms of a goal, objectives, and one or more standards. Table IL2 provides a summary of the "Threshold Standards." Table Ii.2 Chula Vista's Threshold Standards Respond to 84% of the PrioriTy I emergency calls within 7 minutes and maintain average Police response time of 4.5 minutes. Respond to 62% of Priority ll urgency calls within 7 minutes and maintain average res onse time of 7 minutes. Fire/EMS Res and to calls within 7 minutes in 85% of all cases. Sewage flows and volumes shall not exceed City Engineering Standards. Annual report from Sewer Metro olitan Sewer Authorit on im act of rowth on sewer ca aci Drainage Storm flows and volume shall not exceed City Engineering Standards. Annual report ' reviewin erfonnance of ci s storm drain system. Maintain Level of Service (LOS) "C" or better as measured by observed average travel speed on all signalized arterial streets, except, that during peak hours, an LOS "ll" can occur Traffic for no more than any 2 hours of the day. Those signalized intersections west of Interstate 805 that do not meet the above standard may continue fo o crate at their 1991 LOS but shall not worsen. Parke & Maintain 3 acres of neighborhood and community parkland with appropriate facilities per Recreation 1,000 residents east of Interstate 805. Library Provide 500 square feet of library space adequately equipped and staffed per 1,000 o ulation. Schools An annual report is required Yo evaluate the school district's ability to accommodate new rowth. Water Annual report from water service agencies on impact of growth and future water availability. Air Quality Annual report required from Air Pollution Control District on impact of growth on air uali Fiscal Annual report required evaluating impacts on growth on city operations, capital im rovements, and develo ment im act fee revenues and ex enditures. 'I'he'Phreshold Standards fall into three general categories: 1. A performance standard measuring overall level gf.rervice is established for police, fire and emergency medical services, sewers, drainage facilities, and traffic; 2. A ratio of facilities to population is established for park and recreation facilities, and libraries; and 3. ~ qualitative standard is established for schools, water, air quality, and fiscal impacts. February 14, 2012 18 DRAFT Village 2 Supplemental PFFP 1'he qualitative standard pertains to some services that are provided by agencies outside of the city -schools are provided by the Chula Vista Elementary School District and the Sweetwater Union High School District and water service is provided by two independent water districts (Otay Water District and Sweetwater Authority). Finally, the air-quality and fiscal threshold standards do not relate to specific public services but are intended to determine whether growth is having an adverse impact on two other measures of quality of life: the air quality within the region and the city's overall fiscal health. phe'Ihreshold Standards are applied in three ways: 1. Many of the standards were used in the development and evaluation of the city's General Plan to ensure that quality-of--life objectives are met at the time of General Plan build-out during a 20-to-25 year period; 2. Certain standards are used in the evaluation of individual development projects to determine the possible impacts of the Project and to apply appropriate conditions and requirements in order to mitigate those impacts; and 3. All of the standards are monitored by the Growth Management Oversigfit Commission (GMOC) on an annual basis to ensure the cumulative impacts of new growth do not result in a deterioration of quality of life, as measured by These standards. Threshold standards are used to identify when new or upgraded public facilities are needed to mitigate the impacts of new development. Building permits will not be issued unless compliance with these standards can be met. These threshold standards have been prepared Yo guarantee that public facilities or infrastructure improvements will keep pace with the demands of growth. II.S PFFP Boundaries The Growth Management Implementation Ordinance requires the City to establish the boundaries of the PFFP at The time a SPA Plan or Tentative Map is submitted by an applicant. The boundaries shall be based upon the impact created by the Project on existing and future need for facilities. The project boundaries will correlate the proposed development project with existing and future development proposed for the area of impact to provide for the economically efficient and timely installation of both onsite and offsite facilities and improvements required by the development In establishing the boundaries for the PFFP, the City shall be guided by the following considerations: A. Service areas, drainage and sewer basins, and pressure zones that serve the Project; B. Extent to which facilities or improvements are in place or available; C. Ownership of property; D. Project impact on public facilities, especially the impact on the City's planned major circulation network; E. Special district service territories; February 14, 2012 19 DRAFT Village 2 Supplemental PFFP F. Approved fire, drainage, sewer, or other facilities or improvement master plans. The boundary of the Village 2 SPA Amendment Project was established using the above criterion. The Supplemental PFFP boundaries are congruent with the Adopted GDP Area (see Exhibit 3) and the Otay Ranch Village 2 SPA Ylan Area (See Site Utilization Plan, Exhibit 4). February 14, 2D1Z 20 DRAFT Village 2 Supplemental PFFP Exhibit 3 - Otay Ranch GDP February 14, 2012 21 DRAFT Village 2 Supplemental PFFP Exhibit 4 -Site Utilization Plan February 14,2D12 22 DRAFT Village 2 Supplemental PFFP II.6 Development Summary The R-7A and R-9A neighborhoods are designated SP and the R-28 and R-29 neighborhoods are designated MP on the approved Site iJtilization Plan in the Village 2, 3 and portion of Village 4 SPA Plan The proposed Project consists of developing approximately 27.6 acres of Residential designated land with an additional 197 units. The project, if approved, would increase the total of residential units in Otay Ranch Village 2 from 2,786 dwelling units to 2,983 dwelling units. Table lL3 provides a comparison of the approved land uses in neighborhoods R-7A, R-9A, R-28 and R-29 and. the proposed SPA Amendment. Table II.3 A roved and Pro osed SPA Plan Statistical Com orison Yeighbarhaod Acres Approved Zonin Approved Units Approved Densi Proposed Zonin Proposed Units Proposed Densit R-7A 9.4 SF-3 44 4.7 du/ac. RM-I 82 8.7 du/ac R-9A 7.1 SF-4 56 7.9 du/ao. RM-1 67 9.4 du/ac R-28 5.2 RM-1 46 8.9 du/ac. RM-I 135 26.0 du/ac R-29 5.9 RM-2 89 ] 5.1 dulac. RM-2 148 25.1 du/ac TOTAL 27.6 235 432 Source: tillage 2 SPA Plan Amendment Application Actions that need to be approved by the City Council include an Otay Ranch GDP Amendment, SPA Plan Amendment and rezone. Project CEQA documents have been prepared concurrently to document potential environmental impacts arrd identify mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts to below significance or eliminate potential impacts. Subsequent to the approval of all SPA level documents, precise grading and improvement plans will be prepared. These will provide the necessary details to actually construct the project described by the SPA level documents. These plans, the construction process and ultimate uses/activities within the SPA plan area are required to be consistent with the applicable provisions of this Supplemental PFFP. IL7 Development Phasing Development will be phased as tentative maps are recorded for each neighborhood. R-7A and R- 9A are envisioned as being the first neighborhoods constructed within the project area. Actual construction on individual building sites may occur over a several year period. A summary of the infrastructure public facility timing is provided in Table 11.4. February 14, 2012 23 DRAFT Village 2 Supplemental PFFP Table IL4 Village 2 SPA Ptan Amendment Public Facility Timing Facilit Facilit Descri lion Timin Financin Method Street improvements Prior to issuance of Building Permits Subdivision exaction Traffic Pay D1F Fees Prior to issuance of Building Permits Fee Program Traffic Signal lee Prior to issuaace of Building Permits Fee Program Service Avail Letter from O W D to Cit prior to issuance ofBuilding Permits N/A Potable Water Improvements per OWD Capacity Fees and Water & SAMP Prior to issuance ofBuilding Permits Exactions OWD CIP Fees Prior to issuance of Building Permits Capacity Fees and Exactions Recycled Improvements per OWD & Capacity Fees and Water SAMP Prior to issuuue of Building Permits Exactions Connection to Salt Creek Basin S Fee (Salt Creek Sewer D1F) prior m issuance ofBuilding Permits Fee Program ewer Pay Sewerage Participation Fee Prior to issuance of Building Permits Pee Program Storm Connect to exist. public storm Drain drains stem prior to issuance oFBuilding Permits Subdivision exaction Schools No specific facility Subject t0 School Fees pay-Prior to issuance oFBuilding Permit Mello-Roos CFD Parks Pay PAD Fees Prior to issuance ofDuilding Permit Fee Program Recreation Pay PFDIF I?ee Prior to issuance ofBuilding Permit Fee Program Library Pay PFDIF Fee Prior to issuance ofBuilding Permit Fee Program Ire & EMS Pay PFDIF Fee Prior to issuance of Building Permit Fee Program Police Pay PFDIF Fee Prior to issuance of Building Permit Fee Program Civic Pay PFDIF Fee Prior to issuance of Building Permit Fee Program Corp. Yd. Pay PFDIF Fee Prior to issuance ofBuilding Pernrit Fee Program Admin Pay PFDIF Pee Prior to issuance ofBuilding Permit Fee Program IL8 Development impact Fees II.8.1 Transportation The current Transportation Development Impact Fee ('I'D1F) Ordinance sets forth the calculation of development impact fees. This Supplemental FFFP uses the CVMC Chapter 3.54 as the basis for the estimated TDIF fees. Table IL5 below illustrates the current fee schedule: February 14, 2012 24 DRAFT Village 2 Supplemental PFFP Table IL5 TDIF Schedule' East of I-805 Land IIse Classification TDIF Rate Residential (Low) 0-6 dwelling units per gross acre $ 12,198 per DU Residential (Med.) 6.1-18 dwelling units per oss acre $ 9,758 per DU Residential (High) >18.1 dwelling units per rosy acre $ 7,319 per DU Senior housin $ 4,879 per DU Residential mixed use >18 dwelling units per gross acre $ 4,879 per DU Commercial mixed use < 5 stories in hei *ht $ 195,163 er 20,000 s . fr. General commercial (acre) $ 195,163 er acre Rc Tonal commercial (acre) > 60 acres or 800,000 s . ft. $ ]34,174 er acre iIi h rise commercial acre > 5 stories in hei ht $ 341,543 er acre Office acre < 5 stories in hei ht $ 109,779 er acre Industrial RTP (acre) $ 97,594 er acre 18-hole =olf course $ 853,836 er acre Medical center $ 792,848 er acre IL8.2 Public Facilities The Public Facilities Development Impact Fee (PFDIF) was updated by the Chula Vista City Council on November 7, 2006 by adoption of Ordinance 3050. The current fee for single-family residenfial development is $9,370/unit, multi-family residential is $8,860/unit, commercial (including office) development is $29,094/acre and industrial development is $9,157/acre. The PFDIF amount is subject to change as it is amended from time to time. The calculations of the PFDIF due for each facility are addressed in the following sections of this report. Table II.6 provides a breakdown of what facilities the fee funds. ~ TDIF Fees based on Form 5509 dated 9/30/2010. Actual fee may be different, please verify with the City of Chula Vista at the time of building permit. February 14, 2012 25 DRAFT Village 2 Supplemental PFFP Table II.6" Public Facilities Estimated DIF Fee Components Com onent Sin le Famil Multi-Famil Commercial Industrial Civic Center $2,670/DU $2,528/DU $8,518/acre $2,692/acre Police $1,629/DU $1,760/DU $7,698/acre $1,660/acre Corporation Yard $438/DU $351/DU $7,443/acre $3,506/acre Libraries $1,533/DU $1,533/DU $0 $0 Fire Suppression 1,350/DU $970/DU $3,566/acre $708/acre GIS, Computers, Telecom & Records Mana ement $0 $0 $0 $0 Administration $586/DU $554/DU $1,869/acre $591/acre Recreation $1,164/DU $7,164/DU $0 $0 Total per Residential Unit $9,370 $8,860 Total per Com'I/Ind. Acre $29,094 $9,157 The calculations of the PFD1F dne for each facility are addressed in the following sections of this report. ° DIF Fees based on Form 5509 dated 9/50/2010. Actual fee may be different, please verify with the City of Chula Vista at the time of building permit. February 14, 2012 26 DRAFT Village 2 Supplemental PFFP III. FACILITY ANALYSIS The Supplemental PFFP contains thirteen separate subsections for each facility addressed by this report. Of the thirteen facilities, eleven have adopted threshold standards; the Civic Center and Corporation Yard do not. Table lII.1 highlights the level of analysis for each facility. Table III.1 Level oFAnalysis Facility Citywide East of I-805 Service Area Sub-basin Special District Traffic Pedestrian Bridges ~ Police ~ Fire/EMS ~ ~ Schools ~ Libraries ~ Parks, Recreation & Open Space ~ Water ~ ~ Sewer Drama e ~ Air Qualit ~ Civic Center ~ Corp. Yard ~ Fiscal ,( ~ F,ach subsection analyzes the impact of the Village 2 SPA Amendment based upon the adopted Quality of Life Standards. The analysis is based upon the specific goal, objective, threshold standard and implementation measures. The proposed Project is used to determine facility adequacy and is referenced within the facility section. Each analysis is based upon the specific project processing requirements for that facility, as adopted. in the Growth Management Progrun. These indicate the requirements for evaluating the project consistency with the threshold ordinance at various stages (General Development Plan, SPA PlanlPublic Facilities Finance Plan, Tentative Map, Final Map and Building Permit) in the development review process. A service analysis section is included which identifies the service provided by each facility. The existing plus forecasted demands for the specific facility are identified in the subsection based upon the adopted threshold standard. Each facility subsection contains an adequacy analysis followed by a detailed discussion indicating how the facility is to be financed. The adequacy analysis provides a determination of whether or not the threshold standard is being met and the finance section provides a determination if funds are available to guarantee the improvement. If the threshold standard is not being met, mitigation is recommended in the Threshold Compliance and Recommendations subsection which proposes the appropriate conditions or mitigation to bring the facility into conformance with the threshold standard. February 14,2012 27 DRAFT Village 2 Supplemental PFFP IV. TRAFFIC IV.1 Threshold Standards Citywide: Maintain Level of Service (LOS) "C" or better, as measured by observed average travel speed on all signalized arterial segments except that during peak hours a LOS of "D" can occur for no more than any two hours of the day. IV.1.2 Level of Service (LOS) Definition IV.1.2.1 GMOC Definition Six levels of services (LOS) have been defined varying from `A' (free flow) to `F' (severe congestion). A general definition of LOS is summarized in Table IV.1. The GMOC uses an LOS definition for signalized arterial segments as a method for evaluating and comparing traffic conditions. Arterial LOS measurements consider average weekday peak hours and exclude seasonal and special circumstance variations. The following table summarizes the GMOC Traffic Quality of Life 'Threshold Standaxd for signalized arterial streets: Table IV.1 GMOC LOS Definifion Level of Service Avera a Travel S eed m h) Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 A > 35 > 30 > 25 B >28 >24 >19 C >22 >18 >13 D >17 >14 > 9 E >13 >10 > 7 F <13 <10 <'7 SOURCE: Highway Capacfry Manual, 1994. The arterial streets are divided into the following three classifications: A. Class I arterials are roadways where free flow traffic speeds range between 35 mph and 45 mph and the number of signalized intersections per mile is less than four (4). There is no parking and there is generally no access to abutting property. B. Class 11 arterials are roadways where free flow traffic speeds range between 30 mph and 35 mph, the number of signalized intersections per mile range between four (4) and eight (8). There is some parking and access to abutting properties is limited. C. Class Ill arterials are roadways where free flow traffic speeds range between 25 mph and 35 mph, and the number of signalized intersections per mile are closely spaced. There is substantial parking and access to abutting property is unrestricted. February 14, 2012 28 DRAFT Village 2 Supplemental PFFP IV.1.2.2 Caltrans LOS Definition The concept of I,OS is defined as a qualitative measure describing operational conditions within a traffic stream, and the motorist's and/or passengers' perception of operations. A LOS definition generally describes these conditions in terms of such factors as speed, travel time, freedom to maneuver, comfort, convenience, and safety. IV.1.3 Freeway Segment LOS and Thresholds The analysis of freeway segment LOS is based on the procedure developed by Caltrans District 11, which is based on methods described in the 1994 Highway Capacity Manual. The procedure involves comparing the peak hour volume of the mainline segment to the theoretical capacity of the roadway (V/C). Directional and truck factors are also used to calculate the future freeway volumes. V/C ratios are then compared to the V/C ranges shown on the tables to determine the LOS for each segment Caltrans recommends LOS E or better as an acceptable threshold for determining impacts on the regional freeway system. LOS E is used as the threshold of significance because a decrease from this level of service to LOS F determines the need to develop a freeway Deficiency Plan. LOS for freeway segments can generally be categorized per Table 1V.2. Table IV.2 Caltrans District 11 Freeway Segment Level of Service Definitions LOS V/C Con estionlDela TrafSc Descri tion Used or reewa s, ex resswa s and convention al hi hwa s A <0.41 None Free flow B 0.42-0.62 None Free to stable flow, light to moderate volumes. C 0.63-0.80 None to minimal Stable flaw, moderate volumes, freedom to maneuver noticeably restricted D 0.81.-0.92 Minimal to substantial Approaches unstable flow, heavy volumes, very limited freedom to maneuver. E 0.93-1.00 Significant Extremely unstable flow, maneuverability and psychological comfort extreme) oor. Used or conventional hi hwa s Forced or breakdown flow. Delay measured in average travel F <L00 Considerable speed (MPH). Signalized segments experience delays >60.0 sec./vehicle Used or reewa s and ex resswa s Considerable 0-1 hr Forced flow, heavy congestion, long queues form behind R(0) 7.07-1.25 delay breakdown points, sto and g~o. F(q 1.26-1.35 Severe I-2 hr dela Very heavy con estion, vet Ion ueues. Very Severe 2-3 hr Extremely heavy congestion, longer queues, more numerous F(2) 1.36-1.A5 delay breakdown points, longer sto eriods. F(3) >1,46 Extremely Severe 3+ Gridlock hours of dela SOORCL: Caltrans 1992 February 14, 2012 29 DRAFT Village 2 Supplemental PFFP IV.1.4 Segment LOS Standards and Thresholds 'T'his section presents the LOS standards and thresholds utilized by the City of Chula Vista Yo analyze roadway segment performance. Table IV.3 presents the City of Chula Vista roadway segment capacity and level of service standards for arterial roadways. Table IV.3 Chula Vista Segment Capacity and LOS Standards Average Daily TraFfic Volumes Functional Level of Service Classification A B C D E Expressway (6-lane) 52,500 61,300 70,000 78,800 87,500 Prime Arterial (6-lane) 37,500 43,800 50,000 56,300 62,500 Major Street (6-lane) 30,000 35,000 4g00D 45,000 50,000 Major Street (4-lane) 22,500 26300 30,000 33,800 37,500 Village Entry 16,500 19,300 22,000 24,800 27,500 Secondary Viflage Entry w/ Median 5,600 6,600 7,500 8,400 9,400 Secondary Village Entry/Promenade (1) 5,600 6,600 7,500 8,400 9,400 Q] If tlriveway accessroadjocent propeniev is pennined ,tt8//N:YC/ry J(evla vlsra JbG4lnialm~hf vml (Re.i.red llr3003f aft applicable valves of L04 are mdueed by 2,500 Ao'r. IV.LS Roadway Segment LOS Standards and Thresholds The street segment LOS is based on the functional classification of the roadway, the maximum desired LOS capacity, roadway geometries, and the existing or forecasted average daily traffic (ADT) volume. '1"he City of Chula Vista uses LOS D to determine if a segment would operate over or under capacity. Table IV.4, Arterial Segment Level of Service Threshold Descriptions, is a description of the various street segment LOS thresholds. Table IV.4 Arterial Segment LOS Threshold Descriptions LOS llescription A Describes primarily free-flow operations. Average operating speeds at the free-flow speed generally prevail. Vehicles are almost wm lete] unim edcd in their abili to maneuver within the traffic stream. B Also represents reasonably Tree-flow, aad speeds at fhe free-flow speed are generally maintained. "fhe ability to maneuver within the traffic stream is only slightly restricted, and the general Level of physical and psychological comfort rovided to drivers is still hi h. C Provides for flaw with speeds still at or near the free•flow speed of the roadway. Freedom to maneuver within the traffic stream is noticeably restricted at LOS C, and lane changes require more vigilance on the part of the driver. The driver now ex eriences a noticeable increase in tension because of the addifiona] vi dance re aired for safe n eration. D The level at which speeds begin to decline slightly with increasing flows. In this range, density begins to deteriorate somewhat more quickly with increasing flows. Freedom to maneuver within the traffic streatn is snore noticeably limited, and the driver ex eriences reduced h ~sical and s cholo teal comfort levels. E Describes operation at capacity. Operations in this level are volatile, because there are virtually no usable gaps in the traffic stream. At capacity, the naflic stream has no ability to dissipate even the most minor disruptions, and any incident can be ex ected ro induce a serious breakdown with extensive uenin . F Describes breakdowns in vehiculaz flow. Such conditions generally exist within queues farming behind breakdown points such as traffic incidents and recurring points of congestion. Whenever LAS P conditons exist, there is s otentia] for them to extend u stream for si nificant distances. SOURCE: Highway Capacity Manual, 1994. SOURCE: City af'Chula Yism Stree! Derfgn S+andards Policy (July 1991) February 14,2012 30 DRAFT Village 2 Supplemental PFFP IV.1.6 Intersection LOS Standards and Threshold The analysis of existing and projected peak hour intersection performance was conducted using the methodology documented in the 1994 I~ighway Capacity Manual (Transportation Resern~ch Board Special Report 209). LOS C or better indicates acceptable operating conditions for signalized intersections during AM and/or PM peak hour conditions. Those intersections found to have LOS E or F wider an analysis of future conditions are considered. to have significant impacts and will require mitigation. IV.L6,1 Signalized Intersection Analysis The measure of effectiveness for intersection operations is level of service. In the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (ACM), LOS for signalized intersections is defined in terms of delay. The LOS analysis results in seconds of delay expressed in terms of letters A through F (see Table 1V.5). Table IV.S Level of Service Thresholds For Si nalized Intersections Average Control Level Of Delay per Vehicle llescription Service (SecondsNehicle) This occurs when progression is extremely favorable, and most vehicles arrive A 0.0 < 10.0 during the green phase. Most vehicles do not stop at all. Short cycle lengths may also contribute to low delay. `Phis generally occurs with good progression and/or short cycle lengths. More B 10.1 to 20.0 vehicles stop than for LOS A, causing higher levels of average delay. `Phew higher delays may result from fair progression and/or longer cycle lengths. Individual cycle failures may begin to appear. The number of vehicles stopping is (: 21.1 to 35.0 significant at this level, although many still pass through the intersection without stopping. At level D, the influence of congestion becomes more noticeable. Longer delays D 35 1 to 55 0 may result from some combination of unfavorable progression, long cycle . . lengths, or higher v/c ratios. Many vehicles stop, and the proportion of vehicles not stopping declines. lndividua] cycle failures are more frequent. This is considered to be the limit of acceptable delay. These high delay values E 55.] to 80.0 generally indicate poor progression, long cycle lengths, and high v/c ratios. Individual cycle failures are frequent occurrences. This is considered to be unacceptable to most drivers. This condition often occurs with aver-saturation (i.e., when arrival flow rates exceed the capacity of the F ? 80.0 intersection). It may also occur at high v/c ratios below L00 with many individual cycle failures. Poor progression and long cycle lengths may also be ma'or contributin causes to such delay levels. 50lJRCL: Highway Capacity Manval, 1000. February 14, 2012 31 DRAFT Village 2 Supplemental PFFP IV.1.6.2 Unsignalized Intersection Analysis For unsignalized intersections, level of service is determined by the computed or measured control. delay and is defined for each minor movement. Level of service is not defined for the intersection as a whole. Table IV.6 below depicts the criteria, which are based on the average control delay for any particular minor movement. Table IV.6 Level of Service Thresholds For Unsi nalized Intersections Average Control Delay Per Vehicle Level of Service Expected Delay to Minor Street Traffic Seconds/Vehicle 0.0 < 10.0 A Little or no delay 10.1 to 15.0 B Short traffic delays 15.1 to 25.0 C Average traff c delay 25.1 to 35.0 D Long traffic delays 35.1 to 50.0 E Very long traffic delays > 50.0 F Severe congestion Source: Highway Capacity Manual, 2000. LOS F exists when there are insufficient gaps of suitable size to allow a side street demand to safely cross through a major street traffic stream. This LOS is generally evident from extremely long control delays experienced by side-street traffic and by queuing on the minor-street approaches. The method, however, is based on a constant critical gap size; that is, the critical gap remains constant no matter how long the side-street motorist waits. LOS F may also appear in the form of side-street vehicles selecting smaller-than-usual gaps. In such cases, safety may be a problem, and some disruption to the major Traffic stream may result. it is important to note that L,OS F may not always result in long queues but may result in adjustments to normal gap acceptance behavior, which are more difficult to observe in the field than queuing. IV.1.7 Chula Vista Traffic Monitoring Program The Traffic Monitoring Program (TMP) stipulates That the existing level of service on arterial segments in Chula Vista be maintained at LOS C or better, with the exception that LOS D is acceptable on signalized arterial segments for two hours per day maximum. The 1/ngineering Department of the City of Chula Vista evaluates LOS for arterial roadway segments utilizing the HCM methodology, Chapter 11, based on average travel speeds to adhere to the Growth Management traff e threshold standards. The adopted Growth Management Ordinance mandates the project's participation in the traffic section as it relates to the City's annual review of network performance. All major circulation element facilities within the City of Chula Vista are subject to review. Those facilities where traffic volumes have increased by at least 10% since the last review or have experienced a significant change in conditions or are at the upper fringes of LOS C approaching LOS D are included in the annual traffic study, which is reviewed for conformance by the Growth Management Oversight Commission. (GMOC). 'The City of February 14, 2012 32 DRAFT Village 2 Supplemental PFFP Chula Vista requires the application of these guidelines to the development of the Village 2 SPA Amendment Project. Utilization of the roadway az~d intersection performance standards presented in this chapter and the required adherence to the Growth Management Traffic Threshold Standards will result in full conformance with the requirements of the City of Chula Vista. IV.2 Service Analysis The Public Works Department of the City of Chula Vista is responsible for ensuring traffic improvements are provided to maintain a safe and efficient street system within the City. Through project review, City staff ensures the timely provision of adequate local circulation system capacity in response to planned development while maintaining acceptable LOS. To accomplish their review; the Public Works Department has adopted guidelines for Traffic Impact Studies (January, 2001). These guidelines ensure uniformity in the preparation of traffic studies. Further, the guidelines assist in maintaining acceptable standards for planned new roadway segments and signalized intersections at the build out of the City's General Plan and Circulation F.,lemcnt. The Circulation Element of the General Plan serves as the overall facility master plan. In conformance with requirements of the Congestion Management Program (CMP), an analysis of CMP freeways and arterials is required for any project that generates 2,400 daily, or 200 peak hour trips (as detailed in the 1991 Congestion Management Program). This analysis, the Village 2 SPA Amendment Tra~c Impact Study, July 2, 2011, by Fehr and Peers, was prepared for the City of Chula Vista This document is referred to as the "Traffic hnpact Study" throughout this Stipplemental PFFP. The Traffic Impact Study addresses both existing and plamted circulation system conditions, details necessary improvements and outlines the incremental circulation improvements based upon planned project phasing. This report addresses potential impacts due to traffic generated by the Project and includes the following analysis: existing conditions; study area scenarios and methodology; significance criteria; trip generation, distribution and assignment; near-term and long-term scenarios; approved versus proposed land use trip comparison; and significance of impacts and mitigation measures. IV.2.I Background The site was analyzed in the Villages 2, 3 and Portion of 4 Final Subsequent E1R and portions have been rough graded. The adopted Villages 2, 3 and Portion of Village 4 SPA Plan and PFFP is supported by the Villages 2, 3 and Portion of 4 Traffic Impact Study, dated March 5, 2002, by Wilson and Co. The 'T'raffic Impact Study provides the current conditions reflecting the latest existing traffic volumes, other known developments in the project vicinity, growth in background traffic, network changes that affect traffic flows and The impacts of the ProjecT. The changes in the baseline conditions are as follows: • The analysis in the previous project adopted in May 2006 was based on Year 2001 traffic volumes. 'T'he current analysis is based on Year 2010 counts. February 14, 2012 33 DRAFT Village 2 Supplemental PFFP • In the Year 2002, SR 125 had not yet been constructed. SR 125 is generally a four-lane freeway between SR 905 and SR 54. The Year 2010 traffic counts reflect this network change. • Amore accurate evaluation of cumulative trips in the project vicinity has been included. • The growth of background tragic is included in the analysis. • The proposed Village 2 SPA Amendment project trip generation increases the potential ADT of the approved land use by 1,674 ADT. IV.2.2 Traffic Modeling The basis of the Traffic Impact Study is The Series 11 South Bay Subarea Traffic Model, which is produced by the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). Fehr and Peers worked with the City of Chula Vista and SANDAG to input the proper land use and network designations into the model for the following near-term scenarios: • Existing Conditions • Existing Plus Project Conditions • Near-Term Year 2015 Traffic Conditions The model for long-teen scenarios included: • Year 2030 Without Projut • Year 2030 With Project • Existing+Project+CumulativeGrowth Fehr and Peers ran a model with the appropriate land use, City of Chula Vista circulation element and study area for each scenario. The Project land uses were coded into the Traffic Model exactly as proposed/adopted, as appropriate. After the proper land use intensities and network configurations were entered into the model for each study scenario, The model was run. The SANDAG model outputs ADTs on all Circulation Element street segments. IV.2.3 GMOC Analysis The City of Chula Vista's Growth Management Oversight Committee (GMOC) requires an additional analysis of roadway segment performance under near-term conditions (Years 0-4) utilizing the methodology described in Chapter 15 (Urban Streets) of the Highway Capacity Manual 2000 Transportation Research Board Special Report 209. This methodology determines roadway segment Level of Service based upon functional classification, roadway segment length and travel speeds. Current information related to roadway functional classifications, segment lengths, and travel speeds are maintained by the City's Growth Management Traffic Monitoring Program. The GMOC Level of Service standard requires the maintenance of LOS C or better, or LOS D for no more than any two (2) hours of the day. If LOS D occurs for any period greater than two (2) hours, additional analyses may be required along these high volume segments based upon direction provided by The City Engineer. February 14, 2012 34 DRAFT Village 2 Supplemental PFFP IV.3 Project Processing Requirements The PFFP is required by the Growth Management Program to address the following issues for the Traffic Facilities: A. Identify onsite and offsite impacts and improvements by phase of development. B. Provide cost estimates for all improvements. IV.4 Existing Traffic Facilities: This section summarizes the operation of the existing transportation network in the Project Study Area for the key street segments and intersections. The following discussion presents the key existing street segments and intersections that were analyzed in the Traffic Impact Study. IV.4.1 Intersections The project study area generally includes intersections to which the project adds 50 peak hour trips. Based on these thresholds, the following intersections were analyzed: 1) Brandywine Avenue /Olympic Parkway 2) Santa Victoria Road /Olympic Parkway* 3) heritage Road /Olympic Parkway 4) Santa Venetia Street /Olympic Parkway 5) La Media Road /Olympic Parkway 6) Heritage Road /East Palomar Street 7) Heritage Road /Santa VictoriaRoad* 8) Heritage Road /Main Street* 9) Santa Victoria Road /Santa Venetia Street 10) La Media Road / Sauta Venetia Street 11) La Media Road /Birch Road 12) Magdalena Avenue /Birch Road Three (3) of the above study area intersections are not currently constructed, and therefore were not analyzed under Existing conditions but were included in future year assessments. These intersections are denoted with an asterisk (*) in the above list. Table IV.7 summarizes the existing peak hour intersection analysis of the study area intersections. All study area intersections are calculated to currently operate at LOS ll or better in the AM and PM Peak Hour February 14,2012 35 DRAFT Village Z Supplemental PFFP TABLE IV.7 PEAK HOUR INTF,RSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE RESULTS EXISTING CONDITIONS Intersection _ ___ _ AM Peak IIour Avg. Delay LOS (sec.) PM Peak Hour Avg. Delay LOS (sec.) 1. Brand wine Ave / OI m is Pk (Si nalized_ 52.1 D 42.7 _ D 2. Santa Victoria Rd / Ol m is Pk Si nalized DNE 3 Heritage Rd /Olympic Pkwy (Signalized) _ 22.2 C 19.0 B 4. Santa Venetia St / Ol m is Pkw~+ (Si nalized) 12.8 B 6.0 A 5. La Media Rd / OI m is Pkwy (Signalized) 40.3 D 30.2 C 6. Herita c Rd /East Palomar St Si Halved 38.8 D 28S C 7. heritage Rd /Santa Victoria Rd (Si nalized) DNE; 8. Herita a Rd /Main St (Si ^alized~ DNE 9. __ Santa Victoria Rd /Santa Venetia St (All-way Stop Controlled) _ 19.4 C 9.8 A 10. La Media Rd /Santa Venetia St Si nalized 50.9 D 19.8 B 11. La Media Rd /Birch Rd (Signalized) ____ 32.4 C 25.5 C 12. Magdalena Ave /Birch Rd (Signalized 30.2 C 22.1 C iV.4.2 Street Segmenfs East-West Roadway Facilities Fast Palomar Street -East Palomar Street, between Medical Center Drive and La Media Road is a 4-lane roadway with a raised median. The posted speed limit along this facility is 35 mph. Within the study area, Class 11 bike lanes are provided between Medico] Center Drive and Heritage Road; on-street parking is provided on both sides between Heritage Road and La Media Road. East Palomar Street is classified as a 4-lane Major Arterial in the Chula Vista General Plan Circulation Element. Olympic Parkway -Olympic Parkway, between Brandywine Avenue and East Palomar Street is a 6-lane roadway with a raised median. The posted speed limit along this facility is 50 mph. Within the study area, Class lI bike lanes are provided and on-street parking is prohibited. Olympic Avenue is classified as a 6-lane Prime Arterial in the Chula Vista General Plan Circulation Element. Birch Road -Birch Road, between La Media Road and SR-125 is a 6-lane roadway with a raised median. The posted speed limit along this facility is 45 mph. Within the study area, Class II bike lanes are provided and on-street parking is prohibited. Birch Road is classified as a 6-lane Major Arterial in the Chula Vista General Plan Circulation Element. Main Street -Main Street, between Brandywine Avenue and its current eastern terminus at Heritage Road, is a 6-lane roadway with a raised median. "Ihe posted speed limit along this facility is 50 mph. Within the study area, Class II bike lanes are provided and on-street parking is prohibited. Main Street, from Brandywine February 14, 201.2 36 DRAFT Village 2 Supplemental PFFP Avenue and just west of L,a Media Koad, is classified. as a 6-lane Prime Arterial in the Chula Vista General Plan Circulation Element. North-South Roadway Facilities Brandywine Avenue -Brandywine Avenue is a 4-lane roadway with a striped median between East Palomar Street and Olympic Parkway, and then becomes a 2- lane roadway with a striped median between Olympic Parkway and Main Street. The posted speed limit along this facility is 35 mph. Brandywine Avenue is classified as a 4-lane Collector in the City of Chula Vista General Plan Circulation Element. Heritage Road -Heritage Road, between Telegraph Canyon Road and its current southern terminus at Olympic Parkway, is a 6-lane roadway with a raised median. The posted speed limit along this facility is 40 mph. Within the study area, Class H bike lanes are provided and on-street parking is prohibited. Heritage Road, between Telegraph Canyon Road and Main Street is classified as a 6-lane Prime Arterial in the City of Chula Vista Genera] Plan Circulation Element. La Media Road - La Media Road, between East Palomar Street and its southern terminus at Santa Luna Street, is a 6-lane roadway with a raised median. The posted speed limit along this facility is 45 mph. Within the study area, Class H bike lanes are provided and on-street parking is prohibited. La Media Road, between East Palomar Street and Santa Luna Street is classified as a 6-lane Prime Arterial in the City of Chula Vista General Plan Circulation Element. Table IV.8 summarizes the volume counts for existing conditions. As seen in the following table, some segments in the study area are calculated to currently operate at LOS D. Exhibit 5 demonstrates the Existing Street Network. Table IV.8 ROADWAY SEGMENT LEVEL OF SERVICE RESULTS EXISTING CONDITIONS Average Cross' Daily LOS Level of Roadway Segment Section Traffic Threshold Service __ _ AllT (LOS C) (LOS) East Palomar Medical Center Dr to Herita e Rd 4-lane w/ 12,801 ___ A Street Iierita e Rd to La Media Rd RM 20 122 30,000 A Brandywine A_ve to Santa Victoria Rd 52,690 D l i Santa Victoria ~Rd to Herita e Rd ~..._..._...-- 52.690 D O ymp c 6-lane w/ P k heritage Rd to Santa Veneta St ~ 48,232 50,000 C ar wa y Santa Venetia St to La Media Rd 45,805 C La Media Rd to East Palomar St 31,038 A i h d La Media Rd to Ma dalena Ave 6-lane w/ 9,160 `9 B rc Roa 40,000 Ma dalena Ave to SR-125 SB Rams RM 10,740 A Brandywine Ave to Heritage Rd 6-lane w/ 1 g 700 50 000 A Main Street RM , Herita e Rd to La Media Rd DNE Brandywine 4-lane w/ East Palomar to Olympic Pkwy 13,304 22 000 A Avenue SM , February 14, 2012 37 DRAFT Village 2 Supplemental PFFP Tab-e IV.8 ROADWAY SEGMENT LEVEL OF SERVICE RESULTS EXISTING CONDITIONS Average LOS Level of Roadway Segment Cross- Daily ' Threshold Service Section traffic ADT LOS C ~ ) (LOS) Olympic Pkwy to Main St 2-1SMw/ 10,379 12,000 B Telegraph Canyon Rd to East Palomar St 6-lane w/ 19 010 A , 50 000 East Palomar St to Ol m is Pk RM 12,877 , A Olym icPk to Santa VictoriaRd DNE Heritage Road Santa V ietoria Rd to Santa Liza St DNE Santa Liza St to Main St DNE Main St to City Boundary 2-lane w/ 10,000 12,000 B TWLTL Fast Palomar St to Olym is Pkwy 14,666 A L M di R d Ol m is Pkwy to Santa Venetia St 6-lane w/ 16,408 A a e a oa 50,000 Santa Venetia St to Birch Rd RM 11,515 A Birch Rd to Santa Luna St 2,072 A Som~ce: Fehr cmd Peers IV.4.3 Growth Management Oversight Committee (GMOC) Near-Term Analysis As determined by the City Engineer, analysis of roadway segments under near-term conditions (Years 0-4) may be conducted using the methodology described in Chapter I 1 (Arterial Streets) of the most recent version of the Highway Capacity Manual, which determines segment level of service based on speed, as detailed in the Significance Criteria below. Classification of facilities and definition of segment lengths must be consistent with the City's current Growth Management Traffic Monitoring Program. The Threshold Standard for these arterial analyses requires the maintenance of LOS C or better as measured by average travel speeds except that LOS D can occur for no more than any two hours of the day. Thus, if LOS D conditions are determined for any period of two (2) hours, additional analysis may be required along these high volume segments based on direction provided by the City Engineer. For planned arterial facilities that are not currently included in the current Traffic Monitoring Program, the definition of segment length and facility classification will be based on direction provided by the City Engineer. Since the roadway segment of Olympic Parkway, between Brandywine Avenue and Heritage Road is currently operating at unacceptable LOS D based upon the planning level V/C ratio analysis, the GMOC method is utilized to further analyze this facility by observing its travel speeds. Observed peak hour Travel speeds were obtained 'from the City of Chula Vista in order to conduct a UMOC analysis under Existing conditions. A floating car method speed survey was conducted by the City along westbound Olympic Parkway, between Oleander Avenue and Heritage Road during the AM peak hours (lam - gam) over a 3-weekday period (2/8/2011 - 2/10/2011). Table 3.3 displays the average directional peak hour travel speeds and the resulting Level of Service under Existing conditions. February 14,2D12 38 DRAFT Village 2 Supplemental PFFP TABLE iV.9 TRAFFIC MONITORING PROGRAMS FACILITIES LEVEL OF SERVICE RESULTS __ _ Roadway Segment Peak Direction Average Speed I.O5 Period m h Olympic Parkway Oleander Ave to 1Ieritage Rd AM WB 27.6 C As shown in Table 1V.9, Olympic Parkway is currently operating at acceptable LOS C during the AM peak period in the westbound direction. February 14,2012 39 DRAFT Village 2 Supplemental PFFP E _~~~'~ ~~~o ~~ ~~~ ~,o ~~~'s a .~. ~" Exhibit 5 -Existing Street Network February 14, 2012 40 DRAFT Village 2 Supplemental PFFP IV.a.4 Transit Public transportation creation is an integral part of the Otay Ranch Community. The design of Village 2 promotes access to public transit and locates land uses in proximity to proposed transit stations. Chula Vista Transit (CVT) provides bus service through the Eastern Territories of the City of Chula Vista that can be extended to serve the project area. Regional transit plans also provide for Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) lines to serve the Otay Ranch Villages. Metropolitan Transit System (MTS) has developed the "Transit First" service concept to reduce the public's dependence upon the automobile. Transit and land use patterns should work together. The easy access to transit facilities in correlation with the service offered can make Transit a viable travel mode alternative to the automobile, thus reducing traffic congestion. Currently, two percent of trips are conducted on public transit in the region. Efforts should be made to increase this trauel mode split by making transit accessible and convenient. Additionally, providing transit facilities will meet the objectives of the City's COZ Reduction Plan, which mentions transit as one of the action measures to reducing COZ emissions along with enhanced pedestrian connections to transit, increased housing density near transit, and site design with transit orientation. The "Transit First' strategy includes a network of service types ranging from neighborhood shuttles serving short-distance trips, to higher-speed, limited stop routes for longer distance trips. The service types planned for the areas east of I-805 arc as follows: A. Yellow Car: Serves longer-distance trips (6+ miles), maintaining high average speeds (35-40 mph) with limited stops. Yellow Car routes would complement Red Car services to form the spine of the regional transit system. Yellow Car services would require extensive use of transit priority treatments such as dedicated running ways, queue jumpers, and signal priority. Yellow Car service is used in two ways: • Serving corridors where longer station spacing is justified based on links between major origins and destinations and land use patterns that lead to longer-distance trip making. • Serving as an overlay in selected Red Car corridors where a faster, more limited-stop service is justified (in addition to Red Car service) for high- volume, long-distance trip needs. B. Red Car: Serves medium-distance trips (1-9 miles), maintaining relatively high average speeds (20-25 mph) with limited stops. Red Car services are often linked to Blue Car service for local distribution. The current San Diego Trolley system and The County's express bras routes mostly operate as Red Car service. Red Car services would require use of transit priority treatments such as dedicated running ways, queue jumpers, and signal priority. C. Green Car: Serves community-level trip making that could include neighborhood circulators, feeder access to Yellow and Red Car service, and/or specialized fixed-route shuttles. Green Car services would likely use smaller shuttle vehicles. In some situations, Oreen Car services would benefit from dedicated running ways and queue j umpers. February 14, 2012 41 DRAFT Village 2 Supplemental PFFP D. Blue Car: Serves short-distance trips (0-5 miles) with frequent stop spacing. Blue Car service provides basic mobility, albeit at low speeds (10-25 mph), on primarily local and arterial streets. Most. of the current San Diego region bus system operates as Blue Car service. The conceptual transit system plan for the project area is shown in Exhibit 6. The exhibit depicts several levels of service that are consistent with regional transit plans: a yellow line regional commuter service located on Olympic Parkway, a red line commuter service located on La Media Road and a blue line local Chula Vista transit on Heritage Road. Blue line or green line shuttle bus service can also be located through the Village core of the project. In addition, three transit stops are planned for the project. IV.S Trip Generation and Phasing IV.5.1 Project Trip Generation The project trip generation was calculated rasing trip generation rates obtained from the (Nod So) Brief Guide of Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates for the San. Diego Region, dated Apeil 2002, by SANDAG. As seen in Table iV.10, the project is calculated to generate a total of 1,674 ADT with 134 trips (31 inbound and 103 outbound) during the AM peak hour, and 167 trips (1.17 inbound and 50 outbound) during the PM peak hour. Table IV.III Project Trip Generation Daily Trip Ends (ADT AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Laud Use Units % of In:Out Volume % of In:Out Volume Rate Volume ADT Split In Out Total ADT Split In Out Total Single Family (R-7A & 9A) 49 t0lDU 490 8% 30:70 12 27 39 10% 70:30 34 IS 49 Multi-Family ]Zg & 29) 148 8/DU 1,184 S% 20:80 19 76 95 100 70:30 83 35 I15 'Total Project 1,674 31 103 134 117 50 167 Source: SANDAG Trip Generation Manual; March 2011 The project site lies within the Villages 2, 3 and Portion of Village 4 SPA. The Village 2 SPA Amendment project proposes 197 additional residential units. The 'traffic hnpact Study analyzed the existing traffic conditions to determine the direct and cumulative impact of the Project for the near-term and future Traffic (see the Traffic Impact Study for detailed discussions and supporting data). February 14,2012 42 DRAFT Village 2 Supplemental PFFP ~ ,F, ~ ``a ~ ~ trc~,r a~ p ~~a ,~ ~ ~ '"'aJ 1 i~~ ~r i x. ~~~~i .. ~~~ r..4 ,.'ii rt .,,, ~- r b n d w„~ ... .._ r ra i q 7 ., * ^' r-@s a of .r rM'E ° u, a. ~~~~ ~ ~.~ ~ n t"n,p ~°~r i1 e ~"( q~ C ~,,I X °f G 4 W shy A I ~ T './ I/P 1 ~ t h 11 ,4 { l /'~,1~M' ~ ` I~ \ Ati 1~ ~q ~ / f 6 l E ~~ ~~ M W ~ N ~ .. w~. :... ...~ v~~w, .... ~ rf~ t ~„~_~~ ~ ~ ~. (y 'z f ~.~ ~ / ~. 1 r ~~, ~~'do /'J F i ~/' ~ ~~ Y N ` ~ f~ '1 G 1£ •M' P'4 '~! ~~ ,~~-~ ~ 1 ,~ : . ~ s ~ ;, a/ ~~ ,. . ~ ~,:.~,~ ~, . c , ,,,, ~, ..~ ,~ 1 CnEt3END a ,,• .. ~ !~j i ~ .. ..~~.. rq.~~r ~u..vi tr,~ /y~ ~/,• ~. .^ w~~`'` '~'^` ~; , ~ r,~mrowcv~r>ASn sop l ~ i ~T r, / i /F r ~F~/ ,,, ~ ~/ ~ ` ~' ~ r,»xmnd,~da~esY /~ f" / .~rrpm,mwr /~+ ~ •'~ ~r"~,r'~ ~ ~~,D[~A ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~l~m lrvr.}~mrrSYey S,C7" 42x~~^~ iF IX wV I~ ~~....... ~ ~ /y rry hf ~..L,v ~ tY~ t1 /~ \e~p , ~ y ' .. ..f 3 'M 1 ~>y ~ ~~~w.~~ re,,,~~.,~,,:.,, Exhibit 6 -Public Transportation Concept Plan February 14, 2012 43 DRAFT Village 2 Supplemental PFFP IV.5.2 Project Phasing The Traffic Impact Study asswned that the build out of the Village 2 SPA Plan Amendment would occur by 2015. This results in 1,674 daily trips loaded onto the circulation network at the build-out of the development. IV.6 Adequacy Analysis Tables IV.11 and IV12 display Intersection and Roadway Segment Level of Service results for each of the analyzed scenarios. For those study area intersections which would be significantly impacted by the proposed project, mitigated Level of Service results are provided in parentheses. February 14, 2012 44 'TABLE 1V.11 SL!~JM1IABY OF IN"1'EBSEC'EION PEAK HOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE RESULTS 2030 Base 2030 Base 2030 Bxse 2030 Base hatsfiag Plus 2015 Base Plus Project (JPB+ Plus Project iNT£RSECTfON Exisfing Projut 2015 Bxsc plus Prujeet (JPB (JPB B&S (JPB+B&S yroposal) Yra osxl Pro osals Pra osals AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM PM AM YM AM PM AM PM 1. Brandywine Ave i Olympic Pkwv D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D 2. Santa Victoria Rd/ DNB DNF„ DNE DNF., DNE DNF. DNE DNE A B A D A B A B Olvm is Pk 3. }3eritage Rd/Olympic C B C B D C ll C D D D D D D D D Pkwv 4. Santa Venetia 5t/Olympic Pkwv B A B A B A B A B A B A B e B B 5. Lx Media Rd /Olympic Pkwv D C D C D C D C D C D C D C D C B. Heritage Rd /East Palomar D C D C D C D C D C D C D C D C St 7. }3eritage Rd /Santa V icYOna Rd DNH DNB DNB DNB B B B B C D C D D D D D 8. Herita e Rd /Main 5t llNG DNE llNE DNE B B B B D D D D D D D D 9. Santa Victoria Rd /Santa C D F D Veneti¢St C A C B D B D B F (B) C (B) F (B) (B) P ~~ (B) (B) (}3) 10. La Media Rd/Santa __ D B D B D C D C D C D D D ll D D Venetia St 11. La Media Rd /Birch Rd C C C C D C ll C D D D D D D D D 12. Magdalena Ave / Biroh Rd C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C llNE-Noes Not Exist February 14, 2012 45 TABLE IV.12 3UMDJARY OE ROADWAY SEGMENT LEVEL OF SERVICE RESUL'ES Ronnwnv S&Gn1kNT Ex7srlrve Existing Plus PraJect 2015 Base 2015 Base Plus Prujecf JPB P 2030 Base ra oral 2030 Base Plus Pro'ecY JPR+ B& 2030 Base S Pro osals 2030 Basc Plus Pra'ect East Pnlomar Medical Centor Dr to Heritage Rd A A A A B B B B Street Heritage Rd to La Media Rd A A A A A A A A Brandywine Ave to Sant¢ Victori¢ Rd D D B B B B B B Olympic Santa Victoria Rd to Herifa a Rd D D R B A A A A Parkway Herite Rd to Santa Venetia St C C A A A A A A Santa Venetia St to La Media Rd C C A A A A A A La Media Rd [o Eas[ Palomar St A A A A A A A A La Media Rd to Ma dalena Ave __ A A A A B B B B Birch Road Magdalena Ave to SR-125 SB Ram s A A A A A A A A M i S Brand wine Ave to Herita c Rd A A A A C C C C a n treet Heritage Rd to La Media Rd DNE DNH DNB DNE C C C C Brandywine Eas[ Palomar to Olym is Pkw A A A A A A A A Avenue O] m is Pk to Mein St B B C C A A A A Telegraph Canyon Rd to East Palomar St A A A A A A A A East Palomar SI W Olvm is Yk A A A A D D D D Heritage Road Ohm is Pkw to Santa Victoria Rd DNF, DNE A A A A A A Santa Victoria Rd to Santa Liza St DNE DNE A A A A A A Santa Liza Sl to Main S( DNE DNE A A A A A A Main St to Cit Baundarv B B A A E E E E East Palomar St to Olvm is Pkwv A A A A A A A A L M di R d Olym is Pkwy to Santa Venetia St A A A A A A B B a e a oa Sarno Venetia St to Birch Rd A A A A 8 B B R Birch Rd to Santa Luna Sl A A A A A A A A February 14,2012 h6 Based upon significant impact criteria, the following summarizes the identified significant project-related impacts and recommended mitigations to intersections and/or roadway segments under each of the scenarios analyzed. IV.6.1 Intersections IV.6.11 lsisting Plus Project No impacts identified and no mitigation required. IV.6.1.2 Near-Term Year 2015 Base Plus Project No impacts identified and no mitigation required. IV.61.3 Future Year 2030 Base Plus Project Cumulative impact would occur at the all-way stop controlled intersection of Santa Victoria Road /Santa Venetia Street since the intersection is projected to operate at LOS F during The AM peak hour, and the project trips would not comprise 5% or more of entering volume. Signalization of this intersection would improve the operations to LOS B during both the AM and PM peak hours. IV.6.2 Roadways IV.6.2.1 Existing Plus Project No impacts identified and no mitigation required. While the segment of Olympic Parkway, between Brandywine Avenue and 1eritage Road would operate at unacceptable L,OS D, project trips would not comprise 5% or more of total segment volume and would not add greater than 800 ADT to this segment. hi addition, the intersections (Brandywine Avenue/Olympic Parkway and Heritage Road/Olympic Parkway) along this segment would operate at acceptable LOS D or better. Since intersection analysis is more indicative of actual eoadway system operations, the roadway segment impacts would therefore not be considered significant. IV.6.2.2 Near-Term Year 2015 Base Plus Project No impacts identified and no mitigation required. All of the study area roadway segments would operate at acceptable LOS C or better under Year 2015 scenarios. IV.6.2.3 Future Year 2030 Base Plus Project No impacts identified and no mitigation required. No project specific impacts nor cumulative impacts would occur to roadway segments within the study area since both of the failing study segments along Heritage Road (I,OS D between East Palomar Street and Olympic Parkway, and LOS E between Main Street and the southern City boundary) would not have more than 5% of the total traffic volume comprised of project traffic, nor would the project contribute more than 800 AD'fs. In the case where roadway segments are projected to operate at I,OS D or E with project traffic comprising 5% of the total entering volume and more than 800 ADTs, all intersections along these segments are projected to operate at LOS D or better. February 14, 2012 47 DRAFT Village 2 Supplemental PFFP Since intersection analysis is more indicative of actual roadway system operations, the roadway segment impacts would therefore not be considered significant. IV.7 Financing Traffic Improvements TV.7.1 Transportation Development Impact Fees (TDIF) The Project is within the boundaries of the TDIF program and, as such, is subject to the payment of the fees at the rates in effect at the time building permits are issued. The current TDIF Ordinance sets forth the calculation of development impact fees. Table IL5 in Section II.8.1 shows the current TDIF for the Eastern Territories, which includes the Project site. 'This PFFP uses the CVMC Chapter 3.54 as the basis for the estimated fees. This amount is subject to change as iC is amended from time to time. The current TDiF charged for "Residential Medium" density (6.1-18 DU/gross acre) is $9,758/DU. The amount charged for "Residential High" density (>18.1 DU/doss acre) is $7,319/DU. The estimated TDIF for the Village 2 SPA Plan Amendment Project is presented in Table IV.13 below. Table IV.13 Estimated TDIF for Villa e 2 SPA Plan Amendment Land IIse Dwellin Units Fee er Dwellin IInit Total Fees Residential Medium Density 49 $9,758 $478,142 Residential High Density 148 $7,319 $1,083,212 Totals 197 $1,561,354 Notwithstanding the forgoing, the Developer is required to construct or otherwise secure the TDIF facilities identified in Section IV.8.1. IV.7.2 Traffic Signal Fees Future development of the Project will be required to pay Trafftc Signal Fees in accordance with Chola Vista Council Policy No. 475-01. The estimated fee is calculated based on the current fee of $32.57 (the date of this PFFP) per vehicle trip generated per day for various land use categories. Table IV.14 is provided as an estimate only. Fees may change depending upon the actual number dwelling units, the actual acreage for commercial and industrial land and the current city fee, which is subject to change from time to time. Final calculations will be known at the time building permits are applied for. February 14, 2012 48 DRAFT Village 2 Supplemental PFFP Table IV.14 Villa e 2 SPA Plan Amendment Traffic Si nal Fees Land Use Residential Trips Traffic Signal Fee @ $32.57/Tri Village 2 SPA Plan Amendment 1,674 $54,522 Total 1,674 $54,522 If a traffic signal is constructed, a credit against the 1'raffc Signal Fee is established in a like amount. IV.7.3 Transit Stop The Developer is responsible Yo contribute their "fair share" towards the planned Transit Stop on State Street in Village 2. Preliminary costs estimates from the City of Chula Vista for this Transit Stop are approximately $20,000. Therefore, the "fair share" for the 197-units subject to this Supplemental PFFP is roughly $1,321 as calculated in Table IV.IS. Table IV.15 Villa e 2 SPA Plan Amendment Transit Sto "Fair Share" City Cost Estimate Village 2 Units ' Cost/Unit "Fair Share" - With Pro ect 197 Units $20,000.00 2,983 $6.70 $1,320.82 February 14, 2012 49 DRAFT Village 2 Supplemental PFFP IV.B Threshold Compliance and Requirements IV.8.1 Intersections Because the all-way stop controlled intersection of Santa Victoria Road /Santa Venetia Street is projected to operate at LOS P during the AM peak hour, and the project trips would not comprise 5% or more of entering volume, the project would contribute to a cumulative impact at this intersection. Prior to the approval of the first Final Map, Developer shall secure and construct a traffic signal at the intersection of Santa Victoria Road/Santa Venetia Street to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. IV.8.2 Roadways The roadways discussed in this section are needed, not based on traffic generation, but based on frontage development and access. The need and timing for constructing the subject internal roadways are summarized below: The following would be required at the time the first final map in each Neighborhood is filed. February 14,2012 50 DRAFT Village 2 Supplemental PFFP TABLE IV.16 Villa e 2 SPA Amendment Roadwa Access/Fronta a Thresholds Roadwa From To R-7A R-9A R-28 and R-29 Herita e Road Olym is Parkwa Santa Victoria Road Santa Victoria Road Herita e Road Santa Carolina Road Santa Carolina Road Santa Victoria Road Santa Chvistina Road Santa Diana Road Santa Christina Road Santa Victoria Road State Street Santa Victoria Road La Media Road R-7 & R-9A Santa Christina Road Santa Carolina Road Car enteria Street Car enteria Street Project Frontage Santa Iv Avenue Carpenteria Street Santa Diana Street R-9A Pershin Road Project Fronta e R-28 Santa Victoria Road Santa Carolina Road Santa Christina Road Santa Christina Road Santa Carolina Road Santa Victoria Road R-29 Santa Victoria Road State Street Project Fronta e Notes 1. Connections to existing public roadways shall be provided to the satisfaction of the City Engineer of the City of Chula Vista 2. Owner/Developer shall construct all in-tract streets within and fronting each subject neighborhood. 3. Modifications to roadways allowed with approval by the City F..ngineer of the City of Chula Vista. In addition to the thresholds identified in Table IV.16, the City of Chula Vista shall require the following prior to issuance of each final map: Owner/Developer shall be responsible for assuring right-of--way improvements (curb, gutter, street, sidewalk, landscape, and traffic controls) necessary for vehicular and pedestrian connection from the subject map area to existing public roadways. Connection shall be provided to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Owner/Developer shall be responsible for assuring enhancements within the right-of--way (landscaping, pedestrian lighting, and street furniture) which abut the subject map area. Owner/Developer shall be responsible for assuring all in-tract improvements within the subject map area. February 14, 2012 51 DRAFT Village 2 Supplemental PFFP Owner/Developer shall be responsible for assuring enhancements outside the right-of=way and internal Yo the subject map area (open space lots, landscape and irrigation of slopes). Prior to issuance of final map, Owner/Developer shall assure applicable off-site infrastructure improvements (storm drains, water quality facilities) which are sized to serve subject map area. The owner/developer for any individual neighborhood shall be required to post or provide use of surety bonds which secure the Owner/Developer's construction cost of the infrastructure requirements identified above. The bond shall be for the value of improvements necessary to complete approved public improvements. Permission to use existing, approved improvement plans and bonds shall be an acceptable means of satisfying the above listed requirements, to the satisfaction of the city engineer. Additional notes: • Modification to any of the above listed requirements requires approval by the City Engineer. • Final map phases of subject tentative maps shall include all remaining in-tract improvements and shall not be less than 10 units. Subsequent to the Village 2 PFFP, Linscott, Law & Greenspan prepared a "floating car" study of Olympic Parkway and Brandywide Avenue for the City. The study concluded that an additional 2,463 EDUs in the East Area Plan could be built prior to triggering the extension of Heritage T2oad from Olympic Parkway to Main Street. Either this cumulative EDU trigger for the East Area Plan or the 1,276 F,DU trigger from the Village 2 PFFP would trigger the extension of Heritage Road, whichever occurs first. In addition to the above requirements for the proposed 197-units, the existing Village 2 PFFP Thresholds and Triggers and all Conditions of Approval for the Village 2 Tentative Map (CV'1" 06-05) apply to the subject neighborhoods. February 14, 2012 52 DRAFT Village 2 Supplemental PFFP LEC+EidD LfFS R Rssitlenliel S School Rd2 P Palk GPi GbmmYnitY Purpose ParilYTy ~ i ~. ~~ 03 OPm 9Paca i q~,.k k-19 ' A PvblicA7ivesi-Puhlie rRd4h~OFF~RIL~` ~~~ li:p ai~ INgNSehed Nt4+2%0! "~,.p r€.~G g R M nidgmbl f~ a ~ - i "~' ` ~ nme"mehameayhazwaanlrm:amu ' .+ ~ - - ' M1-3 gam, parrots aneine el aom ~ paraeis maY i ~ ~ -: ~- ny t ° R~ ne ao)usrea ameg me oesgo Rgvl6v. ~ R-S X Process uP io e. o+imam alzi.e arras " -~ at aorM rreOCanG MU xonetl ieM. G K-r~ X-7a R-5 ~v G/ ~yp~-~ ~ ' 9~ ~ R-JJ w r ~ R- E .e-ea 4~ R J4 ' ~ w 5 ~ ~ d'~ D~ 6 Y-F yP,iM c~ IG-J5 ~~ R" R28 per, ; ry; ~, R3 p.J R"99 i ~ R-YdR l i p~ p R-R~ ~):~ Rd88 "~ . r°'.r ~ ' R-85 ° R-d6, 1 MD-J - ~: F \ .5J ~ . ~. . R-1F~ 5~ r ~ ~ /Rf/YaLrtL f 07,dy lA f (MR-Z ~y GPfS 4 44R'oPTU t ~ taoM , _ R-1d J O-9 ~~ ~ - + Lrn-r a7R,q _ 1 j'~ a5 sJr wro k(A'T"fllL - _ Fx6ibif 7 -Traffic Signals February 14, 2012 53 DRAFT Village 2 Supplemental PFFP February 14, 2012 54 DRAFT Village 2 Supplemental PFFP v. PoLIC>k V.1 Threshold Standard A. Emergency Response: properly equipped and staffed police units shall respond to 81% of "Priority One" Emergency calls throughout the city within 7 minutes and shall maintain an average response time to all "Priority One" emergency calls of 5.5 minutes or less (measured amorally). B. Urgent Response: Properly equipped and staffed police units shall respond to 57% of "Priority Two" Urgent calls throughout the city within'? minutes and maintain an average response time to all "Priority Two' calls of 7.5 minutes or less (measured annually). V.2 Service Analysis The City of Clmla Vista Police Department provides police services. The purpose of the Threshold Standard is to maintain or improve The current level of police services throughout the City by ensuring that adequate levels of staff, equipment and Training are provided. Police threshold performance was analyzed in the "Report on Police Threshold Performance 1990- 1999", completed April 13, 2000. In response to Police Depamnent and GMOC concerns the City Council amended the threshold standards for Police Emergency Response on May 28, 2002, with adoption of Ordinance 2860. Police Facilities are also addressed in A Master Plan for the Chula Vista Civic Center Solving City Space Needs Through Year 2010, dated May 8, 1989. V.3 Project Processing Requirements The PFFP is required by the Growth Management Program to address the following issues for Police Services. A. Services reviewed must be consistent with the proposed phasing of the project. B. Able to demonstrate conformance with A Master Plan for the Chula Vista Civic Center dated May 8, 1989, as amended. V.4 Existing Conditions The Chula Vista Police Department (CVPD) provides law enforcement services to the area encompassing the project. The CVPD is located in a new headquarters building at the corner 4"' Avenue and F Street in Chula Vista. This new facility is expected to be adequate through the build-out of eastern Chula Vista. Currently, CVPD maintains a staff of approximately 231 sworn officers and approximately 95 civilian support personnel. The Project is within Police Patrol Beat 24 that is served by at least one Beat Officer per shifC. V.4.1 Police Facility Inventory • Police Headquarters at 4th Avenue and F Street. February 14, 2012 55 DRAFT Village 2 Supplemental PFFP V.5 Adequacy Analysis According to the GMOC 2011 Annual Report the response times for "Priority One" Calls for Service (CFS) were met during the 2009-2010 time period (see Table C.1). The department is in compliance with "Priority One" CFS with 85.1% of the calls responded to within 5:30 minutes (see Table V.1 below). Table V.1 Historic Response Times Priori I -- Emer enc Res onse, Calls For Service Call Volume % of Call Response w/in 7 Minutes Average Response Time Threshold 81.0% 5:30 FY 2009-10 673 of 68,145 85.1% 4:28 FY 2008-09 788 of 70,051 84.6% 4:26 FY 2007-08 1,006 of 74,192 87.9% 4:19 FY 2006-07 976 of 74,277 84.5% 4:59 FY2005-06 1,068 of 73,075 82.3% 4:51 FY2004-OS 1,289 of 74,106 80.0% 5:11 FY2003-04 1,322 of 71,000 82.1% 4:52 FY 2002-03 1,424 of 71,268 80.8% 4:55 FY 2001-02 1,539 of 71,859 80.0% 5:07 FY 2000-01 1,734 of 73,977 79.7% 5:13 FY 1999-00 1,750 of 76,738 75.9% 5:21 CY 1999 11,890 of 74,405 70.9% 5:50 Source: GMOC 2010 Annual Report "Priority Two" CFS during the same period were not met. The Priority Two CFS has not been met for several years. For Priority Two CFS, the department responded to 49.8% of the calls within an average o~f 9:55 minutes. The GMOC has determined that "Priority Two" or the Urgent Emergency Response time threshold has not been met. After two years of significant improvements, the average response time took 39 seconds longer than last year, and the percentage of calls responded to within 7 minutes fell by 3.7%. The Police Department attributes the decline in performance during this review period to the fact that the patrol division experienced higher than normal on-duty injuries to sworn personnel, resulting in lower staffing levels. s The FY98-99 GMOC Report used calendar 1999 data due to the implementation of the new CAD system in mid-1998. February 14, 2012 56 DRAFT Village 2 Supplemental PFFP Table V.2 Historic Response Times Priori II -lJr ent Res onse Calls for Service Call Volume of Call Response within Average Response Timex Threshold 57.0% 7:30 FY 2009-10 22,240 of 68,145 49.8% 9:55 FY 2008-09 22,686 of 70,057 53.5% 9:16 FY 2007-08 23,955 of 74,192 53.1% 9:18 FY 2006-07 24 407 of 74,277 43.3% 11:18 FY 20D5-06 24,876 of 73,075 40.0% 12:33 FY 2004-OS 24,923 of 74,106 40.5% 11:40 FY 2003-04 24 741 of 71 ODO 48.4% 9:50 FY 2002-03 22 871 of 71,268 50.2% 9:24 FY 2001-02 22,199 of 71,859 45.6% 10:04 FY 2000-O1 25,234 of 73,977 47.9% 9:38 FY 1999-00 23,898 of 76,738 46.4% 9:37 CY 1999 20,405 of 74,405 45.8% 9:35 FY 1997-98 22,342 of 69,196 52.9% 8:13 FY 1996-97 22 ] 40 of 69 904 62.2% 6:50 FY 1995-96 21,743 of 71,197 64.5% 6:38 Source: GMOC 2010 Annual Report After reviewing the history of the Priority II threshold standard being out of compliance for twelve consecutive years, the GMOC requested atop-to-bottom review to consider modifying the Priority tI threshold. This would be the second modification since its inception in 1991. The original 1991 Urgent Response or Priority ii threshold standard was: Respond to 62% of calls within 7 minutes, maintaining an average of 7 minutes or less. in 1999, the City's Special Projects Division and the Police Department presented the GMOC with a report titled "Report on Police 'threshold Performance ] 990-1999:' The report indicated that, prior to implementation of the CAD system, human error occurred when measuring dispatch time. The report suggested that the Priority II threshold should have been set at 57% of calls within 7 minutes, with an average response time of 7.5 minutes. Subsequently, the City Council approved the proposed change to the threshold standard in 2002, which is the standard currently in effect. One result of the aforementioned police threshold report was a 2003 change in the methodology for reporting the threshold data. The report pointed out that 42% of the Priority II calls were alarm calls, and 99.9% of the alann calls were false alarms. Therefore, the false alarms were taken out of the calculations. However, the Priority II threshold standard still could not be met. The Chula Vista Police Deparhment believes that, "With appropriate staffing levels...the current Priority 11 goals could be met." The current Chula Vista staffing, per capita, is the lowest of the nine city police departments in San Diego County. Unfortunately due to the current economic situation, increased staffing levels are not likely in the near future. February 14, 2012 57 DRAFT Village 2 Supplemental PFFP V.6 Financing Police Facilities The Public Facilities Development Impact Fee (PFDIF) was updated by the Chula Vista City Council on November 7, 2006 by adoption of Ordinance 3050. 'the Police PFDIF Fee far Single Family Development is $1,629 /unit. The Police PFDIF for Multi Family Development is $1,760 /unit. This amount is subject to change as it is amended from time to time. The project will be subject to the payment of the fee at the rate in effect at the time building permits are issued. At the current fee rate, the project Police Fee obligation at buildout is $326,953. Table V.3 Estimated Police PFDIF for Villa e 2 SPA Amendment Development Number of DUs ppDIF/DU Police Fee Sin le Famil Residential 49 $1,629 $79,821 Multi-Family Residential 148 $1,760 $260,480 Totals 19'7 S3A0,301 The projected fee illustrated in Table V.3 is an estimate only. Actual fees may be different. PFDIF Fees are subject to change depending upon City Council actions and or Developer actions that change residential densities, industrial acreage or commercial acreages. V.7. Threshold Compliance and Requirements The City will continue to monitor police responses to calls for service in both the Emergency (priority one) and Urgent (priority two) categories and report the results to the GMOC on an annual basis. `T'hat the Police Department remain diligent in meeting and achieving shorter response times than what is indicated as the Threshold Standard through the active pursuit and implementation of their current and planned programs and report on how these measures improved response times to next years' GMOC. Compliance will be satisfied with the payment of Public Facilities Fees. The proposed project will be required to pay public facilities fees for police services, based on the number of dwelling units, prior to the issuance of building permits; the fees shall be paid at the rate in effect at the time payment is made. February 14, 2012 58 DRAFT Village 2 Supplemental PFFP VI. FIRE AND EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES VI.1 Threshold Standard Emergency response: Properly equipped and staffed fire and medical units shall respond to calls throughout the City within seven (7) minutes in 80 percent (current service to be verified) of the cases (measured annually). VL2 Service Analysis The City of Chula Vista Fire Department (CVFD) provides Fire and Fmergency Medical Services (EMS). EMS is provided on a contract basis with American Medical Response (AMR). The City also has countywide mutual and automatic aid agreements with surrounding agencies, should the need arise for their assistance. The purpose of the Threshold Standard and the monitoring of response times are to maintain and improve the current level of fire protection EMS in the City. Fire/EMS facilities are provided for in the 1997 Fire Station Master Plan, as amended. The Fire Station Master Plan indicates that the number and location of fire stations primarily determine response fime. The Fire Station Master Plan evaluates the planning area's fire coverage needs, and recommends a nine (9) station network at build out to maintain compliance with the threshold standard. VL3 Existing Conditions There are currently nine (9) fire stations serving the City of Chula Vista. The existing fire station network is listed below in Table VL I Table VL1 Current Fire Station Facilities Station Location E ui ment Staffin Current Fire Station Facilities Station 1 447 F St. Engine 51/Truck S1Battalion 51 Assi ned: 8 On Dut : 2A Station 2 80 East J St. En ine 52/Brush 52 Assigned: 3 On Duty: 9 Station 3 1410 Brandywine Ave. US & R 53 Assigned: 4 On Duty: 12 Station 4 850 Paseo Ranchero Engine 54 Assigned: 3 On Duty: 9 Station 5 391 Oxford St En ine 55 Assi ned: 3 On Dut : 9 Station 6 605 Mt. Mi el Rd. Engine 56 Assigned: 3 On Duty: 9 Station 7 1640 Santa Venetia Rd. Engine 57YI'ruck 57Battalion 52 Assigned: 8 On Dut : 24 Station 8 1180 Woods Dr. En ine SS Assi ned: 3 On Dut : 9 Station 9 291 F,. Oneida Street En ine 59 Assi ned: 3 On Dut : 9 Source.' CVFD February 14,2012 59 DRAFT Village 2 Supplemental PFFP V1.4 Adequacy Analysis The City of Chula Vista Fire Department (CVFD) currently serves areas within the City's boundaries, including Village 2. The closest CVFD station to The project site is Station #7, which is located in Village 2 at 1640 Santa Venetia Rd., approximately'/4 miles east of the project site. The Fire/EMS response time threshold was met for calendar year 2010. 'T'his is the sixth year in a row that the C VFD met the threshold. American Medical Response (AMR) provides emergency medical services to the project site, on a contract basis for the City of Clmla Vista. There are two AMR stations, which provide paramedic with EMT services to the City of Chula Vista exclusively. Table VL2 Village 2 SPA Amendment PFFP Fire/EMS - Emer enc Res onse Times Since 1999 Years CaII Volume % of All Call Response Within 7:00 Minutes FY 2009/10 10,296 85.0% FY 2008/09 9,363 84.D% FY 2008 9,883 86.9% FY 2007 10,020 88.1% CY 2006 10,390 85.2% CY 2005 9,907 81.6% FY 2003-04 8,420 72.9% FY 2002-03 8,088 75.5% FY 2001-02 7,626 69.7% FY 2000-01 7,128 8D.8% FY 1999-00 6,654 79.7% Source: GMOC 2010 Annual Report VL5 Fire & EMS Facility Analysis The CVFD responded to 85% of calls within seven minutes. The department met the threshold standard of responding to 80% of calls within seven minutes. This was 1.0% better than last year's percentage of 84.0%, and there were 933 more calls received from the previous year. Generally, the actual response and travel times for 80% of the calls slightly declined from last year. Response Times went from 4 minutes 46 seconds in FY 2009 to 5 minutes 9 seconds in FY 2010. The average travel time went from 3 minutes 33 seconds in FY 2009 to 3 minutes 40 seconds in FY 2010. Of all calls received, 2.5% were for tire, 84.9% were for medical, and 12.6% were f'or other emergencies. Since March 2008, the City of Chula Vista has contracted with San Diego Dispatch to respond to fire and medical dispatch calls. Since outsourcing Chula Vista's emergency dispatch system in March 2008, the percentage of calls responded to within seven minutes is approximately what it was prior to outsourcing, and at 85% is well within The 80% threshold standard. February 14, 2012 60 DRAFT Village 2 Supplemental PFFP Development of The Village 2 SPA Plan Amendment project is not anticipated to change the need for fire service in the area. Fire Station No. 7 would be the primary station to serve the project. VL6 Financing Fire & EMS Facilities The Public Facilities Development Impact Fee (PF'DIF) was updated by the Chula Vista City Council on November 7, 2006 by adoption of Ordinance 3050, The Fire FFD1F Fee for Single Family Development is $1,350/unit (see Table A.6)6. The Fire PFllIF for Multi-Family Residential development is $970/unit. This amount is subject to change as it is amended from time to time. The project will be subject to the payment of the fee at the rate in effect at the time building permits are issued. At the current fee rate, the project Fire Fee obligation at buildout is $193,219. Table VL3 Estimated Fire and Emer eoc Res onse YFDIF for Villa e 2 SPA Amendment Develo ment DUs PFllIFQ)U Fire/EMS Fee Single Family Residential 49 $1,350 $66,150 Multi-Famil Residential 148 $970 $143,560 Totals 197 $209,710 The projected fee illustrated in Table VL3 is an estimate only. Actual Fees may be different. PFDIF Fees are subject to change depending upon City Council actions and or Developer actions that change residential densities, industrial acreage or commercial acreages. VI9 Threshold Compliance and Requirements The City will continue to monitor fire department responses to emergency fire and medical calls and report the results to the GMOC on an annual basis. II. The Village 2 SPA Plan Amendment Project shall pay public facilities fees prior to the issuance of building permits; the fees shall be paid at the rate in effect at the time payment is made. III. The GMOC and the CVFD will continue to monitor the effectiveness of using San Diego Dispatch in regards to meefing the threshold standard. P'ee based on Form 5509 dated 9/30/2070. Actual fee may be different, please verify with the City of Chula Vista at the time of building permit. February 14, 2012 61 DRAFT Village 2 Supplemental PFFP VII. SCHOOLS VIL1 Threshold Standard The City annually provides the two local school districts with a 12 to 18 month development forecast and requests an evaluation of their ability to accommodate the forecast and continuing growth. 1'he Districts' replies should address the following: 1. Amount of current capacity now used or committed. 2. Ability to absorb forecasted growth in affected facilities. 3. Evaluation of funding and site availability for projected new facilities. 4. Other relevant information the District(s) desire(s) to eonnnunicate to the City and UMOC. VIL2 Service Analysis School facilities and services in Chula Vista are provided by two school districts. The Chula Vista Elementary School District (CVESD) administers education for kindergarten through sixth grades. The Sweetwater ilnion High School District (SUHSD) administers education for the Junior/Middle and Senior I-Iigh Schools of a large district, which includes the City of Chula Vista. The purpose of the threshold standard is to ensure that the districts have the necessary school sites and funds to meet the needs of students in newly developing areas in a timely manner, and to prevent the negative impacts of overcrowding on the existing schools. Through the provision of development forecasts, school district personnel can plan and implement school facility construction and program allocation in line with development. On November 3, 1998, California voters approved Proposition lA, the Class Size Reduction Kindergarten-University Public Education Facilities Bond Act of 1998. Prior to the passage of Proposition lA, school districts relied on statutory school fees established by Assembly Bill 2926 ("School Fee Legislation") which was adopted in 1986, as well as judicial authority (i.e., Mira- Hart-Murrieta court decisions) to mitigate the impacts of new residential development. In a post Proposition 1A environment, the statutory fees provided for in the School Fee Legislation remains in effect and any mitigation requirements or conditions of approval not memorializ..ed in a mitigation agreement, after January 1, 2000, will be replaced by Alternative Fees (sometimes referred to as Level II and bevel III Fees). '1 he statutory fee for residential development is referred to in these circumstances as the Level I Fee (i.e., currently for unified school districts at $ 2.97 per square foot 1'or new residential construction and $ 0.47 per square foot for new commercial and industrial construction). CVESD utilizes their current School Facilities Needs Analysis (SFNA), June 2010, to quantify, for the next five-year period, the impacts of new residential development on the district's school facilities, and to calculate the permissible Alternative Fees to be collected from such new residential development. To ensure the timely construction of school facilities to house students from residential development, alternative fees or implementation of a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District (CFD) will be necessary. In compliance with Government Code Section 65995 et. Seq. the SFNA provides the determination of eligibility for and the calculation of a Level II Fee of $ 2.29 per square foot of February 14,2012 62 DRAFT Village 2 Supplemental PFFP new residential construction. A corresponding Level III Fee of $ 4.58 per square foot of new residential construction is also identified. Sweetwater Union High School District utilizes their current "Sweetwater Union High School District Long Range Comprehensive Master Plan" dated July 2Q 2004. Implementation of the SUHSD Plan is ongoing and has resulted in the upgrading of older schools and accommodating continuing growth. Tn November 2000, a supportive community approved Proposition BB. The district leveraged $187 million from Proposition BB into a $327 million effort utilizing state funding to modernize and upgrade twenty-two campuses. Additional work efforts associated with Froposition O have commenced and construction has begun. In November 2006, the community supported Proposition O, a 644 million dollar bond measure. This bond measure addresses the critical and urgent safety needs of the 32 campuses within the SUHSD. The types of repairs and improvements that Prop O addresses includes: improving handicap accessibility, removing asbestos and lead paint, and upgrading fire and life safety systems. VIL3 Project Processing Requirements The PFFP is required by the Growth Management Program to address the following issues for School Services: 1. Identify student generation by phase of development. 2. Specific siting of proposed school Facilities will take place in conformance with the Sweetwater Union High School District Long Range Comprehensive Plan, and Chula Vista Elementary School District's Standards and Criteria. 3. Reserve school sites, if necessary, or coordinate with the district for additional school classrooms. 4. Provide cost estimates for facilities. 5. Identify facilities consistent with proposed phasing. 6. Demonstrate the ability to provide adequate facilities to access public schools in conjunction with the construction of water and sewer facilities. 7. Secure financing. VIL4 Existing Conditions VIL4.1 Chula Vista 1lementary School District Currently, the CVESD's inventory consists of 44 elementary schools including 6 Charter schools. Approximately 26 schools are on a traditional calendar and 18 are on a ycar- round calendar. Table VTT.I lists existing schools in the proximity of The Project site with the capacity and enrollment of each. Capacity using existing facilities is approximately 4,437. Projected enrollment for the 2010-2011 school yeae was approximately 4,374. February 14,2012 63 DRAFT Village 2 Supplemental PFFP Table VILI Chula Vista Elementary School District Enrollment vs. Ca acit School Estimated Enrollment for 2010-2011 Approximate Ca acit Approximate Remainin Ca acit Hcdenkam 1.,007 1007 0 Herita e 883 875 -8 McMillin 859 825 -34 Veterans 783 877 94 Wolf Canyon 842 853 1 I Total* 4,374 4 437 63 Source: CA Deparnnenl ofEdzmalion VIL4.2 Sweetwater Union High School District The SUHSD currently administers eleven junior higtilmiddle schools and thirteen senior high schools including one continuation high school within the District. In July of 2003 the district opened the Otay Ranch High School (near Otay Ranch Village 2) located at 1250 Olympic Pl~vy, Chula Vista and Eastlake Middle School (Eastlake Woods) located at 900 Duncan Ranch Road Chula Vista. in August 2006, the district opened Olympian High School (Village 7) at 1925 Magdalena Ave, Chula Vista. 'T'here is a new combination middle/high school proposed within the vicinity of the EUC area with a possible middle school opening on the Olympian High School Campus in the future. Also planned for the future is middle school #12 and high school #14. VILS School Sizing and Location 'T'he Project is proposed to consist of an additional 197 dwelling units. At completion, the proposed project could generate approximately 124 students using the following Student Generation Factors: Table VIL2 Student Generation Rates Single Family Single Family Multi-Family Defached Attached Attached Elementary (K-6) .3804 .2674 .3141 students/DU students/DLI students/L~U Middle School (7-8) .1066 .0780 students/DU students/DU High School (9-12) .2028 .2204 students/DU students/DU Source.' CVESU SF'NA June 2010 By school category, the project is expected to generate the following students: February 14, 2012 64 DRAFT Village 2 Supplemental PFFP Table VIL3 Student Generation Ilousing Type Units F.,lementary K-6) Middle (7-8) High School (9-12) SFD 49 19 5 10 SFA I8 5 2 4 MFA 130 41 10 29 TOTAL 197 64 17 42 School Size Standards: Elementary 750-1000 students Middle 1,500 students Senior High 2,400 students ViL5.1 Chula Vista Elementary School District As noted in fable VIL3, the build-out of the Project would generate the need to house approximately 64 elementary school age students. The Villages 2, 3 and Portion of Village 4 SPA Plan located an elementary school within Village 2. A School Mitigation Agreement was entered into to secure financing for the ultimate construction of the Village 2 Elementary School. This would be the nearest school (at completion) to the Project. The approved Villages 2, 3 and Portion of 4 Village SPA Plan E1R contemplated 850 elementary school students at the Village 2 elementary school site; therefore, an additional 64 students falls within the planning range of 750 - 1,000 students. Students would be transported by bus to a nearby school should the construction of this school not be completed by the time homes in the Village 2 SPA Amendment project area becomes occupied. Four schools are already built and operating in Otay Ranch: Heritage, Corky McMillin, Veterans and Wolf Canyon elementary schools. VIL5.2 Sweetwater Union High School District The maximum capacity of a middle school is approximately 1,500 students. It is anticipated that the approximately 17 middle school students generated by the Village 2 SFA Amendment project may attend either the Rancho del Rey or Eastlake Middle Schools located approximately 1.1 and 4 miles, respectively, Prom the Project site. Currently, BastLake Middle has the capacity to accept the estimated students generated by the Project; however, the Sweetwater Union Iligh School District will determine which middle school students will attend on an interim and permanent basis. The maximum capacity of a high school is approximately 2,400 students. It is anticipated that approximately 42 high school students will be generated from the Village 2 SPA Amendment project. These students may attend either Otay Ranch or Olympian high schools located approximately .5 and 1.4 miles, respectively, from the project. Currently, both OYay Ranch and Olympian high schools have the capacity To accept the estimated students generated by the project; however the Sweetwater Union IIigh School District will determine which high school students will attend on an interim and permanent basis. February 14, 2012 65 DRAFT Village 2 Supplemental PFFP According Co the district, the Project is within the Rancho del Rey Middle School and the Olympian and Otay Ranch High School attendance areas. In addition, the site is within CFD 17. Demand for adult school facilities will be satisfied within existing facilities in the Sweetwater L7nion High School District, until a new facility may be constructed in the Eastern Urban Center (EUC) or a site reserved pursuant to the Otay Ranch GDP. VIL6 Financing School Facilities California Government Code section 65995 et. seq. and Education Code Section 17620 et. seq. authorizes school districts to impose facility mitigation exactions on new development as a way to address increasing enrollment caused by that development. Although the collection of school fees is one method available to defray the cost of new development, it is not an acceptable solution since the maximum amount that could be collected by law represents less than one-fourth the cost to construct schools. In recognition of this funding deficiency, it is the policy of each district to fully mitigate the facility impacts caused by a master planned community via the creation of a Mello Roos Community Facilities District. 1'he following Mello-Roos Districts have been created by each district: SUIISD CV)/SU b Location Location Num er Number 1 L.astLake 1 Eastlake 2 Bonita Long Canyon 2 Bonita Long Canyon 3 Rancho del Rey 3 Rancho del Rey 4 Sunbow 4 Sunbow 5 Annexable 5 Annexable 6 Otay Ranch 6 Otay Ranch 7 Rolling hills Estate 10 Annexable for future annexations 8 Coral Gate (Otay Mesa) 11 Otay Ranch (Lomas Verde) 9 Ocean View Hills 12 Otay Aanch (Village 1, West) 10 Remington Ilills/Annexable 13 San Miguel Ranch 11 Lomas Verdes 14 Otay Ranch Village 11 (BrookfielNShea) 12 Otay Ranch (Village 1 West) 15 Otay Ranch Village 6 (ORC) 13 San Miguel Ranch 17 Otay Ranch Villages 2 and 7 14 Otay Ranch Village I I 17 Otay Ranch Villages 2 and 7 ViL7 Threshold Compliance and Recommendations A. Prior to building permit approval, the project proponent(s) shall provide documentation to the City confirming satisfaction of SLJIISD and CVESD facility funding requirements to offset student generation impacts. Funding shall be satisfied through the Mello-Roos Community Facilities District financing method or other means acceptable to each District. In addition, condition the project to require that no building permits shall be issued unless and until a school facility financing mechanism is in place to the satisfaction of the Sweetwater Union I°Iigh School District and the Chula Vista Elementary School District. B. Since this project is a part of Otay Ranch, school mitigation has been satisfied through participation in the CFDs for both districts. February 14,2012 66 DRAFT Village 2 Supplemental PFFP VIII. LIBRARIES VIIL1 Threshold Standard In the area east of I-805, the city shall construct, by build-out (approximately year 2030) 60.00 Gross Square Feet (GSF) of library space beyond the citywide June 30, 2000 GSF total. The construction of said facilities shall be phased such that the city will not fall below the citywide ratio of 500 GSF per 1,000 population. Library facilities are to be adequately equipped and staffed. VIII.2 Service Analysis The City of Chula Vista Library Department provides library facilities. VIIL3 Project Processing Requirements The PFFP is required by the Growth Management Program to address the following issues for Library services: 1. Identify phased demands in conjunction with the construction of streets, water and sewer facilities. 2. Specifically identify facility sites in conformance with the Chula Vista Library Master Plan. VII1.4 Existing Conditions The City provides library services through the Chula Vista Public Library at Fourth and P Street (Civic Center), the South Chula Vista Library in the Montgomery/Otay planning area, and the library at the Eastlake High School. The Castle Park and Woodlawn Libraries have been closed. The existing libraries are listed on the Table VIIL1. Table VIIL1 Existing Library Facilities F.xisfing Libraries Square Poota e Civic Center 55,000 South Chula Vista 37,000 Total Existin S uare Feet 92 000 Using the threshold standard of 500 square feet of library space per 1,000 population, the demand for library space based on Chula Vista's estimated population for year end 2011 of a population of 237,239' is 118,619 square feet. Chula Vista currently provides 92,000 square feet of library space. This represents a 26,619 square foot deficit. GMOC 2010 Annual Report February 14, 2012 67 DRAFT Village 2 Supplemental PFFP Tabte VIIL2 Existin Librar S ace Demand vs. Su I Population Demand Supply Above/(Below) S uare Foota e S ware Foota a Standard Estimated Existing Citywide 12/31/10 237,239 1 ] 8,619 92,000 (26,619) According to the GMOC Annual Report, the City of Chula Vista's library Threshold standard has been out of compliance for six consecutive years. The threshold standard is to construct 500 gross square feet per 1,000 population. The City currently has a deficit of approximately 26,620 square feet In June 2007, the City Council adopted the Libraries Threshold Standard Implementation Measure, which requires the City to "formally adopt and fund tactics to bring the library system into conformance, and that construction, or another actual solution, shall be scheduled to commence within three years of the dneshold not being satisfied." VIII.S Project Demand The Village 2 SYA Amendment increases the number of residential units in Village 2 by 197. This would result in an additional demand of 316 sq. ft. of library space, based on an estimated population of 632 residents. MILS Adequacy Analysis Table VIIL3 Village 2 SPA Ptan Amendment Library Space Demand vs. SuPPIy Population Demand Snpply Above/(Below) S uare Foota e S uare Foota a Standard Estimated Existing Citywide 237,239 118,619 92,000 (26,619) 12/31/10 Forecasted 2015 Population 12,196 6,098 (6,098) Increase w/o Project Village 2 SPA Amendment 632 316 (316) Rancho Del Rey Branch 30 000 30 000 Librar , , Subtotal 250,067 125,034 122,000 (3,033) The library demand generated by the 2015 forecasted population (GMOC 2010 Annua] Report) of 250,067 is 125,034 square feet (including the proposed Project). Comparing this forecasted demand Yo The existing library square footage of 92,000 square feet results in a deficit of 33,033 square feet unless the first Regional Library is completed before 2015. The Chula Vista Public Library Master Plan was updated in 2011. This plan addresses such topics as library siting and phasing, the impacts of new technologies on library usage, and floor space needs. 'the plan evaluates two options for Chula Vista to accomplish the 500 sq. ft. per February 14, 2012 68 DRAFT Village 2 Supplemental PFFP 1,000 population ratio. The Library Master Plan does not make a recommendation which option is preferable, but iY does conclude the City can achieve The library ratio through either approach. One option is for the construction of a fiill service regional library of approximately 30,000 square feet in the Rancho Del Rey area at the corner of Paseo Ranchero and Fast H StreeC and the construction of a second full service regional library of similar size in the Otay Ranch Eastern Urban Center (EUC). Currently, it is unknown when sufficient funds will beeome available for the construction of the Rancho Del Key Branch Library. Preconstruction planning and design have been completed. In addition, the fiming of the EUC Library is unknown at this time. Future planned library facilities are listed in Table VIIL4 Tabte VIIL4 Future Libra Facilities Future Libraries Square Footage Estimated Cost 1st regional library (Rancho Del Rey) @ 30,000 sf 30,000" $30,000,000+ 2nd regional library (Otay Ranch EUC) @ 30,000 sf 30,000 Unknown Estimated Total Future Net Square Feet 60,000 Total Master Plan Library Square Feet (existing and future) 152,000 * Assumes construction of the first 30,000-square foot regional library by Summer 2015. SANDAG's build-out population for Chula Vista is approximately 282,664. This population will require approximately 141,332 square feet of Library Facilities. Construction of the Rancho del Rey and Otay Ranch EUC libraries will result in a total of approximately 152,000 square feet of library space which is 10,678 square feet above the projected demand. VIIL7 Financing Library Facilities The Public Facilities Development Impact Fee (PFDIF) was updated by the Chula Vista City Council on November 7, 2006 by adoption of Ordinance 3050. The Library PFDIF Fee for Single and Multi-Family Development is $1,533/unit. This amount is subject to change as it is amended from time to time. The project will be subject to the payment of the fee at the rate in effect at the time building permits are issued. At the current fee rate, the estimated Library Fee obligation at build-out is $302,001. Table MILS Library Fee For Village 2 SPA Plan Amendment Develo ment DU's PFDIF/DU Libra Fee Single Family Residential 49 $1,533 $75,117 Multi-Famil Residential 148 $1,533 $226,884 Totals 197 $302 001 The projected fee illustrated in Table MILS is an estimate only. Actual fees may be different. PFDIF Fees are subject to change depending upon City Council actions and or Developer actions that change residential unit counts. February 14, 2012 69 DRAFT Village 2 Supplemental PFFP VIIL8 Threshold Compliance and Recommendations No mitigation is required other than the payment of the Public Facilities DIF for library facilities at the rate in effect prior to the approval of building permits. February 14, 2012 70 DRAFT Village 2 Supplemental PFFP IX. PARKS, RECREATION, TRAILS AND OPEN SPACE IX.I Park Threshold Standard Three (3) acres of neighborhood and community parkland with appropriate facilities shall be provided. per 1,000 residents. This standard is specified in Section 17.10.040 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code. 1X.2 Service Analysis The City of Chula Vista provides public park and recreational facilifies and programs through the Public Works and Recreation Departments, which are responsible for the acquisition and development of parkland. All park development plans are reviewed by City staff and are presented to the Parks and Recreation Commission for review. This Commission makes a recommendation to the deciding body, the City Council. The City Council approved the Chula Vista Parks and Recreation Master Plan in November 2002. The Plan provides guidance for planning, siting and implementation of neighborhood and community parks. 1X.3 Project Processing Requirements ]. Identify phased demands in conformance with the number of dwelling units constructed, street improvements and in coordination with the construction of water and sewer facilities. 2. Specific siting of the facility will take place in conformance with the Chula Vista Parks and Recreation Master Plan. 3. Site/s reserved for park purposes within the project. IX.4 Existing Conditions The existing and future parks are depicted in the Park and Recreation Element of the General Plan and updated by the inclusion of more recent information in the city's Parks and Recreation Master Plan. Further, the Project site is within the boundaries of the approved Villages 2, 3 and Portion of Village 4 SPA Plan, which includes the Villages 2, 3 and Portion of Village 4 Parks, Recreation, Trails and Open Space Plan. The Parks, Recreation, Trails and Open Space Plan identifies park and recreation facilities within the Village 2 planning area. 'The City's Parkland. Dedication Ordinance requirements for the Villages 2, 3 and Portion of Village 4 SPA are outlined in'I'able 1X.1. February 14, 2012 71 DRAFT Village 2 Supplemental PFFP Table IX.1 Villages 2, 3 and a Portion of Village 4 SPA Park Acrea a Provided and Eli ible Credits Net Acrea a Pro used Credit Estimated Credit Acres P-1 -'Powo 5 uare 1.4 100% 1.4 P-2 -Neighborhood Park 7.1 100% 7.1 P-3 -Neighborhood Park 6.9 100% 6.9 P-4 -Community Park 44.2 100% 40.4 Total Acres Eligible for Credit Against PAD 55.812 Villages 2, 3 and a Portion of Villa e 4 SPA PAD Re uirement 25.307 Subtotal Villa es 2, 3 and a Portion of Village 4 SPA Credits 30.493 Residual Obli anon from SPA One, Village 6 and Villa e 7 31.57 Total Su lus (Deficit) 1.065' 1X.5 Project Park Requirements The PFFP threshold is based on State of California Govermnent Code 66477, also known as the Quimby Act that allows a city to require by ordinance the dedication of land or payment of fees for park or recreational purposes. The City of Chula Vista applies the Quimby Act standard through the City's Parkland Dedication Ordinance CVMC Chapter 17.10. The ordinance establishes fees for park land acquisition and development, sets standards for dedication and establishes criteria for acceptance of parks and open space by the City of Chula Vista. Fees vary depending upon the type of dwelling unit that is proposed. There are four types of housing; Single Family dwelling units (defined as all types of single fvnily detached housing and condominiums), Multi-Family dwelling units (defined as all types of attached housing including townhouses, attached condominiums, duplexes, triplexes and apartments), Mobile Homes and Hotel/Motel Rooms. Single Family Housing is defined as a freestanding structure with one residential unit. Multi-Family housing is deftned as any freestanding structure that contains two or more residential units. Parkland dedication requirements are shown below on 'T'able IX.2. v A 2.8 acre City of San Diego Waterline easement and/or a 1.4 acre parcel owned by the City of San Diego located within the P- 4Park may be eligible for park credit in the fuhtre i£the waterline is relocated. In this case, there would be a park surplus. February 14,2012 72 DRAFT Village Z Supplemental PFFP Table IX.2 Village 2 9PA Plan Amendment Preliminary Parkland Dedication Requirements Ci Ordinance A lied to Plannin Prediction of Unit Numbers and es Dwelling Unit Type* Number of D.U. parkland Required/DU Required Acres Siu lc Famil (Detafched 49 460 sfldu .52 Multi Family (Attached) 148 341sf/du L16 TOTALS 197 1.68** ' Definitions of dwelling unit type used foe calculating park obligations are based upon from the City's Parkland Dedication Ordinance CVMC chapter 17.10. These definitions differ from the way unit types aze defined from a planning land-use and zoning perspective that uses unit density per acre to categorize the type of unit. CVMC chapter 77.10 uses product type to categorize the type of unit distinguishing between attached and detached units. Consequently, Ylte figures in this chart are preliminary estimates, and shall be recalculated at the time when the obligations are due as determined by chapter 17.10 of the CVMC. "* Not including surplus/deficit from table IX.1 Based on the City's Parklands and Public Facilities Ordinance, the parkland requirement for the Village 2 SPA Amendment Project is approximately 1.68 acres. IX.6 Adequacy Analysis IX.6.1 Parks and Recreation The demand for 1.68 acres of parkland generated by the Project may be met, per the City's PLDO provisions, through the payment of fees, dedication of offsite parkland or a combination of both fees and ]and dedication. Should the Project pursue dedicating offsite parkland, it would be dedicated within either the Village 4 Community Paxk or Village 8 East Community Park. The developer also has park credits from previously dedicated parkland, including park land dedicated with the first final map in the Village 2, 3, and a Portion of Village 4 SPA Plan area. Table IX.3 is a comparison of park acreage demands and supply east of Interstate 805 for existing/approved projects, as well as the phased addition of the Village 2 SPA Plan Amendment. A review of the existing and approved park demands for Chula Vista east of I-805 including the Project indicates a projected 2015 demand of approximately 416.28 acres of Neighborhood and Community Park. The 2075-projected supply of park acreage, including the Village 2 SPA Amendment, east of I-805; 424.91 acres, is 8.63 acres more than the projected demand. February 14, 2012 73 DRAFT Village 2 Supplemental PFFP Table IX.3 Estimated Park Acreage Demand Compared to Supply East of Interstate 805 Population Existing Eligible East of I- Demand Park A park Credit Net Acres+/- 80510 cres Acres Acres Standard Estimated6/30/10 117,528 352.58 390.44~~ 390.44 +37.86 Forecasted Projects to 20 112" 60.34 34.4714 34.47 -25 87 12/2015 , . Village 2 SPA Amendment 632 1.68 - - -1.68 Total 138,272 414.6 424.91 424.91 10.31 IX.6.2 Open Space The Otay Ranch GDP established a 12-acre per 1,000 residents of active or passive recreation as an open space standard. This standard is being met by the on-site dedication of open space acreage and through conveyance of land to the Otay Ranch Preserve pursuant to the Otay Ranch Resource Management Plan (RMP). The location and general extent of open space is determined at the GDP level of planning. As part of the Villages 2, 3 and Portion of Village 4 SPA Plan, The project was required to provide approximately 101.5 acres of open space (predicted population/1,000 x 12 acres = 101.5 acres of open space). The Villages 2, 3 and Por[ion of Village 4 SPA Plan provided approximately 386.1 acres of on-site open space that includes Preserve areas (approximately 182.6 acres) and the use of manufactured slopes together with undishtrbed, non-Preserve areas (approximately 203.5 acres). The Village 2 SPA Amendment would increase the population by 632 residents, increasing the open space demand by 7.56 acres (632 predicted population/1,000 x 12 acres = 7.56 acres of open space). When added to the total from the existing Villages 2, 3 and Portion of Village 4 SPA Plan demand of 101.5 acres, this totals 109.06 acres of open space. The 386.1 acres provided by the Villages Two, Three and Portion of Village Four Site Utilization Plan exceeds the Otay Ranch GDP open space requirement. The 386.1 acres of Open Space lands as indicated on the Site Utilization Plan shall be preserved through the dedication of open space easements and/or lots to the City, CFD or other appropriate agency, or to a Master Community Association, which will be determined at the Tentative Map level of approval. 1° Population figures are from the GMOC 2011 Questionnaire. ~ Based on City Threshold requirement of 3 acres of ueighborhood and community parkland per 1,000 residents east of I-805. ]s Existing Park Acre¢ge Isom the CMOC 201 l Questionnaire. is Population figure derived from the GMOC 2011 Questionnaire. ]n Park acreage from Park Actreage Table from the GMOC 2011 Questionnaire. February 14, 2012 74 DRAFT Village 2 Supplemental PFFP IX.6.3 Trails The SPA Plan area has been designed to accommodate ehe trails program described by the Otay Ranch Overall Design Plan and the City's Greenbelt Master Plan. The plan has been designed as apedestrian-oriented village and provides bicycle, cart and pedestriazi circulation. All circulation elements within the SPA Plan area have been located and designed to be as accessible as possible; however, the paseos and off-street trails contain steep topography that may limit bicycle and cart travel. Regional Community Trails Chula Vista Regional Trails are located on the north side of Olympic Parkway, east and west side of La Media Road and east side of Heritage Road. 'These trails are located adjacent to the roadways and may meander within the street right-of-ways and 75- foot landscape buffers. The decomposed granite trails are 10 feet wide to accommodate pedestrians and bicycles. Otay Ranch Village Greenway The Otay Ranch GDP provides for a Village Greenway to be located through Otay Ranch, specifically through the villages to connect open spaces. The Village Greenway location will be determined in conjunction with the Comnumity Park Design. Village Pathway Village Pathways are inter-village low speed electric vehicle and pedestrian paths that link all of the Otay Valley Parcel villages and paRicularly provide access to the regional transit-way stations. In Village 2, a Village Pathway is proposed to extend from the northeast area of the village through the commercial area and west to Heritage Road. The Otay Ranch Overall Design Plan suggests pedestrian bridges may be used in special circumstances to provide crossings over arterial streets. Proposed locations for pedestrian bridges crossing Olympic Parkway and La Media Road are illustrated on Exhibit 12. There is an existing pedestrian bridge connecting Village 2 with Village 1 to the north and Village 2 and an additional pedestrian bridge is planned to connect with Village 6 to the east. Village Trails Village'I'rails provide alternative circulation routes to village streets for pedestrians and bicycles separate from roadways. Trails are located within open space in the SPA Plan area. The landscape treatment and design elements of trails are addressed more fully in the Montecito Design Plan (Chapter Four of the SPA Plan). Village Streets The village streets are designed to promote pedestrian, bicycle and ]ow speed electric vehicle travel. Low speed electric vehicle and bicycles may travel on village streets of 35 mph or less. Village Pathway streets may provide off-street low speed electric vehicle and bicycle travel. Sidewalks are provided on all village streets. February 14, 2012 75 DRAFT Village 2 Supplemental PFFP Pedestrian Over-crossings (POCs) Pedestrian over-crossings enhance inter-village connectivity and promote the walkability of the Otay Ranch. The two POCs coimected to Village Two complete a continuous Village Pathway and Kegional 't'rail network that loops through and connects Villages One, Five, Six and 't'wo avoiding at-grade pedestrian crossings of arterial streets. February 14, 2012 76 DRAFT Village 2 Supplemental PFFP <;~ ,,,, . _..,- ~. *„ ,~ ',r, ~ , M M r•+" `~ ~ ~~n~ y, ~~ ~ ~ , ,.., l e ~ ' ~'~A . s ~r+"' ro ,v LEGEND ~i FmAWw4s57iM+R +~A YYniAaryr Y,, r~/r ca~- YaMVlrrtmrt,8~»Yyro. Trails Plan -Exhibit 8 February 14, 2012 ,.,~' r ~YF I'f'f #,'~` ~ ~' 77 DRAFT Village 2 Supplemental PFFP IX.7 Financing Park and Recreation Facilities IX9.1 Financing Park Facilities Chapter 17.10 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, as amended, governs the financing of parkland and improvements. Included as part of the regulations are Park Acquisition and Development (PAD) fees established for the purpose of providing neighborhood and community parks. The Ordinance provides that fees be paid to the City prior to approval of a final subdivision. map, or in the case of a residential development that is not required to submit a final map, at the time of the Fnal building permit application. The Project is responsible for both the park development componenC and the acquisition component PAD Fees. The project parkland requirement is 1.68 acres based on CVMC 17.10. The SPA Amendment will meet this obligation either through the payment of PAD fee, dedication of land within the future Otay Ranch Community Park, or a combination of both payment of fees and dedication of parkland Any shortfall in parkland acreage dedication shall result in payment of the Park Acquisition and DevelopmenT (PAD) Fces. PAD Foes are subject to periodic annual increases. Table IV.4 identifies the estimated fees calculated for the parkland development component of the PAD fees. The Developer will pay the acquisition and development component of the PAD Fee as required by the City. The estimated acquisition component of the PAll Fee is $2,013,508. The estimated development component of the PAL) Fee is $770,794. Combined, the estimated fee for both components of the PAD Fee is $2,784,302 (see Table IX.4). Table IX.4 Village 2 SPA Amendment Project Estimated Park Ac uisition and Develo ment PAD Fees Dwelling Unit Type Acgnisition Component of PAD Development Component of Fees/DU Total PAD Fees/DU Total Total Fees SF MF SF @ $12,676 MF @ $9,408 SF @ $4,854 MF @ $3,601 49 148 $621,124 $1,392,384 $237,846 $532,948 $2,784,302 These fees are estimates only and are dependent upon the actual numbers of units filed on the final map. Fees are also subject to change by the City Council. Single Family dwelling units are defined as all Types of single-family detached housing and condominiums. Multi-Family dwelling units are defined as all types of attached housing including townhouses, attached condominiums, duplexes, triplexes and apartments. Park Development fees are updated umually on October 1 in line with construction industry indices. Actual fees are calculated at the Time at which the fees become due. IX.7.2 Financing Recreation Facilities Chapter 17.10 of the CVMC, which requires the collection of fees from residential developments to pay for parkland acquisition and various park facilities within the City of Chula Vista, is subject to changes by the City Council from time to time. On July 13, February 14, 2012 78 DRAFT Village 2 Supplemental PFFP 2004, the City Council approved Resolution 2004-222 and on January 2004, City Council approved the Ordinance 2945. Resolution 2004-222 amended the master fee schedule tc adjust the Parkland Acquisition and Development (PAD) Fees for Neighborhood and Community Park requirements. Ordinance 2945 amended Chapter 17.10 of the CVMC, which requires the collection of In-Lieu Park Acquisition and Development Fees frvm Residential developments that are not required to submit a subdivision map or parcel map. Some of the previous council actions that contributed to an increase in the in-lieu fees for park development and land acquisition are Ordinances No. 2886 and 2887 (both approved on November 19, 2002). Ordinance 2886 amended Chapter 17.10 of the CVMC to update the Parks Acquisition and Development Fees. Ordinance 2887 amended Chapter 3.50 of the Municipal Code, as detailed in the "Public Facilities Z)IF, November 2002 Amendment', adding a new recreation component to the Public Facilities DiF, updating the impact fee structure and increasing the overall fee. Chapter 17.10 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, first adopted in 1971, details requirements for parkland dedication, park improvements and the collection of in-lieu fees (i.e., PAD fees) from developers of residential housing in subdivisions or in divisions created by parcel maps, both east and west of I-805. PAD fees cover parkland acquisition and the cost of related capital items associated with parkland development, including: + Drainage Systems + Street Improvements • Lighted Parking Lots • Concrete Circulation Systems • Security Lighting • Park Fixtures (drinki~ag,founlains, hash receptacles, bicycle Yacks, etc.J • Landscaping (including disabled accessible surfacing) • Irrigation Systems • Restrooms and Maintenance Storage • Play Areas (tot lots, etc.) • Picnic Shelters, Tables, Benches • Utilities • Outdoor Sports Venues (tennis courts, basebalUsoftball fields. basketball courts, multi purpose sports felds, skateboard and roller blade venues) In addition to parks-related items, a 1987 revision called for the dedication, within community parks, of major recreation facilities to serve newly developing communities, including: • Community centers • Gymnasiums • Swimming pools Historically, PAD fees have not been suff eient to construct these additional large capital items. However, major recreation facilities are funded through the recreation component of the PFDIF. The major capita] items to be included in the new cwnponent are community centers, gymnasiums, swimming pools, and senior/teen centers. Based on the February 14,2012 79 DRAFT Village 2 Supplemental PFFP Parks and Recreation Master Plan, 140,595 square feet of major recreation facilities will be required to meet new development growth tlu~ough build-out at a gross construction cost of over $32 million. Since the demand for major public recreation facilities is created by residential development, facilities costs are not spread to commerciaUindustrial development. Table 1X.5 provides an estimate of the Recreational FFD1F Fees for the project. Table IX.S Village 2 SPA Amendment Project Public Facilities Fees for Recreation Prelimina Calculation Develo ment lllJs PFDIF/DU Recreation Fee Sin leFamil Residential 49 $1,164 $57,036 Multi-Famil Residential 148 $1,164 $172,272 Totals 197 $229,308 The projected fee illustrated in Table IX.S is an estimate only. Actual fees may be different. Recreation Fees are subject to change depending upon City Council actions and or Developer actions That change residential densities. IX.B Threshold Compliance and Recommendations Prior Yo issuance of Final Map(s), the developer shall pay to the City the applicable PAD fees in accordance with CMVC Chapter 17.10 and Recreation fees mrderthe PFDIF program. Further, the P-3 Neighborhood Park site shall be delivered to The City in graded condition at or prior to the time the Final Map containing the 212°i aggregate unit has been issued within the R- 7A, R-9A, R-] OA, R-28 and R-29 neighborhoods, or by January 1, 2013, to the satisfaction of the Development Services Director. February 14, 2012 80 DRAFT Village 2 Supplemental PFFP CFF$ iRcfNC.R12X+~ na~« n rvam7~ aF ,wn ~rw,r~r Jro 51 A2Pl/,irR'IKl6? i1lFMroOnn,Kyr ~; vunn F i ~L... ~,- ~~, ~';~`b~"'~,~~~~,M,~n. ~,,, .'~+ R~~' } 1 r ., r. .~~' sir ",, ' _..... LEGEI^dD __.___. r,~m,m ~` ~~ n~.rimwsrr~,aao,~,spxr.~ ~ ~- a ~ " ~%~f PivratvvOpamSj+acc "'~ ~ /orwxaror7q use~eJe~Ogmw~S~nmca` ~ 1 SCN~ St",5o0/ e...... ~~~ Praarenaui<ShreR~ t /-~..a ~~ 141/nyaPel~krr~yq / ' • + o C~Ntarkrr ro lw>,+ra»umrerrn-wnfurrcYivrc j O ~ n9Jk~Conrtnumf~f Ppr,4 rlm59r~naaM 1WaPm [! /n~gm¢sr,~P~1 s Yn~ s~>F ,_.. p ~~'~ P~sgrmrauCamwwwrrr 7,w/r F,xhibit 9 -Parks and Open Space Plan February 14, 2012 81 DRAFT Village 2 Supplemental PFFP X WATER X.1 City Threshold Standards A. Developer will request and deliver to the City a service availability letter from the Water District for each project, as defined by the City. B. The City shall annually provide the San Diego County Water Authority, the Sweetwater Authority, and the Otay Water District with a 12 to 18 month development forecast and requests an evaluation of their ability to accommodate the forecast and continuing growth. The Districts' replies should address the following: 1. Water availability to the City and the Planning Area should consider both short and long- term perspectives. 2. Amount of current capacity, including storage capacity, now used or committed. 3. Ability of affected facilities to absorb forecasted growth. 4. Evaluation of funding and site availability for projected new facilities. 5. Other relevant information the District(s) desire(s) to communicate to the City and GMOC. The growth forecast and water district response letters shall be provided to the CMOC for inclusion in its review. X.2 Service Analysis The Otay Water District (OWD) will provide water service to the Otay Ranch Village 2 SPA Amendment area. The district has existing and planned facilities in the vicinity of the Project. The Overview of Water Service for Otay Ranch Villages 2, 3, and a Portion of 4 and PA 18b, November 2$ 2005, Dexter-Wilson Engineering, Inc., is the basis for this section of the Supplemental PFFP. The Dexter-Wilson report provides recommendations for improvements in zones 624 and 711 that arc needed to provide water service to the proposed development In addition to potable water, the OWD will be the purveyor of recycled water to the Project. The projected water demands for Village 2 were summarized in the May 2006 Subarea Master Plan (SAMP) for Village 2. In addition, a letter update for the proposed 197-unit increase prepared by Dexter Wilson Engineering is used to update the previously prepared Overview of Water Services Study and estimate the water usage of the Village 2 SPA Amendment. February 14, 2012 82 DRAFT Village 2 Supplemental PFFP X.3 Project Processing Requirements The SPA Plan and the PFFP are required by the Growth Management Program to address the following issues for water services. 1. Identify phased demands in conformance with street improvements and in coordination with the construction of sewer facilities. 2. Identify location of facilities foe onsite and offsite improvements in conformance with the master plan ofthe water district serving the proposed project. 3. Provide cost estimates and proposed financing responsibilities. 4. Identify financing methods. 5. A Water Conservation Plan shall be required for all major development projects (50 dwelling units or greater, or commercial and industrial projects with 50 EDUs of water demand or greater. X.4 Existing Conditions Most of the water used in the San Diego County Water Authority (SDCWA} area is imported from the Metropolitan Water District (MWD). MWD receives its water supply through the State Water Project and the Colorado River Aqueduct The SDCWA conveys water from the MWD to local purveyors within San Diego County. 1'he Project is within the Central Service Area of the OWD. Potable water for the development will be supplied from the 711 pressure cone. '1'he 711 Zone will be served by connections to the existing 20-inch transmission line in Olympic Parkway at Heritage Road and La Media Road. A 711 Zone pump station lifts water from the 624Z.,one to the 711 Lone Reservoirs. The District has completed construction of a 16 million gallon 711 Zone reservoir and now has adequate storage capacity to serve ultimate projected development in the 71 ] Zone. Current OWD policies regarding new subdivision development require the use of recycled water where available. Consistent with the OCay Ranch GDP, it is azrticipated that recycled water will be used to irrigate street parkway landscaping, parks and manufactured slopes along open space areas (except in Preserve areas), and landscaped areas of commercial,. industrial mid multi- family sites. The Project is located in the 680 Zone for recycled water service. Currently the only source of recycled water is the District's 1.3 million gallons per day (mgd) capacity Ralph W. Chapman Recycling Yacility. Ultimately, the primary source of recycled water for the SPA Plan area will be the South Bay Water Reclamation Plant. From this plant, the ultimate recycled water system will consist of a series of pump stations, transmission piping and storage reservoirs that will provide recycled water to portions of Otay Ranch, including Village 2. 1n the Otay Ranch area, connections to the system to serve the Village 2 are planned. Otay Ranch may eventually be required to oversize some of these facilities to meet recycled water demand outside of the project. February 14,2012 83 DRAFT Village 2 Supplemental PFFP X.5 Adequacy Analysis X.5.1 Water Conservation Plan A Water Conservation Plan was prepared as part of the Overview of Water Service for Otay Ranch Villages 2, 3, and a Portion of 4 and PA IS$ November 2$ 2005, Dexter- Wilson Engineering, Inc for Village 2. The Village 2 SPA Amendment is subject to the requirements of the Overview of~Water Service for Otay Ranch Pillages 2, 3, and a Portion of 4 and PA 18b. In addition to standard water conservation measures, the multi-Family residential units within Village 2, including R-28 and R-29, committed to the following two measures: 1) The use of water efficient irrigation systems 2) The installation of evapotranspiration controllers The proposed Project must also comply with the requirements of the Chula Vista Model Landscape Ordinance (CVMC 20.12). The Model Landscape Ordinance requires the preparation of Landscape Plans including irrigation system design requirements and calculation of the maximum applied water allowance. X:5.2 Potable Water The design criteria implemented to evaluate the potable and recycled water systems for the Project are established in accordance with the Otay Water District Water Resources Master Plan, October, 2008. The design criteria are utilized for analysis of the existing water system as well as for design and sizing of proposed improvements and expansions to the existing system to accommodate demands in the study area. OWD has established criteria to determine pressure zone boundaries within new and existing developments. Minimum pressure criteria are based on maximum day and fire flow requirements while maximum pressure limitations are imposed to protect internal residential and commercial building water piping from failure under static and transient operating conditions. Maintaining water pressures within the limitations summarized in Table X.1 will also protect the water distribution system piping, valves, pumps, and other appurtenances from premature failure or increased maintenance requirements. Table X.1 Water Pressure Criteria Operating Condition Criteria Pressnre Static Minimum Pressure 65 si Static's Maximum Pressure 200 si Peak Hour Minimum Pressure 40 si Maximum Da lus Fire Flow Minimum Pressure 20 si Fire H Brant The potable water distribution system is typically designed to maintain static pressures between 65 pounds per square inch (psi) and 200 psi. The potable water distribution system has been designed to yield a minimum of 40 psi residual pressure at any location 's Static pressure is based on high water level of operational reservoir. February 14, 2012 84 DRAFT Village 2 Supplemental PFFP under peak hour demand flows and a minimum residual pressure of 20 psi during maximum day demand (MDD) plus fire flow conditions. In addition, potable water mains are sized to maintain a maximum velocity of 10 feet per second (fps} under a maximum day plus fire flow scenario and a maximum velocity of 6 fps under peak hour flow conditions. Table X.2 presents the duty factors used in projecting the total average day potable and recycled water demands for the project. The required fire flows and durations are also listed. The City of Chula Vista utilizes the Uniform Fire Code for determining required fire flows and durations for new development. Table X,2 Water lluty Factors Land Use Desi nation Domestic Demand Re aired Fire Flow Required Fire Flow Duration Hours Sin 9e Famil -Medium 1-3 DU/AC 850 d/unit 1 500 2 Sin le Pamil -Hi h (3-8 DU/AC 500 d/unit 1,500 2 ulti-Famil (~8 DU/AC) 300 d/unit 2,SD0 2 Schools 1,785 d/ac 3,500 3 Commercial 1,785 d/ac 3,000 3 CPF, Fire Station 893 d/ac 3,D00 3 Industrial 893 d/ac 5,000 4 irrigation (Recycled Water) 2,155 gpd/ac -- -- 1'he Village 2 SPA Amendment domestic water use projections are provided in Table X.3. The peak water demand is estimated at 129,600 gpd. This represents an 8% increase (10,500 gpd) above the adopted land uses in these neighborhoods, but less than a 1% increase from what was contemplated under the Overview of Water Service for Otay Ranch Villages 2, 3, and a Portion of 4 and PA 186. As such, the Village 2 SPA Amendment was not required to obtain an SB 610/221 Water Supply and Assessment Verification from OWll because it represents less than a 500 unit increase from the currenfly adopted SAMP, February 14,2012 85 DRAFT Village 2 Supplemental PFFP Table X.3 Pro'ected On-Site Water Demands Land Use/Unit DU Unit Demand Factor Peak Demand m 2006 SAMP R-7A 40 500 d/unit 20,000 R-9A 56 500 pd/unit 28,000 R-28 85 300 d/unit 25,500 R-29 152 300 d/unit 45,600 Subtotal 2006 SAMP 119,100 ,~~~~,/1a,'% Ir~i~;/~/I~,~a~~~ ~~ r,'~~ i ~ ~ ~~e r~ 1! n, ~~ r,%i'il,% i ~1.. {I ~.~r~~,l~, , f i%'~l~lfi!tl~~~~i~'',~,i~~ » ~~' l~,ir~ll~/Gufr~/c!,. ! ~ 'i Current JPB Amendment R-7A 82 300 gpd/unit 24,600 R-9A 67 300 g d/unit 20,100 R-28 135 300 d/unit 40,500 R-29 148 30D d/unit 44,000 Subtotal Village 2 SPA Amendment 432 129,600 Increased Water Demand 10,500 Source: Dexter GVilson Engineering "The Chula Vista Fire Department utilizes the 2007 Uniform Fire Code (2001 UFC) for determining the required fire flows and durations for new developments. The fire flow includes hydrant and building sprinkler requirements. Since anticipated fire flow requirements to the site will exceed peak domestic flow rates, the existing regional potable water system, as analyzed in the SAMP, will have sufficient capacity to provide adequate domestic water and fire service for the project. X.5.3 Recycled Water Recycled water will be used to irrigate all landscaped areas identified in the sub-area master plan, and shall be consistent with the Water Conservation Plan. The project will be served by the 680 Zone recycled water system. The OWD Capital Improvement Program identifies 680 Zone transmission lines in Heritage Road, La Media Road, and Otay Valley Road. A l6-inch 680 Zone pipeline has been constructed in Olympic Parkway along the northern boundary of Village 2. A 12-inch 680 Zone line has been constructed in Ieritage Road with a 12-inch stub south of Olympic Parkway. X.6 Required Facilities The major 711 Zone pipelines have already been constructed to the Project site and the existing looping is considered sufficient to serve the R-7A, R9, R-28 and R-29 neighborhoods. Individual water lines connecting to new dwelling units will be constructed as part of the building process. February 14, 2012 86 DRAFT Village 2 Supplemental PFFP X.7 Financing Water Facilities There are two methods of financing and construction of potable water facilities for the Village 2 SPA Amendment. These methods are as follows: X.7.1 Capacity Fees OWD's Capital Improvement Program (CIP) provides for the design and construction of facilities by OWD. Through this program, OWD collects an appropriate share of the cost from Developers via the collection of capacity fees from water meter purchases. The capacity fees are collected upon the sale of water meters after building permit issuance according to OWD's fee schedule in effect at the time of sale. CIP projects typically include supply facilities, pumping facilities, operational storage, terminal storage, and transmission mains. Specific CIP projects, if required, are identified in OWD's approved SAMP. The OWD may require amendment Co the SAMP for this project. X.7.2 Enaction The Developer designs and constructs facilities that serve their development only. Upon completion, the facilities are dedicated to OWD. According to OWD's policy No. 2G, OWD wilt provide reimbursement for construction and design costs associated with development of these improvements. X.S Threshold Compliance and Requirements A. The developer shall provide water and recycled water improvements according the OWD approved SAMP. The construction of potable water and recycled water facilities, based on the approved SAMP, shall he completed prior to the approval of building permits. February 14, 2012 87 DRAFT Village 2 Supplemental PFFP ~ a ~... F ~,,~. llrvHi•dAp Y' lapin„rr~iv,~ P.anYr+B 7il/6?AZemsrASdDxn ^ ^ ~ ~ ~ ~ EeYI/y b947orew/Nlmfvr .______.__. Pnrymaw bT47snm Fu,Mrrv rr . r t."mNk~yil8.rc Pf",avMkr I»ynrw 3tf7nm/.evAtvs wroa ~.~,,~-+~ N~~ ~a-~,~~~,~Ar>~r,~ Exhibit 10-Potable Water February 14, 2012 ~,. !~'" ~ ~a'r / ~° ~'~^ ~ ~~L~' "" ~~"" 88 DRAFT Village 2 Supplemental PFFP ........om. Pm~n+aw 9k4p -FaaAr.M1ur e~nyr~~'nao~rwur~~ ••••••••°."_ HvpaieYbFO Feaa fveMms 8021 %ey r/vlnr GisMMCIN'fMvwA~r RNmJwdfirgrka~lm dmA~ Exhibit 11 -Recycled Water February 14, 2012 89 DRAFT Village 2 Supplemental PFFP XI S1;WER XL1 City Threshold Standards A. Sewage flows and volumes shall not exceed City Engineering Standards. B. The City annually provides the City of San Diego Wastewater Department (Metro) with a 12- 18 month development forecast and requests (I) confirmation that the projection is within the City's purchased capacity rights and (2) an evaluation of Metro's ability to accommodate the forecast and continuing growth. The City Engineering Department staff gathers the necessary data. 'fhe information provided to the GMOC includes the following: I. Amount of current capacity now used or committed. 2. Ability of affected facilities to absorb forecast growth. 3. Evaluation of funding and site availability for projected new facilities. 4. Other relevant information. XI.2 Service Analysis The Sewer Threshold Standard was developed to maintain healthful, sanitary sewer collection and disposal systems For the City of Chula Vista. Individual projects are required to provide necessary improvements consistent with the City of Chula Vista Wastewater Master Plan dated May 2005 and shall comply with al] city engineering standards. The City of San Diego Metro provides sewer treatment services for the City of Chula Vista in accordance with the terms of a mrdti-agency agreement (Metro Agreement). The Metro system currently has adequate sewage treatment capacity to serve the region until approximately 2025. Development shall not occur without adequate sewer capacity as determined by the City Engineer. Building permits will not be issued if the City Engineer has determined that adequate sewer capacity does not exist. All development must comply with the Municipal Code, specifically Municipal Code sections 19.09.010(A) 6 and 13.14.030. Chula Vista oversees the construction, maintenance and the operation of the sewer trunk line system. The source of information regarding the existing and recommended sewer facilities is from the Project Only Sewer System Evaluah'on for fhe JPB Pillage 2 SPA Amendment by Dexter Wilson Engineering, Inc (April 28, 2011). This study is referred to as the Wilson Sewer Study throughout this Supplemental PFFP. XL3 Existing Conditions XL3.1 Transportation The City of Chula Vista provides the sewer service for Village 2. The sewer collection system for the Project area is within the Poggi Canyon Basin. The City of Chula Vista has the following existing sewer facilities in the Poggi Canyon Basin to serve the Project. dui Canyon Interceptor: The northern portion of Village 2 is within the Poggi Canyon Basin. The existing 18-inch Poggi Canyon Interceptor extends along the length of Village 2's frontage on Olympic Parkway. Backbone sewer lines serving the R-7A, R-9A, R-28 and R-29 neighborhoods have already been installed. February 14, 2012 90 DRAFT Village 2 Supplemental PFFP XL3.2 Treatment Capacity 'The City of San Diego provides sewer treatment setvices for the City of Chula Vista and fourteen other participating agencies in accordance with the terms of amulti-agency agreement. The Merto system includes the Point Loma Sewage Treatment Plant, the North City Reclamation Plant and the Southbay Treatment Plant. The City of Chula Vista holds capacity rights of 19.843 mgd in the Metro system. The City has additional capacity of 1.027 mgd through the Re-Rating process. The total entitled capacity rights that the City of Chula Vista is 20.870 mgd. The City's current average wastewater flow into the Metro system is approximately 16.2 mgd. The Metro system currently has adequate sewerage treatment capacity to serve the region until approximately 2025. The City of Chula Vista may reach its contractual capacity limits prior to 2025. According to the GMOC 2009 Annual Report and City Staff, the City's current contracted capacity rights with Metro are expected to be exceeded in about five years (see Table Xi.l ). The City is working with Metro tr> address the best way to increase its allocated amount of sewage treatment capacity in order to meet build-out sewage flow estimates. For the longer term capacity needs, the Wastewater Master Plan provides the City's build- out treatment capacity and infrastructure needs. in addition, it also established the basis for the sewer capacity fee update. Table XI.1 Estimated Sewa a Flow and Treatment Ca aci Approximate Projection for Projection for Projection Current Flow next 18 mo. next 5 ears "]3uildout" Average Flow 76.2 17.326 19.251 26.2* (MGD) Ca acity 20.87** 20.87** 20.87** 20.87*" " Build-out Projection based on the General Plan Update (Adopted General Plan "Build-out" - 262 MCD) "* Increase in capacity is based on the allocation of additional capacity rights resulYiug From fhe constructio n of the new Southba ~ Treatment Platrt. ' Source: City of Chula Yista XI.4 Adequacy Analysis Dexter Wilson Engineering utilized the City Subdivision Manual to calculate the average daily wastewater inflows to the off-site sewer. A comparison between the sewer flows from the approved Village 2 land uses plan and the Village 2 SPA Amendment are presented in'I'able XI.2. The Project is estimated to have an average wastewater flow of 95,765 gallons per day (gpd), approximately 42,400 gpd (160.1 EDU) more than the adopted SPA Plan designation for the subject site. February 14, 2012 91 DRAFT Village 2 Supplemental PFFP Table XL2 Adopted /Amended Wastewater Flow Projections Descripfion Land Use Units Generation Rate Projected Average Flow d LDU Approved Land Plan R-7A SF 44 265 gpd/unit 11,600 44 R-9A SF 56 265 d/wait 14,840 56 R-28 MF 46 199 gpd/unit 9,140 34.5 R-29 MF 89 199 gpd/unit 17,690 66.7 fe';lif ~%l/~%,'~/i%~~,~ ~lC/li ~~i~o%i ~,~o i/ic~i oi,l/r~~i lip/,,:;ij/i ,~l ~~./~3,,~~~/ il~~'I rt~i,~~/~'f%ir, L~ii/i/i, D/~l~s i/ //,,/,;, , /,,,,, ~//I/, ~/r~~~ //ifs ~/~6 Via!,/: /~j,/~i~%~~/~~~%~ ~f~4~~%1//,%N~~ir ~ ~i/t%~,i~~~~~r,.., r~,, Village 2 SPA Amendment R-7A SF 82 265 gpd/unit 21,730 82 R-9A SF 67 265 gpd/unit 17,755 67 R-28 MF 135 199 gpd/unit 26,830 101.3 R-29 MF ~~ ~,~~~'r~iir~pr~;i~<~~~ ~ o~/J„i~~~'r1~ Proposed Sewer Increase 148 ~~,r, ;~ 199 gpd/unit %~'fi~~%r/'l//lilt/~/'r,~ 29,450 i2r~/r~i/i~~ ~~ ,rr lrn~~ ii%~~~ 42,400 111.1 '~r~, i;~ 160.1 Som~ce: Dexter Wilson Engineering The Wilson Sewer Study used calculations in accordance with the methods described in the City of Chula Vista Subdivision Manual. The average daily wastewater inflows to the off-site sewer were calculated at each node by land use type (see Dexter Wilson April 2011 study for details). The 2009 Poggi Canyon Basin Gravity Sewer Development Impact Fee update (DIF Report) projected 2,780 EDUs in the approved Village 2 band Use Plan. Adding an additional 160.1 EDU will exceed the units foreseen in the 2009 Poggi DIF Update. Table X1.3 shows two reaches in the Poggi Interceptor as being over capacity. The Developer is required to monitor these two reaches and upsize pipe as shown in the mitigation. February 14, 2012 92 DRAFT Village 2 Supplemental PFFP TABLE XL3 POGGI CANYON IN'CERCEPTOR SUMMARY i C Permit ted EDIJs Committed F,DUs VIDa e 2 SPA Am endment REACI3 ty apac at d/D=.85 EUOs Current Remaining Capacity Current ftemalning CapaciTy EDU9 Nets EDUs Permitted Remainin Net Committed Remaining EDOs P102to P140 18,367 11,602 6,765 16,204 2,163 160 6,605 2,003 P140toP175R 22,192 11,602 10,591 16,204 5,988 160 10,431 5,828 P175Rto P195 35,898 11,602 24,296 16,204 19,694 160 24,136 19,534 P195to P230 18,367 10,726 7,640 15,328 3,039 160 7,480 2,.879 P230 to P240 16,427 10,053 6,374 14,655 1,772 160 6,214 1,'612 P240to P253R 16,427 10,053 6,374 14,655 1,772 160 6,214 1,612 R253R to P270 12,175 9,763 2,412 14,365 (2,190 16D 2,252 2,350 P270to P305 12,175 8,587 3,589 13,125 950 16D 3,429 1,110 P305to A3 L0 38,503 8,587 29,916 12,609 25,894 160 29,756 25,734 P310to P345 1.7,047 8,447 8,600 12,469 4,578 160 8,440 4,418 P345 to P365 13,339 8,289 5,049 12,312 1,027 160 4,889 867 P365to P405 17,305 8,289 9,016 11,590 5,715 160 8,856 5,555 P405to P410 13,339 7,770 5,569 11,070 2,269 160 5,409 2,109 u/sP410to SR125 13,339 6,605 6,733 '9,906 3,433 160 6,573 3,273 February 14, 2012 93 DRAFT Village 2 Supplemental PFFP XI.S Facility Phasing One primary phase of development is proposed. The existing 18-inch Poggi Canyon Interceptor extends along the length of Village 2's frontage on Olympic Parkway. Backbone sewer lines connecting the R-7A, R-9A, R-28 and R-29 neighborhoods to the Interceptor have already been installed. The development of individual building sites will commence as the market dictates. Build-out of all building sites may occur over a several year period. Sewer laterals to serve the Project are the responsibility of the developer. XL6 Financing Sewer Facilities To fund the necessary future improvements to the Poggi Canyon Interceptor, development impact fees have been established by the City of Chula Vista. Adoption of City of Chula Vista Ordinance Numher 2716, as amended, established a fee to be paid for future development within the Poggi Canyon Basin that connects into the existing system. The Chula Vista City Council has authorized the collection of a fee to aid in the cost of processing sewerage generated in the city. The current fee is $265/EDU. Single Family Dwellings are considered 1.00 EDU and Multi-Family Units (apartments and condominiums) are considered .75 EDU. The Sewer Capacity Fee is subject to periodic adjustments. Table XL4 summarizes the fees to be paid by the Project. 'These fees will be collected before building permits are issued. Table XI.4 Projected Sewer Fees Land Use Addifional EDUs Poggi Canyon Estimated Fee Im act Fee Villa e 2 SPA Amendment 160.1 $265/EDU $42,426 In addition to the Poggi Canyon Impact Fee, new development is subject to the City of Chula Vista's Sewerage Participate Fee. The Sewerage Participate Fee was established to aid in the cost of processing sewerage generated in the City. The current fee is $3,478 per EDU. Table XL5 estimates the current Sewerage Participation Fee for the Village 2 SPA Amendment at $556,827.80. Table XI.S Village 2 SPA Amendment Sewerage Participation Fee Land Use Additional EDUs Fee Estimated Fee Villa e 2 SPA Amendment 160.1 $3,478 er EDU $556,827 These tables are only an estimate of the potential fees that may be required for the Village 2 SPA Amendment. Actual fees will be calculated at the time building permits are issued and may be different. Tables do not include the current Sewer Administration Fee, which is currently $45/Building Connection. February 14, 2012 94 DRAFT Village 2 Supplemental PFFP XL7 Threshold Compliance and Requirements Adding azr additional 160.1 EDU will exceed the units foreseen in the 2009 Poggi DIP Update. Table XL3 shows two reaches in the Poggi Interceptor as being over capacity. These are the same two stretches which have already been identified for future replacement. The Village 2 SPA Amendment does not require additional reaches of the Poggi Canyon Interceptor to be upgraded. Prior to the issuance of the first building permit related to any project uses served by the Poggi Canyon Sewer, and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, the applicant shall: 1 J Bond for the improvement of the constrained reach at Brandywine Avenue (Reach P270) with the first final map for the project, unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer; 2.) Monitor sewer flows within the Poggi Canyon Sewer Basin to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and submit quarterly reports to the City upon the issuance of the first building permit within the Project; unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer; 3 J Obtain the approval for the improvement plan and any necessary environmental permits for Reach P270 prior to the first final "B" Map, unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer; 4.) Commence construction of Reach P270 upon reaching a d/D of 0.75, unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer; 5.) Complete construction of Reach P270 the sooner of one year after occupancy of the first unit sewering to the Poggi Canyon System, or a d/D of 0.85, unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer; 6) Not seek building permits within the Poggi Canyon Sewer Basin if any segment of the Poggi Canyon Trunk Sewer achieves a d/D of 0.85, or the City Engineer has determined, at his sole discretion, that there is not enough San Diego METRO treatment capacity for the proposed project, unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. The Project shall pay fees pursuant to City of Chula Vista ordinance, as may be amended from time to time, or provide sewer improvements, as needed. Fees shall be paid prior to the issuance of Building Permits. The Metro system currently has adequate sewerage treatment capacity to serve the region until approximately 2025 when new treatment facilities are expected to become operational. The City of Chula Vista, however, may reach its contractual capacity limits sooner than 2025. The developer shall pay capacity fees at building permit issuance. Development shall not occur without adequate sewer capacity as determined by the City Engineer. Building permits will not be issued if the City Engineer has determined that adequate sewer capacity does not exist. All development must comply with the Municipal Code, specifically M.C. Sections 19.09.010 (A) 6 and 13.14.030. February 14, 201.2 95 DRAFT Village 2 Supplemental PFFP ,~r n 4 '~ '} ii~,*T?A~~ ~ " ` rr ^ tY{ / a~M ~ ~, .., ~ ,Ir~ ~,,. r ~ ~ , ,,,, PCGGI CANYdN o INiERCEPTpR ~ Y i II. P `w+'~.+~c. tiW.r. Ril r~ % ~ r , .. ~4"i. ei mw n~ d"'" '~ rv ~.! ~s~ i~, '~''~l ~' ~~ A~i n Im'~i'' ~i Irv" Ii ~/ ',~ 1 u ~ 1 ~0 ~ `~ r ,,' ~~, ~ ~ r^ ~i xw ~ i~ ~treo it '` ~ ~- r° i ,r~ r P r, ~~{ 1 . -' a { r t" -"'..~ .' r` P9TENTd JNd' t y\ ~ ACE M d{ fw '.. gyp, EP ~ ,'. 1. ~'a~ it py ~ ~ TP ~~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~~ ~',~ {.E, ^rY. ~'*., TEHik ~ ~. ~~ RIM d r, J 6TAT1 i~r ,dim <.n, '~ a,?l "ri! ~ / n 1 ~""" [Y_. kmA ~ ~ ~{ i C ~ /'~~~~ / I "~ ~ ~ r° k, / i rl r%/- 10 ~ „a RgCK MdiDNTAMi -~.•/~ 1 ~%r~ fy• ROA09EWER L{MP. ` i I ,~+ I voocn M vN.~ J ~n W.u /1 ~~ ~~ ~~ p ~s / /J ~ t Ct ~ ~ ' LEGEND ~,,. •' ~ , ..K~-... Fm~, ar r ~~ ~ ~~,y.z .' ~ /,~, r ~-~~ ~° au r; r .... r r ~ r'" lc~d J"' ~„`T'7 f ~~rM~ +~ranwr/m+mw iS ~~~ru~ l 1 S~sr Fmr Nlaw r AR:C r-~ "/ a ~ ". 7/ ^ /°"" w 1 1? I '~ Pdtmna~fnfirorm~ '~ ~~r 3anr1dY9htrow ;., 1 L Td BALI CREHK ~+yy ^ ', tt MTERC£PTdR s T ~'l0'/gAIGSEW£RSN~E ~""' -~}~!"~ ,P~/gpyq~vysrgq, 8-LYrM U.omm~~:v? UME55rY07!';p OYFFERn?5E- ~' krvr+,mn,:q. Exhibit 12 -Sewer Ptan February 14, 2012 96 DRAFT Village 2 Supplemental PFFP XII ll12AINAGE XII.1 Threshold Standard I. Storm water flows and volumes shall not exceed City Engineering Standards. 2. The GMOC shall annually review the performance of the City's storm drain system to determine its ability to meet the City's goals and objectives. In addition to these adopted Thresholds, the following recommendations from the approved Villages 2, 3 and portion for Village 4 PFFP apply to the Project: 3. Additional drainage analysis may be required at the tentative map phase of the project to demonstrate the adequacy of the proposed on-site storm drain system(s) and the existing storm drain connections. 4. Future drainage reports shall be prepared by the Applicant, as required by the City of Chula Vista, for the final engineering phase(s) of the project. XIh2 Service Analysis The City of Chula Vista Public Works Department is responsible for ensuring safe and efficient storm water drainage systems are provided concurrent with development to protect residents and property within the city. City staff is required to review individual projects to ensure improvements are provided consistent with the drainage master plan(s) and that the project complies with all City engineering drainage standards. The City of Chula Vista Public Facilities Plan Flood Conh^ol Summary Report, dated March 1989 (Phase II) provides details for the city planned drainage facilities. The Village 2 SPA Amendment project is under the jurisdiction of the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board (SDRWQCB) and is also subject to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements both during and after construction. NPDES requirements stem from the Federal Clean Water Act and are enforced either by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) or the SDRWQCB. The Project is also subject to the current Hydromodification Management Plan (HMP) standards. The Villages 2, 3 and Portion of 4 SPA Plan drainage improvements were identified in the Master Drainage Study, for Otay Ranch Villages 2, 3 & 4, dated July 14, 2005, by Hunsaker & Associates. Stormwater runoff pollution prevention and control measures for were identified in the Preh~minary Water Quality Technical Report for Otay Ranch Villages 2, 3 and 4, dated September 14, 2004, by Hunsaker & Associates. The Hunsaker studies assessed the existing and developed condition drainage conditions for the entire Villages 2, 3 and portion of 4 areas. The Master Drainage Study prepared hydrologic models to quantify existing and developed condition peak flows to Poggi Canyon Creek and Wolf Canyon Creek and designed detention facilities to maintain developed condition peak flowrates below the pre-developed peak flowrates to Poggi Canyon and Wolf Canyon. February 14, 2012 97 DRAFT Village 2 Supplemental PFFP Because the Project is processing new Tentative Maps, it is also subject to the Interim Hydromodification Management Plan (HMP) standards adopted since the Master Drainage Study, for Otay Ranch Pillages 2, 3 & 4 was approved. As such, Hmisaker and Associates has prepared the supplemental Pillage 2 SPA Amendment Water Quality Management Plaia, November 2R, 2011, to calculate additional drainage volumes resulting from the Village 2 SPA Amendment project and proposing detention and clean water facilities to treat the drainage to higher standards. XIIL3 Project Processing Requirements The SPA Plan and the PFPP are required to address the following issues for drainage issues: 1. identify phased demands. 2. identify locations of facilities for onsite and offsite improvements. 3. Provide cost estimates. 4. Identify financing methods. XII.4 Existing Conditions The project area currently is in various stages of development. Portions of R-7 and R-9 are frilly graded, and improvements such as streets and water and sewer lines have been constructed. R-10, R-28 and R-29 were mass graded as part of the previous Villages 2, 3 and portion of 4 SPA Plan approval and subsequent grading plans. Runoff from the northern portion of the Village 2 property (R-7A, R-9A) drains to Poggi Canyon Creek while the southern portion of the site (R-28, R-29) drains to Wolf Canyon Creek. XIL4.1 Poggi Canyon The Poggi Canyon Creek channel enters the Otay Ranch property just downstream of the existing 7 foot x 8 foot box culverts under La Media. Runoff from Village 6 and the Freeway Commercial Area empties into Poggi Canyon Creek via an 84-inch and a 96- inch RCP in the downstream headwall of the box culverts. At that location, runoff from. Village 6 property (south of Olympic Parkway) confluences with runoff from the existing F,astlake Greens development, the Eastlake Land Swap Area, as well as the Village 5. The combined runoff then flows in a westerly direction via a constructed channel on the north side of Olympic Parkway through the Otay Ranch Village 1 -Phase 4 area. The Poggi Canyon Creek channel crosses under Olympic Parkway via twv box culverts near the boundary of Village 1 -Phases 4 and 7. At the downstream headwall, runoff from the graded Otay Ranch High School site confluences with runoff in Poggi Canyon Creek. Between the high school site and Heritage Road, runoff is conveyed via an existing trapezoidal channel. Runoff from Village 2 enters the channel from. the south along this reach. A natural channel enters the constructed Poggi Canyon Creek channel just upstream of the Heritage Road crossing. Runoff from Village 1 -Phase 7 site also enters the main channel at this location. February 14, 2012 98 DRAFT Village 2 Supplemental PFFP Downstream of the Heritage Road culvert structure, runoff flows in a westerly direction via a constructed 50-foot wide trapezoidal channel. Again, runoff from Village 2 drains To the channel from the south. Near the Village 2 entrance road from Olympic Parkway, runoff from Village 1 West enters the channel from the north. The combined runoff flows through two box culverts under the proposed entrance road and into the existing Poggi Canyon Regional Detention Facility. An existing detention basin is located at the western boundary of the Otay Ranch Company's ownership. XII.4.2 Wolf Canyon Wolf Canyon Creek's main drainage course forms the southern and eastern boundary for Village 2. A large tributary, named Baldwin Branch, confluences with Wolf Canyon Creek near the downstream limit of the Village 2. A significant portion of the Village 2 property drains to Baldwin Branch while the remainder drains directly to Wolf Canyon Creek. Following the Baldwin Branch -Wolf Canyon confluence, Wo1FCanyon Creek flows in a southerly direction just east of the Village 3 property boundary. Wolf Canyon discharges runoff to the Otay River in the existing rock quarry area. XILS Proposed Facilities XIL5.1 Storm Drainage Runoff within the developed Village 2 site will he directed towazd Poggi Canyon via internal storm drain systems. The Villages Two, Three and Portion of Village Four PFFP indicated that [he runoff to Poggi Canyon will be routed through the existing Poggi Canyon Regional Detention Facility which effectively attenuates the 100-year developed peak flow. For air overview of the proposed storm drainage facilities, please refer to Exhibit 12 - Drainage Plan, and the Village 2 SPA Amendment Water Quality Management Pdan, November 28, 2011, prepared by Hunsaker and Associates. XIL5.2 Storm Water Quality Option 1 includes constructing permeable paver areas within the courtyards/driveways with adequate storage for bioretention. The proposed permeable pavers were sized based on their respective drainage areas, runoff factors (per the City of Chula Vista), and a Sizing Factor of 13% to address water quality and hydromodification. This option also proposes to utilize the approved hydrodynamic separation system (Vortech unit) and a media filtration unit (Stormfilter) to treat a portion of the entitlement areas for Neighborhoods R-7A and R-9A. Options 2 and 3 address water quality by utilizing the regional stortnwater treatment train consisting of a hydrodynaznic separation system (Vortech unit) and a media filtration unit (Stormflter). An approved Vortech/Stormfilter Treatment System is located at the southwest corner of the Heritage Road-Olympic Parkway intersection per Che approved 2006 Water Qualify Technical Report for Otay Ranch Village 2 -North "Rough February 14,2012 99 DRAFT Village 2 Supplemental PFFP Graded". The Vortech unit has been sized to heat the entire 85th percentile flow from the entire Village 2 North site including Neighborhoods R-7A and R-9A and the Stormfilter is sized to additionally treat a third of the 85th percentile flow. Option 2 proposes to upsize the Stormfilter unit based on Neighborhoods R-7A and R-9A being re-entitled. The Stormfilter unit would be upsized to treat the entire 85th percentile flow generated from Neighborhoods R-7A and R-9A. Similarly, Option 3 will utilize the approved treatment train concept and upsize the Stormfilter unit. However, the upsize would be based on all of the areas from the Village 2 North.'I'hese areas include Neighborhoods R-6, R-7, R-8A, R-8B, R-9A, and R-9B. To address Hydromodification, the permeable pavers in Option I will be underlain with a bioretention area and sized for adequate area and volume storage based on sizing factors per Table 4-I1 of the San Diego County StJSMP. Underground detention vaults are proposed to address Hydromodification for Options 2 and 3. See Attachments D and H for discussion and calculations regarding the Hydromodifcation Management Plan for this project implementing Options 2 and 3. Peak flow attenuation is provided downstream by the existing Poggi Canyon Regional Detention Basin. According to page 3-37 of the City of Chula Vista Development Stormwater Manual, "All treahment control BMPs for priority development prgjects shall, at a minimum have high or medium pollutant removal efficiency for the project's most significant category of pollutants of concern...:'. The BMPs described above are categorized as having "High" pollutant removal efficiency for the primary pollutant of concern for this project, which are pesticides. For additional information on the proposed storm water quality facilities, please refer to the Village 2 SPA Amendment Water Quality Management Plan, November 2$ 2011, prepv~ed by Hunsaker and Associates. XIL6 Financing Drainage Facilities X11.61 Onsite Facilities City policy requires that all master planned developments provide for the conveyance of storm waters throughout the project to City engineering standards. The project will be required to construct all onsite facilities that have not yet been identified through the processing of a subdivision. hi newly developing areas east of I-805, it is the City's policy that development projects assume the burden of funding all maintenance activities associated with drainage facilities. As such, the City will enter into an agreement with the project applicant whereby maintenance of drainage facilities will be assured by one of the following funding methods: A property owner's association that would raise funds through fees paid by each property owner; or 2. A Community Facilities District (CFD) established over the entire project to raise February 14, 2012 100 DRAFT Village 2 Supplemental PFFP funds through the creation of a special tax for drainage maintenance purposes. XIL6.2 Offsite Facilities The project applicant shall agree to secure and construct the Vorteeh/Stormfilter Treahment System located at the southwest corner of the Heritage Road-Olympic Parkway intersection. 'Ihe Applicant may propose to conshuct this regional facility in phases with approval of the City Engineer. XIL7 Threshold Compliance and Recommendations XII.7.1 Compliance A. The planned development of the Otay Ranch Villages 2, 3, and a Portion of Village 4 SPA will not adversely impact the existing natural drainage condition. The increased runoff due to the development will be mitigated by use of detention basins as identified in the Village 2 SPA Amendment Water Quality Management Plan, by Hunsaker & Associates. B. Prior to approval of the Tentative Map and/or Site Plan by the Design Review Committee, whichever occurs first, applicant shall demonstrate compliance with the City of Chula Vista Storm Water and Discharge Control Ordinance and the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Municipal Permit (including the Final Model SUSMP for the San Diego Region). The Applicant shall obtain the approval of the City Engineer of a Water Quality Technical Report that includes the following elements: 1. Description of project characteristics, site conditions, flow patterns, pollutants emanating from the project site, and conditions of concern. 2. Description of site design and source control BMPs considered and to be implemented. 3. Description of applicable treatment control BMPs considered and to be implemented to reduce or treat the identif ed pollutants. Treatment control BMPs may be selected from those post-construction BMPs analyzed in The Water Quality Repoli prepared by Rick Engineering or similar type of BMPs as approved by the City Engineer. 4. Justification for selection of the proposed treatment control BMPs) including 1) targeted pollutants, justification, and alternative analysis, 2) design criteria (including calculations), 3) pollutants removal information (other than vendors specifications), and 4) literature references. 5. Site plan depicting locations of the proposed treatment control BMPs; and 6. Operation and maintenance plan for the proposed treatment control BMPs. February 14, 2012 101 DRAFT Village 2 Supplemental PFFP XIL7.2 Recommendations The project shall be responsible for the conveyance of storm water flows in accordance with City Engineering Standards. The City Engineering Division will review all plans to ensure compliance with such standards. The project shall be required to comply with all current regulations related to water quality including best management practices (BMPs) for the construction and post conshvction phases of the project. Both the fuhire land development construction drawings and associated reports shall be required to include details, notes and discussions relative to the required or recommended BMPs. The project applicant will assure that maintenance of drainage facilities are funded through a homeowner's association and/or participation in a Community Facilities District (CFD). February 14,2012 102 DRAFT Village 2 Supplemental PFFP VORTECH/ STQfjJvtFIL,TER VORTECH! STORMFILTERS r" ./ ~ r ~J;r' f_ ~~ry ' / ~/// ae vdRTEaHr ,r~-w~ BTdRMFILTER Ar` r~ . ~~ ~,. r, 7 f,r ~~. ~y r.,~, tV i 3tl .. 42 '+ .. ,w ±r ~ 42.7E rggx .. ~ n Mr. ~~ e,.i i~'2,4~ew ~~ Y 4 „t r ~'tL itr n a4°. ~,,, "~ ."~? N~4] 24~ k r~.,j ~ t ~r~ r .., ~.,,. 30 ~ ~ , ^N e ~ r i s, ~ ,~ '~ i / i ); ~, ~l LiT,<,~ ^'-f N~ ,.~ %2A .' ~ , r Sp^ ~ . G~ ~ ~ ~' ~a„e ' 4s~y ,. OETENTVON BASIN ~;.~,n, rvrinn mu ~~, ~~~ i~~'r'z ~ 72~ ` " 6~ ~u ~ I'....y 80 U I ..fit ~,,~. s„„~~n ruvr ! r r' m ~~a~j/~ ,NJ'.'r w° r .~ {~ „.. ~f' clvi 1 , ~ AF ~ ~yyE ff,~., • of r~ MA ., w° V`x,r .,µ'y\ ~ rv W ( ti i7Pl /' ( N'W ,Y( ~ l ~ ^ ~~ u, ,»~ ,+ i c:~sr W~ i t~ t YORTECH/ ~^+rr~ y '~. STdRMF1LTER 1q,,.. ~,, ~, ~n~. -~ ~,-vim EXISTING YdRTECHi STORMFILTER f.~~ ~ VdRTECHI STdRMFILTER )N BASIN LEC,EtdL7 „ f~7sfn~9reriar67tun :~ AmaSfied SParr~s~ 13m/iz Lfroe.Sixcd ,~. Yerrrckamd5ramcfi/rer urorrt~r,~s Par+tarfnro&z,Yro~ Exhibit 12 -Drainage Plan February 14, 2D12 103 DRAFT Village 2 Supplemental PFFP XIII AIR QUALITY XIIL1 City Threshold Standards The City annually provides the San Diego Air Pollution Control District (APCD) with a 12 to 18 month development forecast and requests an evaluation of its impart on current and future air quality management progruns, along with recent air quality data. The growth forecast and APCD response letters must be provided to the GMOC for inclusion in its review. The City of Chula Vista has established. a general target of 20% below business as usual for the purposes of assessing operational GHG emissions. XIII.2 Service Analysis XIIL2.1 Air Quality Improvement Plan The City of Chula Vista has a Growth Management Element (GME) in its General Plan. One of the stated objectives of the GME is to be proactive in its planning to meet federal and state air quality standards. This objective is incorporated into the GME's action program. To implement the GME, the City Council has adopted the Growth Management Program that requires Air Quality Improvement Plans (AQIP) for major development projects (50 residential units or commercial/industrial projects with equivalent air quality impacts). Title 19 (Sec. 19.09.0508) of the Chula Vista Municipal Code requires that a SPA submittal contain an AQIP. The AQIP shall include an assessment of how the project has been designed to reduce emissions as well as identify mitigation measures in accordance with the adopted AQIP Guidelines. The Project was previously evaluated under the 2002 AQiP Guidelines and, pursuant to those guidelines, opted to comply with the GreenStar program. Subsequent to the adoption of the Villages 2, 3 and Portion of Village 4 SPA Plan, the City updated the municipal code relative to energy efficient. As such, the Project is now required to comply with the Green Building and Energy Efficiency Ordinances, CVMC 15.12 and 15.26.030 respectively, which require implementing sustainable design features and improving building energy conservation ]5% to 20% above 2008 State Energy Code requirements. Therefore, the previous 2002 AQIP requirements related to GreenStar and The 2001 energy code are no longer applicable and were removed from the AQIP Guidelines in 2009. The Air Pollution Control District is responsible for the Air Quality Maintenance Program in compliance with the California Clean Air Act. 1"here is no local Master Plan for Air Quality. February 14, 2012 104 DRAFT Village 2 Supplemental PFFP XIIL3 Adequacy Analysis I'he Village 2 SPA Plan Amendment Air Quality Technical Report dated Jwae 2011 by Ihedek, evaluated the potential for adverse impacts to the ambient air quality due to construction and operational emissions resulting from the Project. Construction would result in a temporary addition of pollutants to the local airshed caused by soil disturbance, fugitive dust emissions, and combustion pollutants from on-site construction equipment, as well as from off-site trucks hauling construction materials. The analysis concludes that the daily construction emissions would not exceed the significance thresholds for criteria pollutants (See'Table XII.1 and X11.2). Table X1II.1 - Estimated Maximum Daily Construction Emissions (pounds/day) VOC NO, CO SO, PMto PMzs 2011 2.86 23.49 12.98 0.00 12.49 3.44 20].2 14.06 22.00 40.05 0.04 12.39 3.35 2013 13.70 17.99 37.52 0.04 1.29 1.08 2014 13.37 16.62 35.16 0.04 1.1.7 0.97 2015 13.06 15.28 32.99 0.04 1.09 0.90 2016 12.77 14.10 31.06 0.04 LOU 0.81 Maximum Daily Emissions 14.06 23.49 40.05 0.04 12.49 3.44 City of Chula Vista Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55 Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No Table XIIL2 Estimated Daily Maximum Operational Emissions - 2016 (pounds/day) Proposed Project Emissions VOC NO, CO SO, PMro PMzs Summer Motor Vehicles 9.43 11.07 107.79 0.14 24.68 4.76 Area Sources 14.22 2.57 9.84 0.00 0.02 U.U2 Total 23.65 13.64 117.63 0.14 24.70 4.78 City of Chula Vista Threshold 55 55 S50 150 150 55 Threshold Exceeded? No No No No Na No Winter Motor Vehicles 9.54 16.19 113.03 0.12 24.68 4.76 Area Sources 12.73 4.10 1.75 0.01 0.13 0.13 Total 22.27 20.29 114.78 0.13 24.81 4.89 City of Chula Vista Threshold 55 55 550 150 !50 55 Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No Source: URBEMIS 2007 Version 9.2.4. See Appendix A fnr complete results. "Summer" emissions are representative of the conditions that may occur during the ozone season (May 1 to October 31) and "Whlte>" emissimrs, are representative of the conditions that mny occur during the balance of the year (November 1 to April 30) Air quality impacts resulting from construction would be less than significant. The Project would not result in any significant longterm (operational) impacts to air quality, as new mobile and February 14,2012 105 DRAFT Village 2 Supplemental PFFP stationary sources following the completion of construction activities would remain well below the significance thresholds. The ~ildage 2 SPA Plan Amendment Aar Quality Technical Report also evaluated the potential effect on global climate change, and emissions of greenhouse gases were estimated based on the use of construction equipment and vehicle trips associated with construction activities, as well as operational emissions once construction phases are complete. The estimated GHG emissions associated with vehicular traffic, area sources, electrical generation, water supply, and solid waste generation are shown below in Table XHL3. The estimated emissions of CO2E would be 3,752 metric tons per year without the GHG reducton measures ("business as usual"), and 2,81D metric tons per year with the GHG reduction measures. As indicated in Table XIIL3, the GHG reduction measures would reduce GHG emissions by approximately 25%. Table XIIL3 - GHG Emissions for Village 2 SPA Amendment Estimated O erational GHG Emissions metric tons/ ear Source COZE Emissions CO=E Emissions w/ GHG Reduction Measures Percent Redaction Motor Vehicles 2,409 1,638 32% Area Sources Natural Gas Combustion 523 445 15% Hearth Combustion and Other 2 2 0% Electrical Generation 287 244 15% Water Supply 24R 198 20% Solid Waste Generation 282 282 0% Total 3,752 2,810 25% With implementation of Chula Vista-required GHG reduction measures, the Project would reduce GHG emissions by as much as 25%,therefore exceeding the target of 20% below business as usual that has been established for the purposes of assessing operational GHU emissions of projects in the City of Chula Vista. Furthermore, the Project would be consistent with Section 15.26.030 of the City's Municipal Code by employing energy efficient measures beyond those required by the Energy Code, resulting in a IS% reduction in emissions generated by in-home energy use. XIIL4 Threshold Compliance and Requirements The City will continue to provide a development forecast to the APCD in conformance with the threshold standard. See the Village 2 SPA Plan Amendment Air Quality Technical Report, dated Tune 2011 by Dudek. A. The applicant shall demonstrate consistency with Section 15.26.030 of the City's Municipal Code by employing energy efficiency measures beyond those required by the Energy Cade, resulting in a 15% reduction in emissions generated by in-home energy use. February 14, 2012 106 DRAFT Village 2 Supplemental PFFP XIV CIVIC CENTER: XIV.1 City Threshold Standards There is no adopted threshold standards for these facilities. The facility information is being provided in this reporC to aid in establishing operational benchmarks which will determine construction phasing of the Civic Center. These facilities are funded through the collection of the PFDIF in effect at the time building permits are issued. XIV.2 Service Analysis Although the existing Civic Center successfully accommodated city administration offices prior to the mid-1980's population growth, increase in City staff to meet new demands of growth caused increasing congestion problems. City staff in the Public Services Building experienced space shortages, a lack of privacy and storage, and frequent noise distractions. This was reported in a survey, which is included in the Civic Center Master Plan dated May 8, 1989. Site Alternative Three "The Suburban Scheme" was selected from the master plan at a City Council conference on June 22, 1989. XIV.3 Existing Conditions In July of 2001, the final master plan for the renovations to the Civic Center was approved by City Council. Rebuilding the Civic Center was project to cost approximately $50 million, which was primarily funded by development fees (89%). The new City Hall Redevelopment, the construction of the new Public Services Building and the gutting and remodeling of the old Police Station for additional offices was completed in 2008. XIV.4 Adequacy Analysis The need for the Civic Center cannot be easily related. to population figures or acres of commercial and industrial land which will be developed in the future. Expansion of the Civic Center Complex included space planning, design, and construction to keep pace with demand for additional work space. City Hall facilities have been renovated and now include a new state of the art Council Chambers, a conversion of the old Police Station to additional office space and re- building of the Public Services Building. XIV.S Financing Civic Center Facilities 1'he Public Facilities Development Impact Fee (PFDIF) was updated by the Chula Vista City Council on November 7, 2006 by adoption of Ordinance 3050. The PFDIF amount is subject to change as it is amended from time to time. The Civic Center PFDIF Fee for Single Family Development is $2,670/unit. The Civic Center PFDIF' Fee for Multi-Family Development is $2,528/unit. At the current fee rate, the Village 2 SPA Plan Amendment Civic Center Fee obligation aY buildout is $504,974 (see Table X1V.1). February 14, 2012 107 DRAFT Village 2 Supplemental PFFP Table XIV.1 Civic Center Fee For Village 2 SPA Amendment Develo ment DUs PFDIF/DU Civic Center Fee Sin leFamil Residential 49 $2,670 $130,830 Multi-Famil Residential 148 $2,528 $374,144 Totals 197 $504,974 The projected fee illustrated in Table XiV1 is an estimate only. PFDIF Fees are subject to change depending upon City Council actions and or Developer actions that change residential densities. Actual fees may be different. . XIV.6 Threshold Compliance and Requirements Civic Center facilities will be funded Through the payment of the public facilities fees. Fees shall be paid prior to the issuance of building permits at the rate in effect at the time payment is made. February 14, 2012 108 DRAFT Village 2 Supplemental PFFP XV CORPORATION YARD XV.1 Threshold Standards There is no adopted threshold standard for this facility. 1'he facility information is being provided in this report to aid the City in calculating the PFDIF to be paid by the Village 2 SPA Amendment for corporation yard. XV.2 Service Analysis New development, with its resultant increase in required maintenance services, creates a need for a larger corporation yard. A 25-acre yard is located at 1800 Maxwell Road. XV.3 Existing Conditions The 25-acre Corporate Yard facility was previously an SDG&E equipment and repair facility. 'T'he City renovated and added new improvements for the maintenance and repair of city owned equipment. 'I'bis facility consists of a renovated building that serves as the administration building for the Corporate Yard. Existing shop buildings have been renovated and new shops have been added as well as a new maintenance building. The Corporate Yard includes parking for employees, city vehicles and equipment. In addition, there is a Bus Wash, CNG /Fuel Island and associated equipment. XV.4 Adequacy Analysis The need for a Corporate Yard cannot be easily related to population figures or acres of commercial and industrial land which will be developed in the future. The growth in population, increase in street miles and the expansion of developed areas in Chula Vista requires more equipment for maintenance as well as more space for storage and the administration of increased numbers of employees. The need for a larger Corporation Yard has been specifically related to new development. XV.S Financing Corporate Yard Facilities The Public Facilities Development Impact Fee (PFDIF) was updated by the Chula Vista City Council on November 7, 2006 by adoption of Ordinance 3050. The PFDF'' amount is subject to change as it is amended from time to time. The Corporate Yard PFDIF F'ee for Single Family Development is $438/unit and for Mulfr-Family Development it is $351/unit. At the current fee rate, the Village 2 SPA Amendment Corporate Yard Fee obligation at build-out is $73,410 (see Table XV.1). February 14, 2012 109 DRAFT Village 2 Supplemental PFFP Table XV.1 Corporate Yard Fee For Village 2 SPA Amendment Development DU's PFDIF/DU Estimated Corporate Yard Fee Sin le Famil Residential 49 $438 $21,462 Multi-Family Residential 148 $351 $51,948 Totals 19'7 $73,410 The projected fee illustrated in Table XV.1 is an estimate only. PFDIF Fees are subject to change depending upon City Council actions and or Developer actions that change residential densities. Actual fees may be different. XV.6 Threshold Compliance and Requirements Corporate Yard facilities will be funded through the payment of the public facilities fees. Fees shall be paid prior to the issuance of building permits at the rate in effect at the time payment is made. February 14,2012 110 DRAFT Village 2 Supplemental PFFP XVI OTIIER PUBLIC FACILITIES XVI.1 Threshold Standard There is no adopted threshold standard for these facilities which are part of the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee Program and include GIS, Computer Systems, Telecommunications, Records Management System and Administration. The information regarding these capital items is being provided in this section of the Supplemental PFFP to aid the City in calculating the PFDIF to be paid by the Village 2 SPA Amendment. XVL2 Existing Condifions The City collects funds femn building permit issuance in the Eastern Territories for deposit to the accounts associated with Administration costs only and not the other aforementioned public facilities. Funds are not currently collected for records management, telecommunications, computer systems and G1S. XVL3 Financing Administration Facilities The Public Facilities Development Impact Fee (PFDIF) was updated by the Chula Vista City Council on November 7, 2006 by adoption of Ordinance 3050. The PFDIF amount is subject Co change as it is amended from time to time. The Administration PFDIF Fee for Single Family Development is $586/unit and Multi-Family Development is $554/unit. AC the current fee rate, the Village 2 SPA Amendment Other Public Facilities Fee obligation at build-out is $110,706 (see'Iable XVL1). Table XVL1 Public Facilities Fees For Administration Facilities Develo ment DU's PFDIF/llU Civic Center Fee Sin le Famil Residential 49 $586 $28,714 Multi-Family Residential 148 $554 $81,992 Totals 197 $] 10,706 The projected fee illustrated in Table XVL1 is an estimate only. PFDIF Fees are subject to change depending upon City Council actions and or Developer actions that change residential densities. Actual fees may be different. XVL4 Threshold Compliance and Requirements Administration Facilities will be funded through the payment of the PFDIF. Fees shall be paid prior to the issuance of building permits at the rate in effect at the time payment is made. February 14, 2012 111 DRAFT Village 2 Supplemental PFFP XVIL FISCAL XVIL1 Threshold Standard A. The GMOC shall be provided with an annual fiscal impact report, which provides an evaluation of The impacts of growth on the City, both in terms of operations and capital improvements. This report should evaluate actual growth over the previous 12-month period, as well as projected growth over the next 12-18 month period, and 3-5 year period. B. The GMOC shall be provided with an annual "economic monitoring report" which provides an analysis of economic development activity and indicators over the previous 12-month period, as well as projected growth over the next 12-18 month period, and 3-5 year period. XVIL2 FISCAL IMPACT ASSUMPTTONS AND CONCLUSIONS: There is no existing Master Plan for fiscal issues. Ilowever, the City of Chula Vista has a fiscal model that is used to determine the land use changes to the General Plan. The Fiscal Impact Analysis of the Village 2 SPA Amendment, dated Jaimary, 2012, was prepared by ProForma Advisors. The FIA is based on the City of Chula Vista's SPA Fiscal Impact Analysis Framework. The FIA was required by the City of Chula Vista to identify the estimated fiscal impact that the Village 2 SPA Amendment will have on the operation and maintenance budgets of the City of Chula Vista (general fund). ProForma Advisors prepared an analysis of the fiscal impacts on the City of Chula Vista General Fund. The City requested ProForma prepare fiscal impact analyses to evaluate the impact of developing the Lake Pointe project under two alternative scenarios: (1) under the approved land use designations (Approved Village 2 SPA); and (2) assuming the proposed project land uses (Village 2 SPA Amendment). The models address recurring annual revenues and operating expenditures to the City over a 10-year period. The Approved Village 2 SPA, as approved, is expected to generate five years of net fiscal costs during the build out period and the Amended Village 2 SPA is expected to have a similar net fiscal cost period during build out. Net fiscal revenues will be generated in the sixth year and are expected to grow as the SPA is built out. (The focal fiscal costs generated within the first five years should be recaptured in full within three years of the break even period.) Using the requested fiscal impact framework, the Approved Village 2 SPA is projected to generate an annual net fiscal revenue of $523,000 in Year 10 if built. The Village 2 SPA Amendment includes less single family units and additional muhi-family units relative to the Approved Village 2 SPA, generating higher revenues, but also higher public safety costs. The Village 2 SPA Amendment is projected to generate an annual net fiscal revenue of $452,000 in Year 10. If the Approved Village 2 SPA can be built, the opportunity cost of the amendment relative to the Approved Village 2 SPA is $71,000. The difTerence between the Amended and Approved Village 2 SPA should be considered within the context of (1) the feasibility of each of the scenarios, (2) the overall anticipated costs, and (3) potential economies of scale: February 14, 2012 112 DRAFT Village 2 Supplemental PFFP As mentioned in the Context section, the applicant believes that the higher number of single family traits is less likely to get built in the near-term due to the current economic climate and difficulty potential buyers have qualifying for loans at the prices needed for developers to construct this type of residential product The opportunity cost only exists if the Approved Village 2 SPA can be built without the amendment. • Relative to the overall costs and revenues anticipated from either the Approved Village 2 SPA or Village 2 SPA Amendment, $71,000 is a modest difference. The anticipated difference is 2 percent of the overall costs anticipated for the Approved Village 2 SPA of $3.6 million. • Using the current fiscal az~alysis framework, public safety costs are increased for denser residential product. This is likely true for certain fire costs, where there are some tangible increases in service costs to respond to calls in denser areas, but this is less true for police services where more of the costs are for patrols that are done by neighborhood. Using the current fiscal impact framework, there is limited consideration for economies of scale, particularly due to the density adjustment factor for dwelling units. For analytical purposes it is helpful to understand the potential maximum average costs of new developments, but the City still has an opportunity to address the overall costs of serving new development. o In Year ] 0, the Approved Village 2 SPA accounts for $2.2 million in funds for police and f re services. If all the $2.2 million is spent on police and fire service wages, this supports approximately 16.4 police and fire F"I'E3. The Village 2 Amendment accounts for $2.4 million in funds for police and fire services which supports approximately 17.6 police and fire FTPA. Particularly in the first few years of development, the City should consider whether there is the capacity to stretch its existing staff to serve the new development and use the revenues to help support any projector citywide deficits. Overall, development of the Village 2 Amendment is not expected to adversely impact'. the City of Chula Vista's quality of life. The Village 2 Amendment generates a positive net impact at build out. In addition the Village 2 Amendment generates more revenues that the Approved Village 2 SPA and, based on the City's ability to create economies of scale within police and fire services, the development may have the possibility of generating higher net revenues for the rest of the City. XVIL3.THRESHOLD COMPLIANCE AND 12EQUIREMENTS: Utilizing the previously mentioned scenarios, ProForma estimated the net fiscal impacts. All values are in 2011 dollars. The estimated annual flows of costs and revenues are primarily related to the estimated project absorption. Similar to the currently Approved Village 2 SPA, there will be net fiscal costs for the first five years, but the deficit will be recaptured in full within three years thereafter. The Village 2 Amendment has a lower net fiscal revenue relative to the Approved Village 2 SPA. The difference should be considered within context; as a projection the difference is modest, approximately 5 percent of total costs. February 14, 2012 1.13 DRAFT Village 2 Supplemental PFFP It is also worth noting that the Village 2 SPA Amendment generates more gross revenue to the Cify of Chula Vista, as well as other taxing entities such as the school district, and, across all land uses, allocates $2.4 million in support to police and fire services in Village 2. Additional police and fire service support in the Village 2 SPA Amendment equates to supporting approximately 1.2 additional full time equivalent police and fire personsl compared to the Approved Village 2 SPA. The results of the analysis will be included in the next annual fiscal and economic report prepared for the GMOC. February 14, 2012 114 DRAFT Village 2 Supplemental PFFP XVIII PUBLIC FACILITIES FINANCE XVIILI Overview All development within the City of Chula Vista must be in compliance with the City's Growth Management Program. The appropeiate public facility financing mechanisms are required and approved by the City to fund the acquisition, construction and maintenance of public facilities. New facilities will be required to support the planned development of the project. The public facilities are generally provided or financed in one or more of the following ways: Subdivision Exaction, Development Impact Fee and Debt Financing. It is anticipated that two methods will be utilized for the project to construct and finance public facilities. XVIIL2-Development Impact Fce (DIF) Public infrastructure is funded through the collection of an impact fee. Constructed by the public agency or Developer constructed with a reimbursement or credit against specific fees. Development Impact Fees (DIF) are acceptable methods to contribute to the financing of capital improvements within the city of Chula Vista. The Village 2 SPA Amendment Project is subject to fees established to help defray costs of facilities that will benefit the project. These fees include but may not be limited to: A. Transportation Development Impact Fee (TDIF): Established to provide financing for circulation element road projects of regional significance. B. Public Facilities Development Impact Fee (PFDIF): Established to collect funds for civic center facilities, police, corporation yard, libraries, fire suppression system, recreation and administration. C. Traffic Signal Fees: To pay for Yraffic signals associated with circulation element streets. D. Otay Water District Fees: The district may require annexation to an existing improvement district or creation of some other finance mechanism that may result in specific fees being modified. E. Poggi Canyon Sewer Development Impact Fee: To pay for sewer facilities within the Poggi Canyon Sewer Basin. XVIII.3 Debt Finance Programs The City of Chula Vista has a history of using assessment districts to finance a number of street improvements, as well as sewer and drainage facilities. The Otay Municipal Water District has used such improvement districts for water system improvements. Both school districts have implemented Mello-Roos Community Facility Districts to finance school facilities. XVIlL3.1 Assessment Districts Special assessment districts may be proposed for acquiring, constnicting and/or maintaining certain public improvements under the Municipal Improvement Act of 1913 and the hnprovement Bond Act of 1915. The City has suspended the use of the Lighting and Landscape Act of 1972 for new open space district formation due to the passage of February 14, 2012 115 DRAFT Village 2 Supplemental PFFP Proposition 218. The administration of the special assessment district is the responsibility of the public agency. XVIIL3.2 Community Facilities District (CFD) On January 13, 1998, the City Council adopted the "City of Chula Vista statement of goals and policies regarding the establishment of Community Facilities Districts" (CFD's). The approval of this document ratified the use of CFD's as a public financing mechanism for: • The construction and/or acquisition of public infrastructure, and • The financing of authorized public services, including services provided by open space districts. On April 28, 1998, the City Council enacted the "Chula Vista Community Facilities District Ordinance." This ordinance adopted the Mello-Roos Act with modifications to additionally include the following: • Incorporate all maintenance activities authorized by the "Landscaping & Lighting Act of 1972" (1972 Act) and • Include maintenance activities not listed in the "Mello-Roos Act" or the "1972 Act." Special assessment financing may be appropriate when the value or benefit of the public facility can be assigned to specific properties. Assessments are levied in specific amounts against each individual property on the basis of relative benefit. Special assessments may be used for both publicly dedicated on-site and off-site improvements. XVIn.3.3 Me11o-Roos Community Facilities Act oI1982 The Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982 authorizes formation of community facilities districts that impose special taxes to provide financing for certain public Facilities or services. Facilities which can be provided under Che Act include the purchase, construction, expansion, or rehabilitation of: Local park, recreation, or parkway facilities; Elementary and secondary school sites and structures; Libraries; and, any other governmental facilities that legislative bodies are authorized to construct, own or operate. In addition, the City has enacted an ordinance that adopted the Mello-Roos Act with modifications to accomplish the maintenance of facilities. XVIIL4 Other Methods Used to Finance Facilities XVIIL4.1 General Fund The City of Chula Vista's general fund serves to pay for many public services throughout the City. Those facilities and services identified as being funded by general fund sources represent those that will benefit not only the residents of the proposed project, but also Chula Vista residents Throughout the City. In most cases, other financing mechanisms are available to initially construct or provide the facility or service, and then general fund moneys would only be expected to fund the maintenance costs once the facility is accepted by the City. February 14, 2012 116 DRAFT Village 2 Supplemental PFFP XVIIL4.2 State and Federal Funding Although rarely available to fund an entire project, Federal and State financial and technical assistance programs have been available to public agencies, in particular the public school districts. XVIIL4.3 Dedications Dedication of sites by Developers for public capital facilities is a common financing tool used by many cities. XVIII.4.4 Developer Reimbursement Agreements Certain facilities that are located off-site of a project and/or provide regional benefits may be constructed in conjunction with the development of the project. In such instances; developer reimbursement agreements may be executed to provide for a future payback to the Developer for the additional cost of these facilities. Future developments are required to pay back their fair share of the costs for the shared facility when development occurs. XVIII.4.5 Homeowners Associations One or more Community Homeowner Associations may be established by the developer to manage, operate and maintain private facilities and common areas within the project. XVHL4.6 Special Agreements/Development Agreement 'T'his category includes special development programs for financing special arrangements between the City and the Developer such as credits against fees, waiver of fees, or charges for the construction of specific facilities. A development agreement can play an essential role in the implementation of the Public Facilities Financing Plan. The Public Facilities Finance Plan clearly details all public facility responsibilities and assures that the construction of all necessary public improvements will be appropriately phased with actual development, while the development agreement identifies the obligations vrd requirements of both parties. XVIIL4.7 Park Acquisition and Development Fees Fee established to pay land and improvements by new development. XVHLS Cumulative Debt The City of Chula Vista has an established policy limiting the maximum debt to be placed on a residential dwelling unit to an additional one percent above the property tax. This policy was restated in the adopted Growth Management Program. Like many other cities, Chula Vista has long understood that it is noY the only agency that can utilize public finance mechanisms and, therefore, camrot always guarantee that the total debt will remain at or below a maximum of 2 percent. The City needs to coordinate its debt finance programs with the other special districts that provide service to the residents of Chula Vista to ensure that the cumulative debt does not become excessive. Coordination is also February 14, 2012 117 DRAFT Village 2 Supplemental PFFP necessary to guarantee all public facilities needed to support a development can be financed and. constructed as needed. XVIIL6 Lifeeycle Cost Section 19.09.060 Analysis subsection F(2) of the Growth Management Ordinance requires the following: "...The inventory shall include Life Cycle Cost ("LCC") projections for each element in 19.09.060(E) ... as they pertain to City fiscal responsibility. The I,CC projections shall be for estimated life cycle for each element analyzed. The mode] used shall be able to identify and estimate initial and recurring life cycle costs... XVIIL6.1 Background Life Cycle Costing (LCC) is a method of calculating the total cost of asset ownership over the life span of the asset. initial costs and all Subsequent expected costs of significance are included in the LCC analysis as well as disposal value and any other quantifiable benefits to be derived as a result of owning the asset. Operating and maintenance costs over the life of an asset often times far exceed initial costs and must be factored into the decision process. LCC analysis should not be used in each and every purchase of an asset. "the process itself carries a cost and therefore can add to the cost of the asset. LCC analysis can be justified only in those cases in which the cost of the analysis can be more than offset by the savings derived through the purchase of the asset. Four major factors that may influence the economic feasibility of applying LCC analysis are: 1. Energy Intensiveness -LCC should be considered when the anticipated energy costs of the purchase are expected to be large throughout its life. 2. Life Expectancy -For assets with long lives (i.e., greater than five years), costs other than purchase price take on added importance. For assets with short lives, the initial costs become a more important factor. 3. Efficiency -The efficiency of operation and maintenance can have significant impact on overall costs. LCC is beneficial when savings can be achieved through reduction of maintenance costs. 4. Investment Cost - As a general rule, the larger the investment the more important LCC analysis becomes. XVIIL6.2 Applications for LCC Analysis The City of Chula Vista currently utilizes LCC analysis in determining the most cost effective purchase of capital equipment as well as in the determination of replacement costs for a variety of rolling stock. The use of LCC techniques takes place in the preparation of the City's Five Year Capital Improvement Budget (CIP) as well as in the Capital Outlay sections of the annual Operating Budget. February 14, 2D1Z 118 DRAFT Village 2 Supplemental PFFP 'T'here are no project facilities that are not covered by LCC analysis. to these existing processes, the City should require the use of I,CC analysis prior to or concurrent with the design of public facilities required by new development. Such a requirement will assist in the determination of the most cost effective selection of public facilities. February 14, 2012 119 DRAFT Village 2 Supplemental PFFP APPENDIX A FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS February 14, 2012 120 µ ~rr~ ~t~rrra Report for: Fisca mpact Ana ysis of the Ui age 2 SPA Amendment Chula Uista, CA Prepared for: JPB Development Prepared by: Pro Forma Advisors, LLC, re+ep March 1 2012 PFAID:10-225 Version: 2.0 Pm Forma Advisors, LLC Los Angeles T 310.616.5079 New York Meho T 203,604.9007 F 888.696.9716 ~"SYtlM.F'C.G.ES![RI~Yh°9h`~rim Pro Forma Aden :rs ~~~_G °fir~~~~ of ~~s~att~;~t;~ ResrxNts Entrcrduaastiore 7 Context 7 P~'o~¢a.7;r~Sed AYS'flE!GkP,SrC1eN"tlt '~~ Absorption Schedule ~'~ Med4~cac0¢rtlrrgq °V Budget Factors and Adjustments '~ Revenue Methodology "q 7 Expenditure Methodology C~ P'~s~~u;ad ~r%apact~~> "~'9 Village 2 SPA Amendment "~~ Approved Village 2 SPA Conclusions ~~ 8s~lc~px ~T Pro Forma Advisors, LLC PFAID: 10-225 ' Pro Forma Ar1~15 ~r: ~Lc General Limiting Conditions Certain information included in this report contains forward-looking estimates, projections and/or statements. Pro Forma Advisors LLC has based these projections, estimates and/or statements on expected future events. These forward- looking items include statements that reflect our existing beliefs and knowledge regarding the operating environment, existing trends, existing plans, objectives, goals, expectations, anticipations, results of operations, future performance and business plans. Further, statements that include the words °may," "could," "should," "would," "believe," "expect," "anticipate," "estimate," "intend,' "plan," "project," or other words or expressions of similar meaning have been utilized. These statements reflect our judgment on the date they are made and we undertake no duty to update such statements in the future. No warranty or representation is made by Pro Forma Advisors that any of the projected values or results contained in this study will actually be achieved. Although we believe that the expectations in these reports are reasonable, any or all of the estimates or projections in this report may prove to be incorrect. To the extent possible, we have attempted to verify and confirm estimates and assumptions used in this analysis. However, some assumptions inevitably will not materialize as a result of inaccurate assumptions or as a consequence of known or unknown risks and uncertainties and unanticipated events and circumstances, which may occur. Consequently, actual results achieved during the period covered by our analysis will vary from our estimates and the variations may be material. As such, Pro Forma Advisors accepts no liability in relation to the estimates provided herein. In the production of this report, Pro Forma Advisors has served solely in the capacity of consultant and Pro Forma Advisors has not rendered any "expert" opinions and does not hold itself out as an "expert" (as the term "expert" is defined in Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933). This report is not to be used in conjunction with any public or private offering of securities, and may not be relied upon with the express written consent of Pro Forma Advisors. This study is qualified in its entirety by, and should be considered in light of, these limitations, conditions, and considerations. Pro Forma Advisors, LLC PFAI D: 10-225 Pro Forma ~a"~ s _Lc ~~n.~d~ Introduction JPB Development retained Pro Forma Advisors to evaluate the fscal impacts to the City of Chula Vista's General Fund of a proposed amendment to the Village 2 Sectional Plan Area ("SPA") which will allow for the development of 197 additional residential units. The following analysis evaluates the net fiscal impact of the Village 2 SPA Amendment across a 10-year period and reviews the annual net fiscal impact of the approved Village 2 SPA including substantial conformance ("Approved Village 2 SPA"i across a similar 10-year period as a point of comparison. For the purposes of this analysis, net fscal impacts refer to the fiscal revenues of the SPA less the fiscal costs generated by the SPA. A positive net fiscal impact means that the SPA's fiscal revenues covers the costs generated as a result of the SPA. The amount of the Village 2 SPA Amendment's net fiscal impact above or below the Approved Village 2 SPA net fiscal impact is the opportunity cost generated as a result of the amendment. Results Using the City of Chula Vista's SPA Fiscal Impact Analysis Framework, the Village 2 SPA Amendment is projected to generate a positive annual net fiscal impact of approximately $452,000 in Year 10. Property taxes and VLF revenues are the greatest sources of revenue. The Village 2 SPA Amendment is expected to generate fscal revenues of approxi- mately $4.3 million. Property taxes and VLF revenues will make up almost 70 percent of the projected revenues. While the addition of muRi family units will bring in more revenue in the Village 2 SPA Amendment relative to the approved scenario, the addition of the units will also generate higher costs, primarily from higher projected public safety costs. The Village 2 SPA Amendment is expected to generate annual fiscal expenditures of $3.9 million in Year 10. The Approved Village 2 SPA is projected to generate a positive annual net fiscal revenue of $523,000 in Year 10. In both the current Approved Village 2 SPA and the Village 2 SPA Amendment, net fiscal costs are projected for the first five years of absorption. Revenues outweigh costs in Year 6 and grow until the program is built out in Year 8. The Approved Village 2 SPA is expected to generate annual fiscal revenues of $4.2 million in Year 10, primarily from property taxes and VLF revenues. On the cost side, the Approved Village 2 SPA is projected to generate annual expenditures of $3.6 million in Year 10. Conclusions As shown in Figure 1, the Village 2 Amendment generates a positive net impact at build out. Similar to the currently Approved Village 2 SPA, there will be net fscal costs for the first five years, but the defcft will be recaptured in full within three years thereafter. The Ullage 2 Amendment has a lower net fscal revenue relative to the Approved Village 2 SPA. The difference should be considered within context; as a projection the difference is modest, approximately 2 percent of total costs, and, given the current climate, there are some questions on when and if the Approved Village 2 SPA can be built. It is also worth noting that the Village 2 SPA Amendment generates more gross revenue to the City of Chula Vista, as well as other taxing entities such as the school district, and, across all land uses, allocates $2.2 million in support to police Pro Forma Advisors, LLC Paye3 PFAID: 70-225 Pro Forma Adw era ~_LC. and f re services in Village 2. Additional police and fre service support in the Village 2 SPA Amendment equates to supporting approximately 0.35 additional full time equivalent police and fire personsr compared to the Approved Village 2 SPA. Overall, development of the Village 2 Amendment is not expected to adversely impact the City of Chula Vista's quality of life. The Village 2 Amendment generates a positive net impact at 0uild out. The Village 2 Amendment generates more gross revenues than the Approved Village 2 SPA and, based on the City's ability to create economies of scale within police and fire services, the City has an opportunity to generate higher net revenues relative to the Approved Village 2 SPA. Based on FY10-11 Average wage and benefts costs for police and fire. Pro Forme Advisors, LLC Page4 PFAID: 10-225 Pro Forma P.dvl~ ~ _~_G Y cd C a c d E 4 a N d a1 i i 3 a7 LL a c y 0 0 N Pro Forma AOVisors, LLC Page 5 PFAI D: 1 D-225 Pro Forma a N N a v d a 0 L a a N i O) LL a 0 ti N Pro Forma Atlvisors, LLC Page6 PFAID: 10-225 Pro Forma Ac~v~ era ~Lc 0ro-~m~aa~~otNO~ JPB Development retained Pro Forma Advisors to evaluate the fiscal impacts to the City of Chula Msta's General Fund of a proposed amendment to the Village 2 Sectional Plan Area ("SPA") which will allow for the development of 197 additional residential units. A fiscal impact analysis of the proposed Village 2 SPA Amendment is required as part of the supplemental Public Facilities Financing Plan (PEEP). The Supplemental PFFP ensures that the future development of the Village 2 neighborhoods are consistent with the overall goals and policies of the City's General Plan, Growth Management Program and that the development of the project will not adversely impact the City's Quality of Life Standards. The following analysis evaluates the net fiscal impact of the Village 2 SPA Amendment across a 10-year period and reviews the annual net fiscal impact of the approved Village 2 SPA including substantial conformance ("Approved Village 2 SPA") across a similar 10-year period as a point of comparison. For the purposes of this analysis, net fscal impacts refer to the fiscal revenues of the SPA less the fscal costs generated by the SPA. A positive net fscal impact means that the SPA's fiscal revenues covers the costs generated as a result of the SPA. The amount of the Village 2 SPA Amendment's net fiscal impact above or below the Approved Village 2 SPA net fiscal impact is the opportunity cost generated as a result of the amendment. ~i~:AC1ta„~~& The need for the proposed Village 2 SPA Amendment arises out of the decline in the economic climate since 2005 and the resultant shift in residential trends. The Village 2 neighborhoods were rough graded in 2008. However, the applicant determined that due to ongoing negative housing market conditions and homebuyer fnancing challenges, the product types anticipated in the original Village 2 approval are no longer feasible. Evolving Residential Market Since 2006, there has been higher demand and production of smaller homes on smaller lots as a result of a confluence of short-term and potentially long-term economic factors. These factors include (1) homebuyerfinancing challenges (2) fnancial feasibility for developers and (3) a shift in homebuyer preferences. With the sharp contraction in the housing market that occurred in San Diego and across the nation, prices dropped approximately 38 percent in San Diego County between March 2006 and March 2011 ~. Both new homeowners and many previous homeowners who refinanced homes were left underwater on their loans; compounded by high unemployment rates, the nation's banks have been hit by foreclosure rates not seen in decades. As a result of high unemployment rates, reduced home prices, and concerns about job stabilHy, banks severely tightened their financing standards in 2008. In a time of unheard of low home mortgage rates, few have been able to qualify. Banks tightened downpaymenUequity requirements, debt-to-income ratios and required higher minimum credit scores. Even many "prime" borrowers have been unable to qualify for loans unless they meet the strict 20 percent downpayment rates or are able to access FHA loans. As a result, the home price buyers can afford has decreased. Banks are slowly loosening 2 Based on analysis of the S&P Case-Shiller Index for San Diego County. Pro Forma Advisors, LLC Page 7 PFAID: 10-225 Pro Forma their standards, but the home mortgage standards are still strict and, in the shadow of the recent recession, will likely be strict for years to come. Financial Feasibility Another important shift is the reduction in home prices between 2006 and 2011. The following chart shows per square foot prices of Chula Vista home sales closed between March and November 2006 relative to per square foot prices of home sales between March and November 2011 by size. Smaller homes can achieve higher prices per square foot, but, on average, price per square foot of home has decreased roughly 35 percent between 2006 and 2011. This is much greater than the reduction in cost per square foot to build, which has only decreased roughly 12 percent between 2006 and 20113. The result is homebuilders are building smaller homes because costs have not dropped proportionate to prices meaning they must build smaller homes to minimize costs and achieve the profit margins required to build. Figure 3: Price per Square Foot in 2006 vs 2011 ~~,z~,~s,a,.N, `=JJr.X' Ms Many anticipate that for environmental, economic, and lifestyle reasons there may be a gradual permanent home buyer shift towards smaller, compact residential developments. This shift was noted at a recent New Partners for Smart Grow[h conference in San Diego. According to a recent story in the UT San Diego, Chris Nelson, Director of the Metropolitan Research Center at the University of Utah reported that "43 percent of Americans prefer traditional big, suburban homes, but the rest of Americans do not"4: 3 As reported by JPB. ^ Showley, Roger. "U.S. Overbuilt in Big Houses, Planners Find: 40 Million Houses Too Many -One Explanation For Fal- ling Prices." U-T San Diego. February 2, 2012. swyvw..ulsarNieao corn> Pro Forma Advisors, LLC PageB PFAID: 10-225 Pro Forma P.dvis^,rs ~~~ "That means we are out oibalance in terms of where the market is riyht now, let alone trending toward the suture, " he said. He estimated that this demand suggests a need for 10 million more attached homes and 30 million more small homes on 4, 000-square-foot lots or less. By contrast, demand for large-lot homes is 40 million less than currently available. "!s it any wonder that suburban homes are plummeting in price, because there is far less demand of those homes than in the past, " he said. "5 Having experienced the housing boom and bust of the recent decade, Generation Y/Millennials may not consider homeownership a secure investment and are less interested in homeownership than previous generations and at the same time the Baby Boomers are at an age when they may be considering downsizing their households. These generational trends are contributing to an overall preference shift towards smaller homes, denser homes in amenity rich urban environments. Impacts to the Village 2 SPA As a result of these market forces, many home builders, including the applicant, are looking to build smaller homes. The applicant is proposing detached homes on smaller lots within neighborhoods R-7A and R-9A and increasing densities in R-28 and R-29 Village Core multi-family neighborhoods to jump start development in Village 2. s Showley, Roger. "U.S. Overbuilt in Big Houses, Planners Find: 40 Million Houses Too Many -One Explanation For Fal- ling Prices." U-T San Diego. February 2, 2012. <www,.uisandiega,.com> Pro Forma Aavlsors, LLC Page9 PFAID: 10-225 Pro Forma Pr~>~~oa~ rraa~nrna~ra~ 'The proposed Village 2 SPA Amendment would convert single family areas in the SF-3 and SF-4 zones to RM-1 and RM-2 and add 197 units to the Village 2 neighborhoods of R-7A, R-9A, R-28 and R-29. In addition, the proposed amendment will require an additional 0.88 acres of community purpose facilities which will be integrated into acres currently categorized as ROW/Other. Figure 4 - Otay Ranch Village 2 Sectional Plan Area Location Map The table below presents the land use program for the Approved Village 2 SPA at build out and the Village 2 SPA Amendment at build out. Pro Forma Atlvlsors, LLC Page 10 PFAID: 1 D-225 v u~cu Xce~Ut ut Ctv of Ursa Vsta V~ajor F!opcts m Cn Fed~opmenL4~eas ~4ap Figure 5 -Land Use Program Pro Forma ac's ~~~s i _C 'For purposes of this analysis, MF Attached have been defned as homes with a density of 8 - 12 DU/acre zFOr purposes of this analysis, MF Detached has been defined as homes with a density X12 DU/acre Source' JP3 ~Jevalopment ~~Z,uror~a4iiudnq ~s:~f~~&ui~ The following absorption schedules were developed based on a review of the historical absorption of single-family and multi-family units in the City of Chula Vista across the last 10 years. The historical absorption of residential units is shown in the Appendix Table 2. There was a large number of units added to the City between 2000 and 2005,13,6D0 units, with the build out of Eastlake, San Miguel Ranch, and continued build out of residential and commercial developments in Otay Ranch. The number of annual residential units added to the City peaked at 3,000 in 2005 and began a significant downward slide thereafter, with only an estimated 39D units added to the market in 2010. During the first part of the decade single-family units made up a majority of new development, but in 2D06 single family development began to wane due to the overall housing market decline and specifically due to the establishment of strict loan qualifcations with the downturn in the economy. Across the last five years, multi-family units have made up approximately 50 percent of residential development. The 2010 Growth Forecast report, prepared by the City, estimates residential growth for the City of Chula Vista based on information provided by the development community. The 2010 - 2015 forecast is shown in the Appendix Table 3. According to the growth forecasts, Village 2 will be approximately 34 percent of the growth in Chula Vista across the next 5 years. While historically, multi-family unds were approximately 50 percent of development relative to single family units, according to the forecasts multi-family units are projected to be 60 percent of new development. Pro Forma Atlvlsors, llC Paye i 1 PFAID: Y 0-225 Pro Forma nCv'~ ~,~ ~ _~c Figures 6 - Amended ~Ilage 2 SPA Projected Absorption 0_ / 1 B~ 4 1 / Y A' • B Y B 1 SF Units 23 93 198 358 518 678 838 878 878 878 8781 Multl Famlly Units 24 224 524 824 ~ 1 124 1 424 1 724 2 105 2 105 2 105 2 105 I y .- . MFAttached ._._ ...__.,_ ~ 17 _.,__ 61 ,_._...r 136 211 286 367 436 . 553 _..__w__ 553 ......,._._ 553 4c 55 3 . ,._ ._._ MF Detached 73 763 388 583 778 7 003 1 228 1,492 1,492 7 492 . ... 1 492 ............. ---.__ .._, ...,_ ..,.,..._... . _....~_, . _w _.~_ _....,.__~ ._. _. _...., ..,_.v.,...w._ ~... .....__.._ . _._._n .._._.., , ._._._._._.., Mixed Use' D ' 0 ~ 0 30 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 _._._-_.___._._._ Industnal Acres _,_ _._....._. 0.0 _ ............ O.D . ......._._ 10.0 ~ _..._..._-_ 20 0 .____.,_. 40 D .~..__r_.. 60.0 ,. .._..___~., 80 0 _,._.._..., 94 4 .._....._.,........ 94.4 . ......... 94.4 ......_..._........... 94.4 ___....._..~_...._..~..._._.. ._ _._...._ ._ .._~.....,., ._...,._._._. _._..,.......,..... ._~_.,.--- . .......................... .... _....---__._ . ,..___...._. ,_____..._. ....._..._.,_.. .,.__.A.._.-.-i Commercial Acr ~ .._.. ..... .. 0 0 .... 0 0 . . 0 0 .. 0 0 ._... 6 0 11 9 . a 11 9 11 9 .. 11 9 .. 11 9 ... .. 11 9 _ .w,. Parks 6 0 14 0 23 0 32 0 41 0 50 0 59 0 60 0 60 0 60 0 ~ CPF 07 17 28~ 39 5.0 61 72 72 72 72 School 09 23 39~ 551 71 87 103 10.3 103 1031 Subtotal ~ 6.5 43.0 106.9 183.4 ~ 275.9 368.3 454.9 516 9 517.9 517.9 i 517.9 Developed Acres ~ I ~.,_.._.____..._.___._,.__.,_. __,. __.__ . . _._._r,. . __~.. _....._. ..._....._..._ ~ ...... ~_. .. .. __a_.._, . ._... _....._. ..~._ ...... . .........._.__ ._... _-~ r Opn Spc/Pres/ 28 ' 69 ~ 116 164 211 258 301 301 301 301 Other I~ ! e. Total Acres tE .. ............~....~~..... ...~..6 ..... 6 5 .. .. ~ 70 6 ~ ~~ 176 1 - 299 8 439.,5 1 579.1 _l .u. 712.9 ._ 61.8 1 ~ ~.._..._, 819.1 w~.._,_._., 819.1 ......_,_„n. 819.1 'Attached zlncludes mixed-use commercial Pro Forma Atlvisors, LLC Page 12 PFAID: 10-225 Pro Forma Aa~~ ~~, u~c Figure 7 - Approved'fllage 2 SPA Projected Absorption tl 1 I 1 I 0". /~ / /~ / B /' a o SF Units __._a._.. _____.~_. 23 _..__. _. 93 ._____. 198 _.__._..,. 358 ,m...._.. ._ 518 _..._ .., 678 .__..__,... 838 ,. _.... _ 978 _,..... 978 _._ 978 _ 978{ d Multi-Family Units ._... 24 224 _ . ,.... 524 ,11. . 824 ._ ~~ 1,124. . .. 1,424 .~. .~ 1,724 . M 1,808 _. .. ~ 1,808 ~_._._._, _--_.. 1,808 ._....___ .._..___.--- 1,8D8~ ~ ~ MFAttached ..____, ,.__,_ 77 61 136 ~., . 211 ...... 256 .... 367 436 450 450 ._ 450 .__._, . 450 .~ ..a... _ MF Detached 13 J63 388 583 778 ~ 7 003 7 228 1 298 1 298 J 298 . 1 298 Mixed Usel ~..... 0 0 1 0 30 60 i 60 60 60 60 60 60 i I ndustnal Acres 0 0 0 0 10 0 20 0 40 0 60 0 80 0 94 4 94 4 94 4 94 4 Commercial Acr z 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 11 9 11 9 11 9 11 9 11 9 11 9 { . . . . . . . . . . . . ~~ ---P ..._.._..._ .. _ 1 ~_ .._2 ., ._ 3 0 , ~ ~,. 4 0 ._.._5 ...,. 6 3 _ 6 3 .. ~ 6 __6 CPF 0.6 1 6 2 6 3. 7 4. 7 5 8 6 6. .3 6 3 F ' _..._......._,_.,._..... __,_ .~.., . .~. _.._.. ...._ _ ... . , ,,.._ j School i i 1.0 25 42 5.9 76 93 103 10.3 103 10.31 i.._„__, ~~._,~___...._.,. _ y _.___. . __ __., . __ _...... _w____ . . _ ~ .,_. _ ____ . .. __... ____ _. ._. ___._. ' Subtotal t + 6.5 43.3 108.6 186.4 280.1 373.7 461.5 517.0 ~ 517.0 517.0 517.0 Developed Acres' Dpn Spc/Pres/ 30 75 125 1761 227. 278 302 302 302 3021 Other Total Acres ~ 6 5 73 1 183 1 ~ 311 7 456.2 ~ 600 6 739 2 _~. 819 1 ...,._. 819.1 ...._..,.~. 819.1 ( .._.._._.. ,. 819.1 ._... . .. .,_.,..._...._ _ . .. .........._, _,.._,..._,__ _. ... _._..._ _ L ..__ .... ._ _ .. 'Attached zlncludes mixed-use commercial Pm Forma Advisors, LLC Page 13 PFAID: 10-225 Pro Forma Advl ;rs r ~_C The projected absorption schedule used for this analysis was developed using the original Village 2 SPA absorption as a base, but was adjusted to take current metrics from the City's Growth Projection and historical residential growth into consideration. The absorption of both single family and multi family units have been ramped up across an extended period based on the current slow growth of development in the City of Chula Vista. Multi family units take one year to ramp up to the original forecasted annual absorption; single family units take two years to ramp up to a slightly higher annual absorption based on current Growth Forecasts. Absorption of industrial acres have been pushed back by two years and spread across a longer period relative to the original Village 2 SPA, due to the current economic climate. Commercial development follows the absorption period of the original Village 2 SPA, but has been pushed back a year due to the slower addition of housing units. Parks and other land uses are projected to develop inline wRh residential uses. Population Estimated population for the Approved Village 2 SPA and the Village 2 SPA Amendment was determined using a California Department of Finance Chula Vista estimate of 3.21 persons per household. The table below presents a summary of projected population at build out. Figure 8 -Estimated Population Summary Soa~ca.' 'm ~J'!Ill Aaisors Employment Projected employment in Village 2 is presented in the table below. Industrial employment is estimated at an industry average of one employee per 600 square feet of occupied building space while retail employment is estimated at an industry average of approximately one employee per 450 square feet of occupied building space. Based on plan density factors and estimated building efficiency and occupancy rates, employees are estimated for the two scenarios. Pro Forma Advisors, LLC Pageta PFAID: 10-225 Figure 9 -Estimated Employment Calculation Pro Forma Adam 1rs ~~~,. Soumz: Pro'=orm~ Advlsc5 Pm Forma Advisors, LLC Page 15 PFA10: 10-`L25 Pro Forma ~~~ar~o9o~ For the purpose of creating consistency between fscal impact analysis, the City of Chula Vista requested that the fiscal impact analysis be prepared in accordance with the City's previously developed SPA Fiscal Impact Analysis (FIA) Framework. As prescribed in the SPA Fiscal Impact Framework, Pro Forma Advisors used revenue and expenditure factors from the SPA Fiscal Impact Framework to estimate fiscal revenues and expenditures expected to grow proportionally with new development. Special analysis models were used to estimate other revenues and expenditures, such as public safety costs, property tax revenues, vehicle license fee (VLF) revenues, and sales taxes. The detailed methodology of the SPA Fiscal Impact Framework is described in the memorandum "SPA Fiscal Analysis - Fiscal Model Methodology Including the Development of Fiscal Factors in the Analysis of SPA Proposals", dated February 2008. The following methodology section highlights key inputs and updates made to the methodology for the Village 2 SPA FIA. FSn~tta~e& Gti~ctczrs anal Adyaastnlacarrks; The budget revenue and expenditure factors provided by the City are based on the FY 2009 City of Chula Vista budget. Adjustments are made to the current budget factors, as requested by the City, to provide a more accurate accounting of future impacts, including: (1) an expenditure and revenue adjustment to account for appropriate service standards (2) density adjustments and (3) a 2011 dollar adjustment. Service Standard Adjustment Due to the recent recession, the City of Chula Vista implemented several rounds of budget reduction between F1' 2007 and FY 2009, cutting the City's service standard below the desired level. The expenditure and revenue adjustment factors use a 5-year average of inflation-adjusted per capita revenue and expenditures to determine an appropriate level of future expenditures and revenues. Density Adjustment Density adjustments use the relative density of the project land uses compared to citywide land uses to adjust the public safety costs, public works, and retail and industrial expenditures. Retail and commercial expenditure tactors were developed based on an historical citywide acres and floor-to-area (FAR) ratios. The retail and commercial expenditure density factor are adjusted to account for costs under the higher expected FANS of Village 2. The same retail and industrial expendture density factor adjustments are used for the Approved Village 2 SPA and Village 2 SPA Amendment. These are presented below. S»rre Cry o C,naa uisre, SI'N P4oa Framework, dPE ~eoe oomerc Pro Forma Atlvlsors, LLC Page 16 PFAID: 10-225 Figure 10: Retail and Industrial Expenditure Factor Density Adjustment Pro Forma Ad~~~ : is L~~c D7>~l~_1Jni~PUblic Safety Density Factor in Approved and Amended Scenarios It should be noted that the dwelling unit public safety density adjustment factor is treated differently for the Approved Village 2 SPA and Village 2 SPA Amendment to limit extraordinary marginal costs created by the established SPA Framework density adjustment factor. The public safety density factor is included in the SPA framework as a measure to quantify the higher pro rata costs of serving denser residential developments. At the village geographic level, a density adjustment is generally appropriate, but when evaluating marginal changes it appears to have high marginal impacts. To address these high marginal changes, the public safety adjustment factor for the Village 2 SPA Amendment was determined as the Approved Village 2 SPA's established density adjustment factor plus the difference between the Approved Village 2 SPA'S established density adjustment factor and the Village 2 SPA Amendment's established density adjustment factor, weighted by the percentage of additional residential units in the Village 2 SPA Amendment. These calculations are presented in Appendix Table B-10. 2077 Dollar Adjustment Finally, given that the FIA is based on FY 2009 budget, the inflation adjustment adjusts final total revenues and expenditures from 2009 dollars to 2011 dollars. ~~1fa;rffana~ ~IieLhrxa~a~V'ra~~a Special Models Special models were used to estimate fiscal impacts for property taxes, property transfer taxes, VLF fees, and sales tax. Special models were built based on the SPA Rscal Framework with updated tax rates, as appropriate, and assessed value and household income inputs. The incremental assessed value attributable to the SPA is used to estimate property taxes, property transfer taxes, and VLF Fees. Actual assessed value data from the San Diego County Assessor, captured from various sources, was used to estimate the property tax revenues for built units within Village 2. Estimated assessed values were used to evaluate the property taxes for the balance of undeveloped units. The base value of the land before the project was estimated at $200,000 per acre based on the current value of the raw land before entitlements. Pro Forma reviewed current market residential and commercial data and Otay Ranch listing prices to determine appropriate assessed values for future development. Figure 11, on the next page, describes historical sales for resale and new homes throughout the Otay Ranch and Eastlake 91913 zip code. Pm Forma Advisors, LLC Page 17 PFAID: 10-225 Pro Forma Aa~~~c~s ~-c Sa,:rcc. DaG][]~!cfi varvs This second table presents specific residential data for Otay Ranch. In the first two columns, the table presents reported assessed value information for existing homes within Village 2. These homes were built and sold across the last year. It should be noted that this includes the sale of a limited number of homes, 38. Otay Ranch and Village 2 will include a variety of housing product types. The last column includes actual asking prices from builders reports for current product in neighborhoods throughout Otay Ranch. Pro Forma Advisors categorized both the existing Village 2 and the active Otay Ranch products into single family, multi family attached and multi family detached categories. Generally, multi-family detached units do not share any walls with other units and are very similar to a single family unit, except they may be located on common land and pay HOA fees. Figure 12 -Existing Village 2 Home Values and Otay Ranch Builder Report Home Prices Pm Forma Advisara, LLC Page 18 PFAID: 10-225 9srce Co~ety of Sari Dego Asessa's .7~'.£ ,,,, _ ~ ._~~~~ Tr,x a.coT, J?3 Deaelopmen[ Figure 11 -Housing Price Data Pro Forma Advi ;rs ~-c Based on this information and expectation of a variety of future product, the analysis projects an average single family unit value of $400,000. Multi-family detached units are projected at $360,000 and multi-family attached units are projected at $300,000 per unit. Village 2 SPA includes three tax rate areas, 01265, 01274, and 01262. The City's proportion of the 1 percent tax distribution is 10.649'° across the Village 2 tax rate areas. Transfer taxes were assessed at $0.55 per $1000 of assessed value. VLF revenues were estimated based on population and incremental growth in assessed value. It is worth noting that the State of California has recently reduced the per capita portion of the VLF fees. This may reduce both scenarios impacts by $3 per capita, or approximately $30,000 in each scenario. This was a change enacted in recent months and legal and legislative opposition is currently being explored. This reduction has not been included in this analysis. Sales Tax Sales taxes were estimated based on updated household income and household spending information. The model uses San Diego County average household spending data adjusted based on the household incomes anticipated in the project. Household income is derived from the estimated home purchase price for single family, and multi family units based on an assumption of 20 percent down and anticipated mortgage payments of approximately 25 percent of income. Other Discretionary Revenues As described above, revenue factors from the SPA Fiscal Framework were used to estimate revenues that are expected to grow proportionally with development. These are derived in Appendix Tables 13 and 14. These factors are summarized in the table below. Socrce' Wit)-:~ Cns~e Vs':.a aru 'ro Forna Pro Forma Atlvisors, LLC Page ~ 9 PFAID: 10-225 Figure 13 -Other Discretionary Revenue Factors Pro Forma A~~~ I ~ c N=xldertidstuhe Iletlacwrtolozby As described above, expenditure factors from the SPA Fiscal Framework were used to estimate expenditures that are expected to grow proportionally with development. The factors provided by the Ciiy of Chula Usta are shown in Appendix Table 12 and are summarized below. Special models are used to estimate a special allocation of public safety fscal expenditures generated by dwelling units. The public safety model adjusts police and fire costs per dwelling unit based on the density of each scenario relative to the rest of the City. Adjustments were made to the public safety density adjustment for the Village 2 SPA Amendment as described in the "Budget Factors and Adjustments" section above. Also an adjustment was made to the dwelling unit factor to account for higher Public Works costs with increased density. These factors are shown in Appendix Tables 1 D and 11 and are summarized below. Figure 14 -Discretionary Expenditure Factors and Public Safety Dwelling Unit Factors Soaroc. Cty of Chua Uis.9 wid Pao vrnv3 Pro Forma Atlvisors, LLC Page 20 PFAID: 10-225 Pro Forma Advi ors ~_Lc ' ~~ ~°~oaG ~rxgq~aota The following section describes the fiscal impacts generated by the Village 2 SPA Amendment and the Approved Village 2 SPA. Figure 15 and Figure 16 present the annual fiscal revenues and annual fscal expenditures of each of the scenarios. As described in the Methodology section, the tables present anticipated revenues estimated based on special models such as property taxes, VLF revenues, and Sales and Use tax, and other revenues, calculated on a pro rata basis, are summarized. Estimated expenditures are calculated and presented by land use categorys. The figures in these tables have been adjusted to reflect 2011 dollars. 4~uURac~~ ~ a~A Arrta~r~daytt~a~~ Figure 15 presents the annual fiscal revenues and fiscal expenditures of the Village 2 Amendment. The detailed analysis of the Village 2 SPA is included within Appendix A. Using the methodology described above, the Village 2 SPA Amendment will generate fiscal revenues of approximately $4.3 million in Year 10 (2011 dollars). Property taxes and VLF revenues are the greatest sources of revenue. Property taxes grow throughout the absorption period as new developments are brought online. The program is projected to be absorbed across aseven-year period, but property taxes grow until the eighth year due to a one-year revenue lag, calculated to account for the lag in the re- ceipt of tax revenues on new assessments. The Village 2 SPA Amendment is expected to generate approximately $1.7 million in property taxes and property transfer taxes annually in Year 10 (2011 dollars). VLF Revenues, which are also dependent on growth in property value, are expected to generate approximately $1.2 million annually in Year 10. The Village 2 SPA Amendment is projected to generate annual expenditures of $3.9 million in Year 10 (2011 dollars). Public safety-police and fire-are the City's greatest fscal costs and are expected to be the greatest costs generated as a result of new development. Including both the dwelling unit allocation and allocations of public safety costs from other land uses, the Village 2 SPA Amendment will generate approximately $22 million in public safety costs. In Year 10, the Village 2 SPA Amendment is expected to generate a positive net fiscal impact of approximately $452,000. Village 2 is currently, Year 0, estimated to generate an annual net fscal cost to the City of approximately $13,000. As the SPA gets built out, it is projected to generate an annual net cost for the first five years, before becoming positive in Year 6. Net fiscal revenues peak in Year 8 due to large one-time property transfer taxes as the last of the residential units are absorbed. Net fiscal revenues grow on a constant basis after Year 9. s Also includes expenditures calculated based on population. Pro Forma Advisors, LLC Page21 PFAI ~: 10-225 Pro F orm a Advi ni S '_L C 0] OJ d' 'U c~ of ~ h ,- I N 4 O ~ h I m ~ N ~, O O t0 o] ~ N cp O OJ ~ N M ~ ~ (n ~ ~ M EA ~ ~ ffl ~ ~ M ~ a7 1~ W M 9~ r ~ I C~ N h N lfJ M W V N h ~- N O IfJ , I~ m N _~ ~~ O Ol N of O N cp O of O N E ~f] cn C ~ ( ' ~ ' ch h , ~ ' t N ~ 1 M I M V3 fA 9 of L9 n n d ~ a7 W a s i/) 0 ~ I ~ ! ~ 63 I fA E ...._.....- .-....... ...-__. f . ...._.._, ......»., ...,... I of h ro O O M N M of O d' m t0 ~ h ~ ~ N N O M I ~ ~ ti ~ m M i ul h ~ 1 E» a» .» En i ~ ~ ~ ~ i _..- - m m ro ~ ch m m ~ r ff N ' o ~n h rn ~ ! ~ I ~ ~ ~ .' ~ Q' ~ E O I ~ ! O O N ro O O u7 c0 h N ~ ro ~ ~ ~ N FA d- V3 ! m O ^ W ~ ~. ~ ~ ~ ~ r ~ I EF M Efl R 4 ~ ~ 3 ~ FA j N W M ch V O O ~ bj. ! O ~ N M ro N N u7 J M J 69 O O f N o] M cp N O h i M I ~ ~ C ~ y ~ ~ ~ ~ 6 ~ N 6s ~ 63 64 </3 E<3 ! 64 M~ V ss ~ of ~ ~ ~ i ~ a a __.._, Q1 N ~ .__. ._ _ M ..___ M .a__. O ~ ._ M ._. M ,._._ N ._.. -_.._ ~ ~ N _-_.. ~ _ O _,__. cD __ . O .._._.__., ~ ....._.__... O _ N _.. .._..._, ~ O O ~ Cp M r d' ` O _ i O Ul c 0 b3 M(lJ- r _ ~ C Q - ~ ~ ~» ~ ~ ~ 0 69 N <» a ~ f ~ .J..... (y O OJ ~ N O r ~ ~ ~ O~ O N ~ W N N N t0 ~ ~ , i O Ef3 O ~ V~ b9 fff O] ~ r Efl f e3 ~ O <f) ~D FMfi (O ~ t 5 ; ~ ~ .......... N ~ .~ ~ ....... O) ......... h Ln .,..._.,, N ,. ~ d- ~.... O h .._..._ N ~ _,» _....._ ~O EA Y _..CO ~ ~ _ . CJ 69 -_._. CO O _.__._ h ~ 64 __._ N ~ _..-__,_.,. N ._.._........... of O f .._. N~ ~ ~ o-......,_, ,.. O~ ~ O i Yf . Hi Efl E9 ` En 3 43 i dj , 3 Q ~ i ~ ~ I o Fn ~ ~ ~ ~ P ~ ~ ~ i» Ln o ~ O i N O~ M I M c fR fA 604 ~ I M ci3 FA' EH ~ N V E M C i ~ s; <» ~ Fn Fn n f ~ ., ~ ..y 1 .... .,. ~ . _... . O, d N I N N N H N N N ~ N O] UJ ~ N in N N C N d N iJ O O O y N U U N 7 C x I N ~ X A 'r 3 C f ~ ~ C 3 C ~ U U U ~ U f U -O ^ p~ O^ I O ~~ (6 Q~ IL > ' d ~ d > 'O Q Q Q ~ g ~ Q~ N O .0 ~ j o ~ ~ `~ ~ a ~ ~ m m m ~ a v 4 vi o m o m m O_ c c ~ a m ~ i 0 ~ c m ~ i ~ m ~ a W v f d H > N _ ~ ~ ~ w 4 " 00 c 'N 1 ~ N U ~ LL t ~ ° ! ~ o a u> Q ~~ ! of ~~ al ~ g a c ~ a¢ ~ ~ m z~ N i } 4 ~ i ~ 1 O- ~ ~ {{I I { y { Pro Forrna AaNisors, LLC Paga22 PFAID: 10-225 Pro Forma ~dv~ ors _Lc Figure 16 presents the annual fiscal revenues and fiscal expenditures of the Approved Vllage 2 SPA. Using the methodology described above, the Approved Village 2 SPA will generate fiscal revenues of approximately $4.2 million in Year 10 (2011 dollars). Property taxes and VLF revenues are the greatest sources of revenue. Similar to the Village 2 SPA Amendment, the Approved Village 2 SPA revenue is projected to grow until the eighth year. The Village 2 SPA Amendment is expected to generate approximately $1.6 million in property taxes and property transfer taxes annually in Year 10 (2011 dollars). VLF Revenues, which are also dependent on growth in property value, are expected to generate approximately $1 .2 mil- lion annually. The Approved Village 2 SPA is projected to generate annual expenditures of $3.6 million in Year 10 (2011 dollars). Public safety costs are also expected to be the greatest costs generated as a result of new development. Including both the dwelling unit and allocations of public safety to other land use factors, the Approved Village 2 SPA will generate ap- proximately $2.2 million in public safety costs. In Year 10, the Approved Village 2 SPA is expected to generate a positive net fiscal impact of approximately $523,000. Similar to the Village 2 SPA Amendment, the Approved Village 2 SPA is currently estimated to generate a net fiscal cost to the City of approximately $13,000 in Year 0. The SPA is projected to generate an annual net cost for the first fve years before becoming positive in Year 6. Net fiscal revenues stabilize in Year 8 and grow consistently thereafter. Pra Forma Atlvisors, LLC Paga23 PFAI~: 10-225 Pro Forma Adw ,r~ ~~c U o. N LL d N N c0 d O Q a 3 Ql LL w W v O r O d' to tTi r 6 O I O N f 0 „ N i O ( ] N O u~ Ln O ~ ~ ~ N ~ Efl V3 E d' ~ ro c0 to ~ ' ~ Efl ~ H3 i EdJ ro c7 N ~ o~ O j V N N r ~ O O N ~wa. O N N.... _ '~O O N r i d' M 1 0 T M N ~ U (n C7 i In ' O C7 O j ~ E9 V N ~ CO ~ ~ ~ .. ...._ ~ ( .~., _._. ..___. i ~........ ......... .. W C7 N ~ O V cp ~ I~ O O _ N . O ___.____ N ~._.._.. i N ._._...._._... rD ~ c7 W O W i O O ~ «l W r i ~ N iA ~ Y3 ~ ~ W i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 63 Ef3 , v 63 HT i . ' ~ ~ C`, ~ ~ ' O (` ') I W O C") N fH ' EA ffl V i W (O r ~ f d: V3 Efl £H 64 (h V~ ` ..., . . _... to .~...- ... .. ~ .Y _ __, d3 .._ ,.. ..,. ........_ ....,..... ..,.,_,..... ....... . ~ 1., .. , EA . w . Efl .. M ~ 6J O O W O CJ M Qi ~ ~ O N t` M .. _ 4 N . . _ ~ .. CO .._.. _......... N O O N 1~ ~ ~ W (h N ~t W (n O ~ i» O p ~ <» ~ ss e, ~ ~ ,. ~.._ . S.„ . ,_ __... E.., _ .. .~ .. .. .. ~ . , .,. ._ ~ W~ .. . ....___. ~ O ~ N V C~ m OJ ~ N Ip ~ ~ O o N ~ ~ N O ~ I ~ o ro ~ ro v ~, ro f r~ r ~ co N ~ ( J <» m v 1 m t I i ~ M N 1 £H I7I E4 69 fn N I b3 i ~ In H3 ro m y v co m o rn N ~ rn ~ O ~ m v v CJ O M c7 M ~ 6~ H3 cp _ (~ V O ~ O~ i O ~ CO CJ V O U3 ~ EA H3 I ~ ,- - _ ~ ~ y . M 1 3 E9 t9 Y .~... W ., ...... ~..,..... . a .. m ............ N [O ..__...... Ch ... .. (O ,..,.._.. -.....__ O ......,.._, [p ~._.. M W ......_, N ..... ~ .- n. O~ ..,....... ~ _._...... [D _...... O O O OJ c7 6~ Cl 6? ~ Efl (7 N t\ O O C` O ~ Ch N CV r+J Efl ~ E9 EA ~ d' f9 ~ ~ , ! f ~ to .... ._...... .._ .._...._, Y _...-..,_Y ,,,......_ __..._. ...... .__.., ......_, _ ._..-... ...... .......... .. ._. .,___....__1 of Ol I~ ~ ~ c7 V y y N t I~ ! M O H rl ch [ (O ~, c'J N ro N t m ~ N V ~ N 3 t tl N ~ i3 d O EA j M r O n 7 r E9 P I ~ ~ i Ui H) FH 6? EA m co o~ N rn o o ~ ' c+~ ~n m ! m cO r O E9 N ~ ~ ~ ~ N Efl CJ fA ~ 1 ~ . m o a N rn c~ . c ' n__m. o 0 o c~ o o ~ m ro M r .- m 69 EA Efl EFi M Efl N d' o { ~ csi e» r» va ~ i~ , ._ . .._.._. _._. _ ~ .._.._ _.,._. _ _._... _. _ .,_ .. .~ _ -._ . .3 ......_..._.,_._. p y J VI ~ Ul ~ ln~ J l X F y ~ y ~ y La UJ J N l N N N C N N N ~ ~ ~ y ~ ~ y O ~ U t m C ~ ~ ~ N C C ~ [ a U L v v ~ U ~ U ~ i6 ^ v ~ G ~ > a ¢ ¢ ¢ ~ ¢ ~ ¢ o 0 ° . - v . E c '' m 'm ~ ~ ~ c 0 Y . ~ ~ 'a CC ~ a m ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ Q o o_ O c RS ~ N cV % y d O Q N f X y d FY > ui s 3 W ~ a '~ I (~ ~ UO p W LL{ ~ O ~ ~ Q ~ r/1 Q ~- a d ~' c Z I i s ~° f a ~ ° ' m Q ° ~} i i ` ~ m ! ~ = m I t ,, i a N O ti N Pro Forma Atlvisors, LLC Page 24 PFAID: 10-225 Pro Forma advl;ors u~c ~~Fro~:uG.~~~t~w~o~ Both the Village 2 SPA Amendment and Approved Ullage 2 SPA are projected to generate a positive net fiscal revenue to the City of Chula Vista in Year 10. The Approved Village 2 SPA, as approved, is expected to generate fve years of net fiscal costs during the build out pe- riod and the Amended Village 2 SPA is expected to have a similar net fiscal cost period during build out. Net fiscal reve- nues will be generated in the sixth year and are expected to grow as the SPA is built out. (The total fiscal costs gener- ated within the first fve years should be recaptured in full within three years of the break even period.) Using the requested fiscal impact framework, the Approved Village 2 SPA is projected to generate an annual net fscal revenue of $523,000 in Year 10, if built. The V Ilage 2 SPA Amendment includes less single family units and additional multi-family units relative to the Approved Ullage 2 SPA, generating higher revenues, but also higher public safety costs. The Village 2 SPA Amendment is projected to generate an annual net fiscal revenue of $452,000 in Year 10. If the Approved Village 2 SPA can be built, the opportunity cost of the amendment relative to the Approved Village 2 SPA is $71,000. The difference between the Amended and Approved Village 2 SPA should be considered within the context of [1) the feasibility of each of the scenarios, (2) the overall anticipated costs ,and (3) potential economies of scale: e As mentioned in the Context section, the applicant believes that the higher number of single family units is Tess likely to get built in the near-term due to the current economic climate and difficulty potential buyers have qualifying for loans at the prices needed for developers to construct this type of residential product. The opportunity cost only exists if the Approved Village 2 SPA can be built without the amendment. a Relative to the overall costs and revenues anticipated from either the Approved Village 2 SPA or Village 2 SPA Amendment, $71,000 is a modest difference. The anticipated dfference is 2 percent of the overall costs anticipated for the Approved Village 2 SPA of $3.6 million. r Using the current fiscal analysis framework, public safety costs are increased for denser residential product. This is likely true for certain fre costs, where there are some tangible increases in service costs to respond to calls in denser areas, but this may be less true for police services where more of the costs are for patrols that are done by neighborhood. In the current fscal impact framework, there is limited consideration for economies of scale, particularly due to the density adjustment factor for dwelling units. For analytical purposes it is helpful to understand the potential maximum average costs of new developments, but the City still has an opportunity to address the overall costs of serving new development. . In Year 10, the Approved Village 2 SPA accounts for $2.2 million in funds for police and fire services. If all the $2.2 million is spent on police and fire service wages, this supports approximately 16.4 police and fre FTEr. The Village 2 Amendment accounts for $2.4 million in funds for police and fire services which supports approximately 16.7 police and fire FTEe. Particularly in the first few years of development, the City should consider whether there is the capacity to stretch its existing staff to serve the new development and use the revenues to help support any project or citywide deficits. ~ Based on FY10-11 Average wage and benefits costs for police and fre. a Based on FY10-11 Average wage and benefits costs for police and fre. Pro Forma Advisors, LLC Page25 PFAID: 10-225 Pro Forma Advi ,rs-~c Overall, development of the Village 2 Amendment is not expected to adversely impact the City of Chula Vista's qual- ity of life. The Village 2 Amendment generates a positive net impact at build out. In addition the Village 2 Amendment generates more revenues that the Approved Village 2 SPA and, based on the City's ability to create economies of scale within police and fire services, the development may have the passibility of generating higher net revenues for the rest of the City. Pro Forma Advisors, LLC Paye26 PFAI~; 10-225 Pro Forma Advi „rs t_c Appendix 1li~R~a~~ ~~ ~~d¢~~a~~r~ ~=8~~~~ q~tru~a~~~: ~~~~uN~~uas ~4~a~a~a~ao~c~ iC6~l~a~¢~ ~"b ~~sv1~B 0rca~~r~u~~ ~rr~~6ys'a~ Pra Forma Advisors, LLC PFAID: 1 D-060 r~i~r Village 2 SPA Amendment Pro Forma Table A-1 Proposed Land Uses Multi-Family Residential Units (Includes Multi-Use Residential) MFAttached' MF Detached' Mixed Use (Attached) Industrial Acres Commercial Acres (includes Multi-Use Commercial) Parks CPF School Subtotal Developed Acres Open Space Preserve Other Acres/ROW 878 (780.9 Ac.) 2,105 (753.2Ac.J 553 7,492 60 94.40 11.9 60.0 7.18 10.3 57 7.88 158.2 75.1 67.92 Total Acres 819.10 Population.~~.._....,._,,-.~..~,_~_~.,,,~,.,.,.,..a.,.~ ~.~,~~ ~,~.d.~..-.,~~. Single Family Persons/DUCK? 3.21 2,818 Multi Family Persons/DU@ 3.21 6,757 Total Est. Population 9,575 Employment _, ..W~,~,.m,a,~... ,,..,.,.,~..,. Retail Emp/ACreC~ 33.68 401 Research/Limited Industrial Emp/Acre Q 19.66 1,856 Total Est. Em lo~ment ~ 2,256 ~~_~ For purposes of this analysis, MF Attached have been defined as homes with a density of 8 - 12 DU/Acre zFor purposes of this analysis, MF Detached has been defined as homes with a density >12 DU/acre Source: City of Chula Vista, JPB Development and Pro Forma Advisors Land Use Single Family Residential Units Pro Forma Table A-2 Historical Chula Vista Housing Absorption 2000 35,671 19,975 55,646 2001 37,215 20,441 57,656 2002 39,286 21,305 60,591 2003 40,969 22,545 63,514 2004 42,986 23,235 66,221 2005 45,163 24,066 69,229 2006 46,446 25,308 71,754 2007 47,133 26,067 73,200 2008 47,614 26,417 74,031 2009 47,817 26,722 74,539 2010 ~ & .. . 48,007 q, r ,~ r m ,.,r 26,922 74,929 °ri . I V Y , @ 2000 2001 1,544 466 2,010 2002 2,071 864 2,935 2003 1,683 1,240 2,923 2004 2,017 690 2,707 2005 2,177 831 3,008 2006 1,283 1,242 2,525 2007 687 759 1,446 2008 481 350 831 2009 203 305 508 2010 190 200 390 Source: California __ _ _ Department of Finance E~5 ~mm~ Pro Forma Table A-3 5 -Year Growth Forecasts -Village 2 . e- a m ti ® ~ a Single Family 95 179 208 172 189 Multi Family 450 440 367 122 41 Total Residential 545 619 575 294 230 Source: City of Chula Vista 2010 Growth Forecast Report W E ci 0 a` N t J O ~ Q Q o a a o h a` m ~ N o o ~ o w M w ry r m .- w M1 ~n co m r , co O~o ~. o o r: m ~ ~ of m~ M1 °m m Q N ~ ~ m ~ N ~n v i N m in w c~i m m .- N w w~ N O o w o m m m N .- m .- w r y m co ~ h O C~ Q O '- O 1~ m ~ r W 0 v ] N R ~- [O r Vl I~ tp N h N d W N N w N m N ~ N ~ ~ N ~ O m O CO M O~ N ~ O~ ~ 0 m O ~ O i 8 O K w N ai N M1 O N . m b P N m ~ r v~ co m n v> N. e m ~ W N ca m ~ m ~ ('~ N O O Ol O w M OI N r Q~ .- W I~ h W W a ~ ~ m O l0 W N t M N O] h V N 4 ~- LLJ ~ l~ r (D m_ r N d' m _ m UJ M N m OI ~ N c0 Y' ~D W O O Ol O M r Of N N O Ol O O O M M m N ~ M1 ~D O O m Q N p w N N O M1 ~ O .- N t0 U) CJ ~ ~[) f0 ~(J u i O~ w V M1 N O M r m 4 M O O~ O - ~- M r r O r ap O~ O M1 C (O O N ~ M1 O ~ M1 r M O [ O ] O ~ V N ~ V ~ ~t J V ~_ i[ l fp CJ ~ N N G (O m v co m o 0 0 o m v~ v~ rn rn m vs M w ~ N m w v ~ ~ ~n ~O i `D w ° m o m N ~ m m ~ c ci ri ~ m v e i m c o V N V .- M ~[l m a^ m o 0 0 o m m ~ ~ N m m m v o m M ~n N- m M o ro '~ of M rn co m a v m m rn c7 w N h O N N of [O N N Ol ~ m h c'> cy N ~ N e- N CJ m ° M~o o ~ h m ~ ~ aoNm o a i c v ~ o o ~ ~ ~m mm n.-~ ~ ~- ~ a vi a M o o 0 0 0 o rn o m m N W m m m o 0 0 m 0 N < 0 ~ w a ci a cd cd o n ~ ci 0 a n o w a^ l'J O O O h N V I~ ~ O O O N N.-^ o ~ ~ rr ~n 0 i m ~ w m a ~ ei ei ~ m ~ , - E E g j ~ ~ m m ~ - a ? ~ ~ _ Q c Q ~ u ~ ~ i ~ o @ © c ip N 4i v ~ ~ O~ C 'O N_ a al o ~ E ¢ ~ ~° ~ ~ D $W m E ~ -q ~~ ' ~ ¢ ~ m ¢ a 2,~ o ~~ ~ ~ ~m i k E$om ¢ ~ D m m ~ 'E a m¢~J w,v C J LL j = ~ R p Z ~ ?- Y E N ~ LL T w U r N LL N E O ( G N LL W W ~ O C m ~ '] Q O K N h s LL O 9 9 ro m s O O m E N? N - N 6,~ y Y i "U O L Y '"" Pro Forma Table A-5 Households 70,916 73,365 74,527 75,259 75,752 City Staff 1,169 1,227 1,264 1,249 1,110 Revenues (Actuals) $137,763,583 $157,809,965 $161,564,721 $153,938,093 $140,502,938 Expenditures (ACtuals) $142,195,531 $160,826,968 $166,056,406 $155,021,736 $140,365,277 CPI (San Diego Area) 220.6 228.1 233.3 242.3 242.3 Expenditure/Capita $655.40 $719.25 $728.80 $670.63 $599.82 Revenues/Capita $634.97 $705.76 $709.08 $665.95 $600.41 2009 GPI Adjustment Factor 1.03 1.00 1.04 1.00 1.00 Exp/Cap in 2009 Dollars $877.88 $719.25 $7,56.91 $670.63 $599.82 Rev/Cap in 2009 Dollars $656.56 $705.76 $736.44 $665.95 $600.41 Expenditure Adjustment Factor 113% 120°k 126% 112% 100% 114% Revenue Adjustment Factor 109% 118% 123% 111% 100% 112% (Relative [0 2009 Levels) ~ ...m. _..._..,„M.~.,~..,. .,..»,.....,,,...n,~,..,.,,~~... ~,.»-~..,.~„~_.,~. .~,-.m. ~.~, ~ ,,~~,.~„~~ ,.:....-,.._n~mm i Provided by the CRy of Chula Vista . . . . Source: City of Chula Visia and Pro Forma Advisors ^ Pro Forma Table A~8 Chula Ysta Estimatetl Commamial Assessetl Value ResearpNLimif¢d IntlusVial D.3D FAR 13,068 SF $1.60 96% 193 95% $212,290 B.D% $5,114,810 ].50% $2,830,528 Bwrc¢: Loupneq CF3 RlchaN [Ills McMel Reports, I'ro Porma Adhsore, JPB DeveloprnanP Table A-] Single Family 22 $3]2,432 $8,193,500 1 $3]2.432 $8.565,832 Mu10 Pamly 16 $316,088 Multi Family Attaclletl ] $292,000 $2,044,000 4 $1.168,OOD $3212,000 Multi Family Detachetl 9 $334,822 $3,D13,400 4 $1,339,289 $4352,689 .,.........®.........w.....__..,_m ...........................,...._._..__.._...__...,.........................,....~m......m.m....,....,.........»..v._....._...,.,. Source: County of San Dis9o Asseespr s Utlice,lltlp://usere.ixpnscom/-gtripM1an, Trulia.cpm E O ' ~- ' O [' a`r ~' d w O a m a d v a 'o' r a` O N OJ ~- (O t D N 1 0 ~ n ~ n N y ~ p N N [+J M N ~- N W O ( O N tO ~ O (9 ~ ~ o N m ~- ~o m ry m ~ n ~ ~ ~ ~ N m ~ coo N M ~- h O N CJ V ~ K ~ ~ O iN Oi ~- (O ~- N Ol r n tO r~ (` W ~ N Cl ] N ~ h p N m N M C (fl ~ ~ ~ O ~ O~ .~ ~O ~O N 61 ~- h n O N (O n N M N W t G l D N Efl m d3 E9 .n a m ~- m a m m v m O N n a N p N M N ~ N N M V3 V m •9 N N M N (A o ~ m ~- ~o o m m n N - CJ n r N V) (A i9 V ~ W b W N I~ m ~' ~ % N OmI M M V N N ~ ~ ~ m a m m m m m o m O N~ O ~ M ~ O N ~ N R f9 N O 4] n O n th 6 m N O M O N N O N M A O ~- O O O rb ~ m ro 6 vi p 0 o vi »m ~ ~ ~ ~ ~. . co ~ n o ~n N m o co o co m» ~ ~ Yi Ea° i» "' w a goo o a ~~~ _ n -3 U D '= c q m p m ~ N ~ N C ~ _ ~ c ¢ D U iQ °- a °' ; i a m ~ c 2 N ~ a ~ (7 E g ~ ~ v y ¢ ~~ o .~ LL ~ y ' ro m j `p w m E ~' c L a ~ ~ Q O~ m ~ o ~ m Ui 5_ = ~~ x ~~ 4 H ~ __ U ~ r O a E O LL 0 E p: Oc aft C N E r O c 0 LL a 0 LL V ~a Q n v a h M N O ~~ c~ N Y3 N in N W Ell mO U3 o m o o co N Eo N O V A Hl 'A U3 c 0 h 0 N O C E U o~v°=i ~ D ~ g `-° E y . w m ~. `m >. ¢. E ~ E or -- o'~ 3 ~m6~a~x m n m (O mO mV M A N °o ° m m v°~i`O a Es E» c~ £A m m m m ~ N N O fR 63 .- o a N O V ~ mmi ~.- En V3 VJ N 4 c°JO ~~n n m ~ m m .- ~» r~ i» el E» l7 if N O ~ N M N .~- v>rn n~ m v v r V a V ~- O O ~ ~ ~ 6N9 ~ fR g g O O V3 Efl ~ o u ~ ~ u ~ ~ J ry N - E c ~ o i m m u - ~ ~ i ~ ~ m s ~ :~m~o~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ > ° ~ °c'9 E 1 W ~. W 0 U' 0 0 ~i o o m N r N V3 V O N m ~ e o cv o N ~ eNi el w ~ v V' N O O (O N ~ N V O O O of o m O (~ (A r N N m m m ~ N rei u~ I~ N N N C7 ~ m m ~ N es el !~ N N N ~ r ~ m ~~ 0 0 ~~ d Q v m~ r~ m ~ ' a 3~' ?~w ~ m '.a°O r Q m c~ ~~ v° m 0 N M V O N h ro 0 r a W R V O V3 m ~i O 6I m fA N V V b m m a' Cl N .- V I n N m N U NV ~ U ~ O _ ~ U ~ Q v Y ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ d° U m Q m m m ~ ~ w ~ ~ n c m i a ~ z ~ o a L N .~ N T m 4 ~ ~ ~ ~ O V E ~ ~ a 4 a w c ~ m y s o ~j m a m s ~ O ~ n o N m m > O T N N c U o ~ o ~ m LL ~ U 0 0 U o ~ 3 Ng rn m. QL ar R" `°`.'~~ r. 4 ~~°`~ ~° ~° d° 2° du ~ m ` mmom ' T ~: ~ m Ifi d' W M 0 4' i J CI O V VI ~~ uJ t^_ N T m O of ^ vi p m N NN ~ ~ N f N r onr o r~~nom ~ ~ a: ~ ~ a° v m m ' "'-~ r a m~ m m m m v m ~~ o m . . ~ c ~ime°~m o ~ ~ vi 6 rvm ~ro ~ m~ mom ~~ w L N N N ~ O . ~vl / M m ~ ^ M N c9 gyp m HM Wt 9N (A F9 f 9 1 O r ~ q N ~] O b c~° ^ ~° ~ o~ N Q ~q R W . l M M v 0 [9 (0 N O N 7 N N O~ M N O W ^ lJ7 N t7 ~. m <. mN eiw rrn mm m »<»~ a~ p N a ~!? N o ~° M' M' ~' eT° O ~ m m O O] CJ N P l9 ~ C' n'~ " O N ~ ] ( ( ] C] h 6 M N m I S a ; N r~ ¢J N N ~ ^ C ] C I m N S O N ~ m ~~ `°» :n ~ : ` `°o Nab ~^ ~ ° n v ~ n ~ ~ m , . _. ; r ~ ~ N ~ v v ~. o i m mn ~. c. •,~ ti~N n ~n oom 69~ HN tiN.- F9 N m c ~m ~ ~ `~ ~ 3° d° m nm ry y m C R O R m - i; :O N r r _ c ] N ~ ~ N c7 m ~ <A mM ~q V ~n N r c ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ W O W J N O i V i ~ N Cm ] m m m fO (O P !~ O ID ~ j m ~ ~' r r M N p O o] N fA C N ~ fA E9 4f N :' ' -' m m o° 02 3° 3° uE a° N a ~ N - , O O O P ~- f m 6~ m N p ' 1~ O M v i . N .J N ' c N N IN+i N N~ n' ~~ t 1 ~~~ t'- `O m r ~ N Q ~° c~° o~° l° \° N V C% m M1., i [1 !J cT M O O ~ ~ . if: N i(j N ~ ~ p ri O n N r o~ .. a ~ ~ ~ ~ v "s~M vi aN ~ o o ~ ° o Q r. n ~ o ^ Opm a 41 'ai of mm ~ o o no .h N N N ~ N a ~ » ss » ro ~' a N ^ m ° N N fA fA °' ` J C m ' ~ S a ~" m " c ~ ' a ~ ~ ~ m a a O C ~ F a U m = N ~ ~ O = 3 j C ~ ~' 3 ~ a y Z ~ o v ~ ° J c c a ~ ~. a ~` o ~ o U `~ ~ Ul (J Q m O ~ H O m ~, O O N ~ in ~ > -' ' ' ~ t ~ ~ y O w u 3 ] ~- U v~ = U U ~ i a h ~ ~ U o ~ m w n ~ m y m ~~ . ~ d ~ ~ m v ' v ` , c a~~ m a Q~ m a ` ~ U > o ' a o w a 9 o m 9~ m Boa p "' m m U ¢ a ° ] ~ Y~ m~-' '-' #~" °' ~ $ ~ ~ y v ~ ° ~ a c .. a a ~ m ~ .-wz m ' ~ d 'o v °m ~ ' o $ Q _ U ~ ~ ~ m m N ~ ~' a a m j N Q ~ io E~ a FF T ° ' ~ ` b ~ ~ C ~~ ~p ] H a 2 Q ¢ U2ad p m UQa`o- Q U ¢ ~ a ~ b O~ (J u O O ~ - c Q LLH c F i- ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ a Qa a m E LL O a' C E Ev d V y ~ N P ~ ro 0 U IL C C 3 0 w ~J C IL v C ~_ Q `(D Y r c d N i G o ~ Q3 m ~ U a °' a' o N r N M m w rn ~ ~ N ~ W d) r ~ N ~- m N I~ ~+ tD CJ N ~ ~ N r ~ ~ r r ~ N r N N ~ N r N I~ O th M m e3 M m m r o ro of m E9 M f9 M O c~ M m ~ M v~ m m r o th sv M r ~ ~ ~ N Q) N EA M H3 (D V (T N £A N (/J O M ~ M m N M E9 N fA N OJ Ol o I~ (O ^ OJ f` O N u7 M .- ~ M ~ IR ff3 ~ N ~ O U N O ° ~ ~ I~ N ~ nj I(l N ~ N ~ ~ U ~ c N o m m m v o a ~ ~ ~ m s c> v c EA t» ~ a I~ O ~ O N ' N V O d O ~ Oj M ~ U ~ 4J ~ ~ yj [J ` o m c p> O V Q ~ N - ~ d ~ U ~k .~ O E N N U LL ~ N Q ~ ~ N ~ ~ U Q ~ y d ~ ` ~ ~ O ~ LL J f1 . .. h U CCQ W i C JO _ ~~ a J d O T L _ _ C ~ ~ LL C N D -_ O ~` O " A ~ ~ m ~ 0 ^o ~~ °'i m ° " 03 N n l~ - ~ ~ o L O U O D y ~~ LL o Q a. °~ a w 'c S ~ ~~ ~ o ~ O 3 7 - m a o ~ c ,? > m m ~ a~ m _ 'O y J U m y ~l ~ Qao~ ~ x, eN i O Q E ti a a` U a::; c_56mmew ~nm a x~w ~:a~°~°m °w ~„ w m~W ~ ~~ ~S~wM mmo .i> n v> .- of w ~ ~ m N a ~v s M a rim eau ..im .- Fi "'O~nm~~v o'~ ~~ o ~ ~c~mw Mmn ~o .- `m m $ ° m m °m N~m~~~ NaN&~~~ A ~m~~~m~~~ ~~ ~ ~~ :'~Q ~ w ~ °8 m~ li ~ N~ ~ mo ~ Mo o~ m ~~ ~~~m ~~ M m ~ v rn a~N eM m ~ °_ " n °w a ' W o n ~ ~' ' in .- e ~ u~ ~ m ° ~ m~ N w m w v e' N N m~ n ~ o m .- 6~ ~ N~~ M N CA ~c9 ~M bJ ~ A l A i M ~O O c0 N ~ I N LL ~pp ~ pp~~ N~OE9~~0~~ ~ ~ ~f9~~ I~ N O O b° ~ fli m N n c ~ D ~ ~ V a O O D O O ~o C~ ~~ M~~~ V N ti ~ ~ ~ g b b a ~ < ~ a O~ O (n ~ O ~- ~ r fA A !n ng N x o ~o ~ a rv o. A G o E N E a _ - ~ a w E ~ ~, _ y U N Q: ~ w ~-Q-a p~ ~~ o ° j c ~ Q m ~ Q N y ~ Q "u'r a tyi ¢ C z Q m ~ QG V QVnJ~ A4 ~ b Q~Q~~J'p lnH a d w _ _ _ _ w w ~ ~ ' ° o ' H a¢ s a o . W A s a a a u $ u r "" Pro Forma Table A-13 City of Chula Viste - Dlecretionary Revenues (Based on the FY 2009 Amended Budget) Other Local Taxes Sales and Use Taxes $29,677,977 $29,6]7,977 $29,677,977 Franchise Fees $8,732,093 $8,732,093 $8,732,093 Utlliry Tsxes $7,122,095 $7,122,095 $7,122,095 Business License Tax $1,322,847 $1,322,847 $1,322,847 Transient Occupancy Texas $2,752,514 $2,752,514 $2,752,514 Real Property Transfer Tax $841,402 $841,402 $841,402 Subtotal $50,448,928 $0 $50,448,928 $0 $50,448,928 Use of Money and Property Subtotal $4,163,212 $0 $4,163,272 $4,763,272 $0 ..,..~.........,..~.e.d.~,.,.,..~.....,....,,_,w....__,,........~.._ Revenues from other Agencies ..,...~.e._.....e....~,_ ............. W........_......_ .......__.M....._....._ ............~......,...~ ....,,.~....~ ..~....,.-.....s.,~ Sales Tax: Public Safety Augment $875,347 $875,347 $875,347 Slate Homeowners Property Tax Relief $282,800 $282,800 $282,800 State Motor Vehicle Licenses $20,215,866 $20,215,866 $20,215,866 Other Revenues from other Agencies $4,324,532 $4,324,532 $4,324,532 Subfofa! $25,698,545 $25,698,545 $25,698,545 Charges for Services' ~.,«.,~.,.._.~,.......:.,._..~......~.,_... ~..~....,,.«,,....~...,,,~,....«.~.,,.,......7.,_... ....®....~~_. _.._._._......,.~..~,._......~ ,»..,.,..«,.,.d..,......_.._ ..._......,~...,.a...,~,.. Subtotal $8,854,774 $0 .$8,854,774 $8,854,774 $0 Other Revenues /less CiP)` Subfofa! $10,58r),6a9 $0 $10,580,609 $70,580,609 $0 Subtotal $12,2"72,473 $0 $12,272,473 $72,272,473 $0 Total OlscretionaryRevenues (Less ClP Transfers) $14'1,250,908 $0 $142,250,906 $35,871,068 $108,379,838 'Includes Licenses and Permits 'Other Revenue excludes funds from the CIP fund Fines, Forteltuns, and Penalties are inclutled in this' category. Source: City of Chula Vieta Current Taxes-Secured $28,363,165 $28,363,165 $28,363,165 State Secured -Unitary $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 Current Taxes -Unsecured $979,200 $979,200 $979,200 Delinquent Taxes $590,000 $590,000 $590,000 Subtotal $30,232,365 $0 $30,232,365 $0 $30,232,365 w' Pro Forma Table A-74 Chula Vista -Other Discretionary Revenue Allocation Factors (Based on 2008 In/ormation) Population 226,694 Dwelling Units 78,615 Employees 71,153 Lantl Uaee pavaloped Acea Employees AV Share (Esdmates) (estlmated) Commercial (Ratan antl Office) 2,048 48,842 25% Intlustnal 917 21,162 8% Residential 9,565 67 Subtotal Taxable 12,530 68,0114 Other (Parks, PubliGOuasi-public, Open Space) 7,771 3,149 Total 19,702 71,153 Incremental Revenue Factors b Develo ment Unit u Property Taxes, : Current Taxes-Secured $28,363,165 Calculated Separately State Secured -Unitary $300,000 Commercial AV 25% $36.61 Acres IndusMal AV 8% $28.17 Acres ResldenCiel AV 07% $21.01 Acres Current Taxes -Unsecured $979,200 Commercial AV 25% $119.51 Acres Industral AV 6% $85.42 Acres Resitlential AV 67% $68.59 Acres Delinquent Taxes $590,000 Commercial AV 25% $72.01 Acres Industrial AV 8% $51.47 Acres Resitlential AV fi7% $4133 Acres Other Local Taxes Sales and Use Tars $29,677,977 Calculated Separately Franchise Fees' $8,732,093 Commercial Land 7% $298.40 Acres Industrial Lantl 3% $285.66 Acres Residential Land 90% $821.fi3 Acres Utility Taxes' $7,122,095 Commercial Lantl 9% $312.92 Acres Industrial Land 4% $310.65 Acres Resitlenilal Land 87% $647.80 Acres Business License Tax $1,322,847 Employees (Non-Public) $79.45 Employees Transient Occupancy Texas $2,752,514 Not Included ReelProperty Transfer Tax $841,402 Calculated Sepamtely Revenues from Other Agencies Sales Tax: Public Safety Auyrnent $875,347 People $3.86 Person State Homeowners Property Tax Relief $282,800 Dwelling Units $3.60 DU SCata Motor Vehicle Licenses $20,215,866 Calculatetl Separately Total Discretiona Revenues $102,055,306 Commercial (Acres) . $839.44 Industrial (Acres) $759.37 Resltlenilal (Acres) $1,800.38 Resitlential (DU) $3.60 Employees $19.45 Po elation ...~w..m._._..~,.._ .................,-..........__..~.._....e..w....._.. $3.86 _.__......__.._...,._._ As presenietl In SPA Racal Impact Framework, allocation share by land use basetl on FIND motlel estimates Source: Ciry of Chula Vista antl Pro Forma Advisors a`9 a'I o ~ r` ... ~ ~ P k «. w r _ .'a,~a^ a A Y ~ Y` >¢ xn a° d j m 3 e' f ~ ~ o £ } ~ ^~ a°xa' d r ~ x i S E o > o P d ~ E a a ` y °f.T .l°.F 0 ~ } 1 v x ~ k J g N .... ¢` Z 3 `§ ~ LL fr s s ~ E ~ s = a ~ ~ a m a E I ~ a° E a ~ ~ N d, w.A ., ~p~ 9 ..,w wwr~ ~ u w «. w X w > Y' ~ > > > > Y Y ~ %~ ~ ~ 8 n ~~ ds - ~ e :, ~' o g c9 w a~ w cr ~ ~ x w ~ ski °~ v. ~ "~ w ~ ~ P 9 S ~ $ k«°, }` j y` y` }` }` y` }` >` j j E U m ~ w ~ :$ ~" w $ w ~+ -f m n ~ S m w ~' e ° 6:° s w I X ~° 3 g °a E ~ U `j 4 ~ ~ ~ 7 3 ~ ~ `° ~ ~ v ~ C - _ a 6 Q a 2 n y 9: 0. Q -. a: s Yn m f o° ~s a~ ~_ a ~ C f Q o 'n $Ki y N m ~ ~ ~ Ea° ~ ~ ~ - m ~ o ~ ~ ~ i a o i ~ > ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ T O ~ ~ ~ i ~ } ~ ds ~~ ~' ,k ;{ ~ ~ O O r ~,x~x ~ ~ o ;° k a° i o °- q ° o o i» `~ i m K 'm `~ C Q ~'_ Y ~~ y ~ Q R ~ n.. c L ' `~ F m ~ ~ ~ o `o ~ ~ a s ~= vaN E G ¢ Q [~ T U m m° ¢ ~ ~~ LL ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ w ~ ° ° e s o ~4 ~ ~ 3 w ~ « e> «. > <, a M ~ ~ m ~ _ ~, «, «~ ~ M o a Lei O 9~ N N m m ~ ~~i 0 ~ d V m m v .- :~ m y" m n m m o T > T ?Y ~ > > 1 > Y ~ it 0 0 ~ m ~ ~ '~ `»' k»' m ~ ~ y ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ y ~ ~ a .- h ~ ~ ~ N H N ¢ t N 2 O~ N ~ ~ ~ m :n w » En° $ w o ~ w m e v, m ~ m m o Y S Y Y Y> Y>>) y H F` u C e e i a m m E a" ~ ¢ ~ ' i "~ ¢ 5 - a E J Y U w ~I, n ''.. I `~ N w v O Q n O F E o'i' a` KK f ~ m ~ ~ N N ~ W v o u ~ ~o € ~ ~o v _g s~-a v ~`a oLL ~ E=i v ¢ Q m m `o ~ ~ ~ " rn U 0 r~ > °OVa m a N N ~ m ~ V1N V N m a N m° v n N m ~ ~ N N ~ o ~ `o_ 3 " c o c~ a s ~ ro ~ n m a .a a _ ~ U ~ a a > n o. ~WC o~ ~n ~»~ w ~ amm ~`~ m o, ~ ~ ~ 4J r m N ~ V3 t0 4~l V O Y u?. ~~~~ ~.m W ~ ~ O n m a° n ~ ~ C O v w_ ~. ~ ~ O) f9 ~ m N~ o ~ m ~_ O ~~~ ~ ~~ ~O N ~ ~ O N ~5 ~ ~_ (p ~ ~ ~ W N i r M A ~~~ ~~ mmm ~r ~° m~ a o o m ug `» rb ci a» m i» n .a CJ ~ ~ I~ O N ~ ~ ~»~ ~i ea -~ ~f N o o e m vi "' ° m ~ ~ co m ... ej .n .- s h'- ~~63 N~ N ~ V3 f9 '- ~!) p r ~ ~ ~ 4 I y $ O c E U Q 2 h o s z ~ g r o o 3 y a ~ m s ¢ g 3 a'm ~~'m s ` n o (j ~' o ~ ~ ~ G a v 5 z m >_ o o m __ ao~ ~~ ~ o °o Q y~ U~ t d E ~ m Ti 9 i°' m" m ro ~ N N [J Q Q U 0. U i ri 'cl a` 0 F 0 a a Y E n '~ E _ a ro a i i *~y n 5 v ~ _~ d ~ U a ~ S ~ '~ u E § €5 ~ ~Y~ <y~ ¢p5 3a L~'.gsg mow" a'N~ m ~m ~~m d _ M ~k w ~~~" ~ as m°i m ~e ~^~ a ~~~~~ ~a~md ~, ~~ ~~ ~, a ~~~ x ~a m$ ~a~?s ~~~~~ ge ~~ m o° m ~-"m ~.« .~ ry ~ ~ xr " `~ w ~n ~4 ~~ m ~~ s~ _ i '. ~4M~ ~~ m:N 'M~~~ ~~;~~ s~ "~ ~ ~ "' _ N"5~ ~, ~, .-M ~ m" ~~n~N y~R~ ~~ m ~m ~~ ~~~ ~ m . Kw ~ oR° .. ~~ ge °•° ~€,x aae aa°a'az ~~ MR' m ~~~~o a s ~i ,~ s yT am z , w e ; m - ~ E B E~ ~ m ~ F V U (J U t ~ ~ Y~ Q~ £ ~ ~' ~ £ _ U F ~mxagE E ~kg ~.~.~~w ~~m xv~~' s a 8B &s 5z ~.o fi z ~~ Rio ~~ $~ ~~ d ~a w W~ e ~oooo ~~~~~ E ~ 9 ~ F l mU ry ffi ~~ ~ Ro v i 3 zot~m0 d_aN~~ M~~ _~= u~ ~- "~ ~Re~~~ ~~p~M "~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ v3"~~W A" -3E3~~ ^3°£8 '~ $~~~cm "a~~eos $~~ ...- ffi 3 ~ [ ~a.a U555q ~ ~ ~ ~ E ~ ~ J F Em ire or a b ~e m F E E ~ 8 E o o a ~ a ff N ~ a c- m L o 0 U B ~ ~ . .E ~ y s; m mom o~ N e~ 8: f w Wpm o~ e~ w ~m~m ~ ~o m ~~ -~ ~~ °' - m ~~ ~ ~~ E E a -~ v o 8 e~ ~3 N E r i _ .. °~ m9 ~ D~ . a' EOQL E x sz Fu°I ¢~~L o Ec~~d u~Q o ~g `zt - w ~~ ~ry~ $~ `-'~~ AM a~_ m 3~M N.W ~~e ~m ~~ ., ~www ~v. ~'<~e.~-, °~ ~~.~ 8~~ mho m~ mm ~o~o~, w ~ ~~ ~~ i ~ ~ ~~ ~g .'oM~ ~.~m.. ~3 oN~ ~~~ ~~ N~nm~ ~ry _ a ~SM~«~ 8~ , ~, «,.~«,.»w W Mv~~M 'Q R,RA w g h ~§ = LL xF a~ ~d ~- m ~ C N V ~ d ~ U~ a ~S u~z rc ~5d o`zo¢m8 ~goo~ ~~~ ~~ o~ ~~ Y ~~oo~ ~~ 2~ ',,. o ~ ',. ~oooo ~ooo~ g"2i$o ~ U g '~y4- ~ ^(~i' F E~¢U I i S z~E=~c T~~&~ m~o~ ~~ ~~~5~ ~~ti$~ NS °5m W~~~e~ ~ti ~a^ ~$ ~`~$m ~m~gT~ c~~$~~ ;a ~~e~Wm ~~:`~~o ?~R9 T°~3° ~nn ~ s" ¢ k~~ t b ~¢VF g '~ci r°~w or s 'sue F (g 3 ~§a E 2 ~za ~ a n ~ L ~ .~ ~ a _ E~ i. ~~ao n R E ; LL V[: O '. a'} ~ M m N V a r ~] W - O o (9 Ol N r d' M r Cl C] N V OJ N 6 t ' . l m N N O m ^ (J r r O r J 4 J V V O ~- m M T O m M N M N N ^ r pj N •- O OJ Ol N N ~ 0 m mrmmocn EA to - O A ~ A f (l M f . N f/3 V3 d 69 EA EA r N m N d' V - ~ ID W OJ r V CJ OJ V N Cl T i o Mm u1N rn' CJ N v N rn nvroM~ N d' O r CJ C] N V O O] Ql N N ^ ~- 6J N ~- O m OJ O C] ~- h V V N T [D N OJ O N EA EA ~ 69 H3 i1J l!] E9 r (9 N U3 b3 (A r M m N d' V m m o ~D OJ O] r V m r N ifJ C'l V OJ N N i1J d' O r O a N N~~ C: N c V O .- m m 0] CO h M VJ d' d' W m ~(] O] r O EH ' H3 f9 ~ fA 69 fA r ~lJ m ~ Y d' ° m ~ (a m c0 r d' m N ca ca m ° 1 °' ° ~ N m i r i a v 6 0 mmm~m m~ 05 N of ,- oi nip omo~"'v i= ° ~ a 1`° ° ~~ o s s s s i» in m m ~ ss - in - e» i» is N~~NOm cO ~ cam rr~n ~nm moo ° ' m ° ~ ° ' N o~ cn N ~ , n o ~uri o r i JO mc N n ~•-c•i `- iri~o=o5v d'~oioro m m o 6'm~v ~ s v Ea ca i» u i ss ~F»Ea F»M F» en ~~a om o vl in carNOCaa ~no.- T tD `" °' r~ ~ N °vv o~nmrno~v ca r N ^ o1 V N ~ ~ [o W 6> ca co ~- N m f9 ~ M m m r O N r £A 63 s3 s3 O r ~~ ~ ~ ~ N Vi ~ a M O O 0\° ~ O Ca m~ r r M r am M N ~Nago~ 8 m r ~ N I mco co N r cN w ~ ~ cv ~ m ~ri a ro co ~ r~ m .- NN<»F»m ch omO]N OI d3 H3 E/3 CJ ~[J t(1 m A E9 H3 H3 6A 69 t9 ~m~oOd N o mNCOO d'gdmocaro ~ T r m ~ .N- V~~ O 61 O (a ~ N~ m ~ ~- (O ~ V- I~ 6) aJ (O ~ m O F»v3 mmomm ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ va m m N 0 0 D7 0~° (a ~ O N~ ~[J N r m W ~ ~ r r N m m fA 01 OJ m N O O N 47 ~ N m~ D7 m a7 N ^ _ ~ ~ ~ lfl d' ~ ~(J N d' O ~ to Ffi~~FA r» O~ O r O O i[l o V O N O O T W N W 6J N O m CJ N O 4fl r EA 69 r r V LLJ t[] d N_ N r W CJ r d' r ^ V O ~!] N m ~ d' 69 63 O r U3 ro O d' fA EA fA £A N ~ O~ 0 0 0 ~` m 0 0 0 0 V O O m r N N ~<»mF»r» ~E»cnm m ~ ~- e» e3 ~i am ci ~ i» i» N [q d D O I ~ OQ ~ Q N OJ ~ ~ a C ~ C S. ~ X N C N -0 E c a -o N ~ E Q] ~ o f a m p y? H m m o ~. ~~ m 4' a'c m J m~ b m o m? ~' ~ aV1i c~ m~ LL O N ' J N m E~ ~ -~ ` > ¢ _ » C N Q N m H F`- E~ ' ? o ~ ¢ o ~ m a c 61 ~~ l QI N N N N E R J c N iU O N a ~ N r r -_ E m a1 ¢ N ~ O~ 3 O~ N C N N O O LL O~~ O~ ~ Q ° aaoc~s cc ¢¢ ao=b ad>ri r c~ ~ N Q d a O N 5 Q E 'o 0 E i in E a '' e' a :- m r <D N m N v a N N O 6) O O O N N O a C W M y V Q N 6 ~ ~a N R N ~ Q N N d d I!. ~ H 2 > U m ~ ~ m O V r N r ~ r N I~ N l(] m M v ri v ~ ~ cep O M o v N n vi v m r O N W t+) d ~ y M O] IfJ 'If JA O t0 N (p O V N r ~ a W r m W [~ to Cj d U3 EA E13 ~ O ~ r CJ O N C] O ~- b aO O m W N cJ V ~ Efl ffl Q1 ~ 6J Ci N O cO V m n b_ M ~ CJ CJ ~ £A Hi N ~Sl W I` ~ ~ O ~- ~n .- r ~ ui co N m m ss N N V fA En T. (O (0 O ~n ~ r o co v ~- N CO V N N O1 r O Ui N N v ~ N W C[J ~ W N O N O W r N r o cgi r n r~ w w v o v OJ CJ N o n w r ~- ai n N a v~ ~» `o V O S `m N v m <'o N o N m (7 cd tti n_ ~ a CI N VJ N E9 N m (D o N r v~ v o ~ v ri ffl ~ N 'ro 0 D 0 v N 9 ~ Q a 3 E C x~ ~ U W ~ LL 'ro ~ I-° F°- z _~ ~ a O A LL O d ~ m U o m ~ r~i Approved Village 2 SPA Pro Forma Table B-1 Proposed Land Uses Land Use Single Family Residential Units 978 (197.4 Ac.J Multi-Family Residential Units (Includes Multi-Use Residential) 1,808 (136.7Ac.) MFAttachedz 450 MF Detached3 1, 298 Mixed Use (Attached) 60 Industrial Acres 94.40 Commercial Acres (includes Multi-Use Commercial) 11.9 Parks 60.0 CPF 6.30 School 10.3 Subtotal Developed Acres 517.0 Open Space 158.2 Preserve 75.1 Other Acres/ROW 68.8 Total Acres ~~,~~,~~.,,~~.~,~.,,n.~,,,~ ~~,,.~,.,~.~.~..._..,.„~~,,,~.w 819.1 .,,v,,~„~,,~~„ Population Single Family Persons/DU@ 3.21 3,139 Mufti Family Persons/DUQ 3.21 5,804 Total Est. Population 8,943 Employment Retail Emp/Acre@ 33.68 401 Research/Limited Industrial Emp/Acre Q 19.66 1,856 Total Est. Em lo~ment ~ ~,~,~ 2,256 The Approved Village 2 SPA scenario is analyzed including substantial conformance updates ZFor purposes of this analysis, MF Attached have been defined as homes with a density of 8 - 12 DU/Acre 3FOr purposes of this analysis, MF Detached has been defined as homes with a density >12 DU/acre Source: City of Chula Vista, JPf3 Development and Pro Forma Advisors Pro Forma Table B-2 Historical Housing Absorption 2000 35,671 19,975 55,646 2001 37,215 20,441 57,656 2002 39,286 21,305 60,591 2003 40,969 22,545 63,514 2004 42,986 23,235 66,221 2005 45,163 24,066 69,229 2006 46,446 25,308 71,754 2007 47,133 26,067 73,200 2008 47,614 26,417 74,031 2009 47,817 26,722 74,539 2010 48,007 26,922 74,929 o + e 2000 e 2001 1,544 466 2,010 2002 2,071 864 2,935 2003 1,683 1,240 2,923 2004 2,017 690 2,707 2005 2,177 831 3,008 2006 1,283 1,242 2,525 2007 687 759 1,446 2008 481 350 831 2009 203 305 508 2010 190 200 390 Source: California Department of Finance E-5 Pro Forma Table B-3 5 -Year Growth Forecasts -Village 2 Single Family 95 179 208 172 189 Multi Family 450 440 367 122 41 Total Residential 545 619 575 294 230 Source: City~of Chula Vista 2010 Growth Forecast Report ~ ~,.,,~„~,.~.~,~.~.~, mm~„~ E LL O a' N J a a m o m Q ~a w w o w o c m o n m o cu .- m ~ m v m m ° v ~D o w o is m A of ~ ° m rv m ~ p < ~ m m h m M ~] m m o w o v m o m c? o N ~ m .- rn v m m ~aN~° a m ~ o w ~ o ~ ~ n ~ ~ m ~mm M~~ OJ N O W O tl m O CJ m O N ~ m ~ N V M ~ C O tP O 1~ w m O) ~ M m O+ c0 P N m ~ N N n Cp c 0 ~n m ni ~n n m m o w o a rn o M m o ry ~ m ~ c~ m ° v ~O d o m o ~ m ~ci m of o~ m m .- ~ ~n ~ m m m H m r5 ~n w N ~ L O Oi U w CJ N V D7 d" N CJ (y O N N (P w w cJ O) pC M N m r P F m ~ ~n m v ~n M Cp N N o n c~i vi w w v M o o rn o r co ~. w m m m co ~ O M N V I~ M m O r n mil' M O ( O r d n ~ O i(J C] ~ t0 N O ~D m V ~n Po O O O O 1~ pJ n N n N N M w N b O [9 i!J m ~ O N M O M Cp N^ c m m m v v ~n m O N N V .- C) N m V ~- M O O O O :p N V !yO~ m n ~ W N m m O O l(J (V d' t0 N ~ w .- N N (O m N m w v o Wm o 0 0 o m ~ o o in o ~ yJ F M O O ~P ~ N M N m - o m .- m O CJ O O O O (O O M CO V' w T N (O ~p U U [O O ~ n1 m N N a N ~ O N O O VJ ~ O O ~Li W ~ N 0 F 3 _ Z U ~ d a ~ 5_ ~ m a ~ ~° ~ e m c b _ b 0 m U ~ N L N Q U ~ ~ N M iy N N w~ ~ N r 7 p Q ~ v W~ a ~ E ~. $ o ( aZi pJ w Q U N , = o E Y LL L ` .O ~ d p ~~~ g v a U Ji u> O a O ~(~Dh N CJ ~ Nw m (O (O M ~ N m W m rn N r o ~ r ~ I N N M M ~j ~~ c 0 0 0 .~ d ~ ~ T W a ao ~ li W 61 •= N mg r° i o w o w ~~ O ~ N a m O h a v~ O ~ O m N h O M m o r h rn m N a 6 N O O O U 0 c 0 v m 'o 0 0 0 Q N ~ m E c o B LL p O C~pp c N ~D ry O m rn m M ~ C N N Q m o m o d 3 ~o E ~ a w a~ ~ N y E N m !~ N ~ ®~ o s ~ U '~ pBj O u a L w o U iw ~w ¢°~ 1 N ~ Ytl d j - ~ ~ p F o i¢ rt r- - vi "' Pro Forma Table B-5 Population 218,961 223,604 227,850 231,157 234,011 Householtls 70,916 73,365 74,527 75,259 75,752 City Staff 1,169 1,227 1,264 1,249 1,110 Revenues (Actuals) $137,763,583 $167,SD9,965 $161,564,721 $153,938,093 $140,502,938 Expentlltures (Actuals) $10.2,195,531 $160,826,968 $186,05Q0.06 $155,021,736 $140,366,277 CPI (San Diego Area) 220.6 228.1 233.3 242.3 242.3 Expenditure/Capita $655.40 $719.25 $728.80 $670.63 $599.82 Revenues/Capda $634.97 $705.76 $709.08 $685.95 $600.41 2009 CPI Atljustment Factor 1.03 1.00 1.04 1.00 1.00 Exp/Cap in 2009 Dollars $677.68 $719.25 $756.91 $670.63 $599.82 Rev/Cap in 2009 Dollars $656.56 $705.76 $736.44 $665.95 $600.41 Expenditure Adjustment Factor 113% 120% 126% 112% 100% 114% Revenue Atljustment Factor 109% 118% 123% 111% 1D0% 112% (Relative to 2009 Levels) .-.w .._~_w.,..~.,.,,~..,,,~~.».~ ...~....,..~..-,,.,.~..~,~,~. ....... ~..~,~~...._.A.._... _ ._~.m.,..~,.~ „-...~.. ..... 'Provided by the City of Chula Vista . . . ...,..m,~.,.,,,,.~,~~.w.- Source: City of Chula Vista and Pro Form a Advisors Prc For Table 9-8 Chats Vuta Eetimetetl Commercial Aeaeasad Velue ~;ii~~. r ~, ,' ~, ,~ , ~ ,,; ,', 9ullq hp ~ad6paday; ,,;„Nat7ncnmkl';:: A94nsarodlFal e uind r7~s; „ ~- ;;~~ , ,, ;ombef ~ Haakac arute~rsiAere , "'n+p. aPVSC';,- w:mcan ';,; r%, ,,, nat~%°," „ge',,,;~,'aku,nar~" ,,,,,,; ,'r~dN/~~~ Resea¢h/Limited IndusMal 0.30 FAR 13,088 SF $LSD 95% 95% $212280 ].50% $2.830,529 .........v.~...._.... W..»......,....m,...e.~.~_. ...w...........~..... W........._ ..................................................»....._.._._..._q._._.....v_..._................w.,,..~........m.... Source: Loopnet, CF3 HlchaN Ellk Market Nspods. Pro Forma Atlvlsors, JRS Development Table 8-7 Single Family 22 $3]2,432 $8,193,500 1 $3y2,432 $8,585,932 Multi Famiy 18 $316,000 Muttl Femliy Attached ] $292,OD0 $2.044,000 4 $1,188,000 $3,212,000 Mufti Family Uelachetl 9 $334,822 $3,013,400 4 $1,339,289 $4,352,689 Source: Ceunty of San Ulego Assessor s OHlce, Mtp://users.'mpres com/-gtrlpttan, Truliacom .~ .,~..M....m..~.,.~.~,.w...M...ee.....~.,.....~....e..Mm...~...~....F.. E a LL O a d v N N Q m m 0 a m u m a a a" a o a o (? ~o m N m ~ m O (~ m (O N N Ir(I m m ~ C - p O N M M u3 M ~ ~ a a o M ~o m N m ~ m N p O m^ <O N N N N N N fA O O N ~ [+~ ~ ~ O V U M <O m N .T~ r m N U ~ CJ ~D N N (O [OO N N 0~ V O N (~ CJ iA t9 ~ O V O M ((~ m N m ~ m O m M VJ N N ~ (°O m uNi O - p O N M m ~ M fn m V O~ M1 t0 4 m M a m M ~ O P N m N m N N N ~ ~ fA o .- M .- m o m m r r ai °' m m ai o 0 of N ° o M cu e m m N m (n .» .» ei v ~ m ~- (o m N r m N N m ~- 69 E9 m m a M m m m U M o N cMO o o °M ~ ° vmi ~ N ~ w N O o] n O 1~ M O m c0 4 OJ ~ ~O N O N M ~ r M ~ o ~ 0 0 0 ~ '~ m (ti o N a c~ o vi ~ h ~ ~ ~ (o m a v> in (u M o ~ o ~ O U U O m U 0 8 8 S ~ m o ~ ~ o ~ a ~~~ ~> „~ a ~ o -~ c d a m ~ a E m C C N SC ~ J (~ ~ ~ p N C D O d ~ G ~ ~ ¢` m ~ v ~ ~ ~ E -'' ~ ~ °t' m ti a ~? ~ E LL m ~ .~ J ~' o '-° d c ~ a Y w ` C V (L LL k ~ O p O ° ~ m ` ~ g ~ h = U ` ~ - y O - > J p v Q E ~ i`o v ~ ~ a _p E 0 O a` ~„ EC E 0 c 0 c tL N u ffi U N y ro a N a I10 U ~M N O ~ N M N ~s N N N W fA O n p p O (O N cD N O V :n wc» v m O C ~ o E y ~ o m E U ~ ~ > o y j m Y o~ E¢ a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ U a U Q- A y~>, _>. +E~c E Um V CJ¢gS Boa C N W ~~~ 0 0 n rn o m m O m (O M1 ~ M 63 M U n m n V c) fl3 C7 W ~o in vi of ~~ O V N N O V O m vines ~`~~h F» m v r con v, .n m om m rn ~~69M ~ I^ N~ O ~ m N .- V M M N VJ Vl V) Nj (~] V Q n ~ V V ~.... - m v v 0 o n ClN N O~ f9 E9 E9 uj 8 O U3 O OO 69 fA ~ o ~ C U ' C 1 O c ~ O p 1 N m U_ i o ~ m U N C O (n 'E Q'°' ~ ~ 1 ~ L G V (p 5 ~ iTn iwaw`a'c~ v a ~~ N~ m c 0 D) N 0 V N O O (D N r N ~ (fl m ~ v o cv o o co N~ ss m a 0 m O JJ ~i m o ~m N N m ~ N ~V n N N N [7 W m (~ N Ui V> n N N ro w o, ~~ O O ~~ 0 N W a m a ~ m mQ n `c-a °' ~ c ~ b U %~ ~ ~ W ~ ~ N 0 0 .a ii r~{ 59 O N (n M m~ ss ~ u o i d ~ ~ ~ C 0 ~ 4 u ~ U J y io ~z a m °a N r a d co N W O r N M 0 O m m c 0 e m m N O Onl m vi N V m N V m 'N ',. N O CJ N r N [7 h 0 U mO C N ~ ~ ~_ a E a a Q ~ ~ ~ N ^ ti a U y ~ N L ~ ~ ~ ~ o 'p 0 n m Q n E m ~ ~ `o ~ LL ~ n o U m d - m a N S ~ O ~ 4 O N N 7 a y;. N G L N ~ `o v a LL_ c V ' 2 O U U Q a a E o- LL-' a ;' RYA U o u N m U a - a n F a' ~ m°m m `~Om ~i O r ~D N M ul W M ~ m°m ~m ~ d ~ ~ N ei n cd M n m m~ a m m N - °m rn d ~o ci .n m m M N ~ O ~ m a ~ r m m C ] ~ ~ m ~ m c.i c5 vi r Mi m m ~ rn o o ai m ~ m v m y ~d N M N OJ a7 M N ~ N N p ~ N V V W n [ p N T f0 ~P N ~ r N N In p7 p1 N M N ~ 0 h m y O f M1 ~ n P r N R ( 0 N N a fp N N ~ N ~ p N ~ N o] c5 ~ O P h N N N mm p Sao ~ ~ ~- ~ N C] m y p N m m n ~ io d m ~ a W W N M ~ N M1 O ~j M n N N N r r @ V r ~ N 0 n j ~~ Ni N I ~ d p =O ~ [~ t a y ~ ~ ~ ~ m =~ U > >. d ~ >. ac° a w : y m _E " o o c ~E 4' s m w¢ n .. E= oLL E o m ~~ p~ o mLL m¢ =° ro4- m- a m ° 3 -= o ~ aa~'°a E ~ ` L ~g~r a°~ng ~ U Q hd G o~° M O n 0 a to a e 0 r m c~ v a° 0 O A O O 0 `c 0 U m 0 R h e 4 mc- c M m [7 N c . ~ ~ ~ ~ N »~»~ w m N a M m r J, eY v i c i a ci ~o ~~ M ~~~ F» v ,: m ° m m m M N V N (O ~ ~ ~ ~~ N m Zv ~' ry N i v N ~ nU. mmu~i ss » m n N M v N ~ CI N b3 fA M1 ~ O a d JI N h ~ ~ ~ O O M CNJ ~ CMri N T ~ O mN e» <n f o ~» ' m~ ~ ~~o M m_ d M ~ ~ ~ N 43 fAr (A M 7 ~ V l ( ~ ~ I O n m m <o a `~~ .imp n m m ~~~ N r m V I p O) f'1 N YI mN `gy'm m w ca ~ Ny3 `e~f Nor v mo v r ° ~ m o [+J N N 0 COY n (C N y F9 E9 M ro " ~ V ° o o v n O ~ 6+ (D h ~ O ~ ~ ~ O a O O C p p p m O O~ r ~ ~ cim M r ~ N N » ^m o o ~ m ~ ~ % mo j m e ~~ ~ 3 3 O ^ o 0 a` a °v o 0 U ~ ~ a m Q U - v y n ~ N U ~ ' ~ yp 1 n .. U u U v tli a ~ U a u a `o ~~ ~ a ~ 1° ' c ~ v c a U u m m m ~ i ° ~~LL ° ` ° ~ ° ~ s LL ¢a ¢ o . t - E- LL[! OIe a`.,. ~' O ~f N C 3 O w d E °a o" Y r m U u a a a' a h N O Q1 (!3 a x r CT 3 w o ~ v °m '- ~[] (p N N r N N ~ M m o ~ a °m I~ ~ ~ ~ N N r N N 'A N [h c9 [O CJ of O i[J ? O O~ h ~ ~ ~ N N r N N E13 M (~ W CJ O ~ h V O Gl I~ .- N ~ N N r N N ~ m (ii m O ^ V W h .- ~ ~j N N r N N N fA M U3 (NO N C] ~ ~ ~ ~ pj N N N ~ N N N Vi t7 O [~J ^ ~ m ~_ ~ ~ ~ N r N O n <fl N f9 V O ~ ~ V ~ r Ln ~ m N V N Ui N W CN9 ~ ~ N .- ~ -- p ch N d U3 N 43 N N h ~ N ~ O ~ ~ O r CJ tD s3 I~ a p f~ N M O [+f N ~ N ~ r M ~ ~ l~ O O ~ O ~ O d N O ~ ~j (O r ~ h ~ 9_ a m o £ m O ~ N O E p 'A LL ~ o ~ x '" Qw m ~ Y ~ C m ~ ~ m ^ - ~ ~ = d o v a o"3 ~ ~ ~ ° m o O V ~ _ Uj Lid O Q [~ rA ~ N ~ N O ~ L ~ ~ } ~ ~ > S N N a x N m D y 9 O ~ d O ~ d W n F N O V N R V_ 4 d L L" a N N O N O U Q~ O ~ N G 7 m E d r V Q ~ O O U o c ar ~ ~ s i 3 O 6 O LiLL O ~O ~- a U ~' E N d ~ D O_ ~ LL +~ O O LL U m y E ~ o s ~ ~N ~ E.. m a mm a ° ~ ~ ~ `c ~ m ~ ~ N ro n LL. m ra .... _ c mm w c~mrn ~ V . i.i ai ` oi ~oi6 Nm~6 V a.,. roN ~o moo F»ss c c~ ~v, r ~n s s ~ ~f ~. ~ ~ ~o m N m o m~ o m a :o n a yry m m m~~ m ~ - - `O h°~c°~. e 2.mm m ~- uin o.=ro~NOi .n o~.-m Ninomm c~N~u ~Fn ei~^v, M ~~ m a `r ~~ n .~ a° `~ vai rn ~ °m ~ N m m o~ ° mrnva cNO~m O ~ ~ cO N m U [O m m Ne»ncs F»a r .»w, » »w~ ~ ~ ~ ~ e nom rv.-N<om ~°a - ° `D C"'imv~v~cmim - xi .-. ai ei o - ai m o ~ w m COr»~v° m `" ~ c3"~ ~v i i» N N ~ N~ O V> N ~ ~ r ~ O a O m O m f 0 m N ' ~ 1 ] [ '1 O i CO C N m I~ N mr m -, aSO OOi ci rd .n d o m ~ ~ N a m <n ~v;rm~e~ m m w m m ~ o_ ~ ~ o o a N ~ m o q °~ m ~o' ~ mn < P m p~ N f0 ~ O M~ q~ [~ O~ rN fA fA d3 Efi fA ~ N ~~ J' 1~ V Cl 01 ~ ~ m N O m N~ O N m N ~ W O O m W N p I~ N ~ O~ V(p ((I N V m ~ Q iA E9 N 0 0 ~ ~ ~ N ~~ `V °m °NNm ~ ~omc~°'m'~°'~ v~u~ooo~ry {oi ~ ~~cn F»~~°J e~ F» » » w Nmoo mmv ~ °i o'vo _a `m'$'n O1 rco mom N ~- N N I~ N 6l 0 b NY30tfl~VC~u~ m ~ ~~~~ ~ moom:oN o x~~m vo vmi of im.,~ ci o .- ~ ~ ~ x ~ ° » .» ~ ~ o o c o o p o~~ o~ m o~ o~ ~~~ a> x» °i vmia vmiom C a O N O O r ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~- NE9m N~ fA N 9 a' `^ CO o° a U ~ O 0 ~ ~ O O V 0 f i ~_ D V q N E ~ a ' °m 3 " E - row ` a a• a v n m ~ ~ ~ a m 5~ d m a i ~ o _o v m K - m 3 ~ ~ n° 3 ° a v 'o ~ °' a.o °' n m rw 0 4 na. 2.S O..O n'.. u'S ¢ caa°Oa'uS a'F i E o ', LL'-: O a`i m L r m U y O a ~ F1p U m o o° o ~ r O N p try O 6J O (V ~ o r m c~ ~ 69 fA fA (rte V3 63 ~ N [a g S ~ ~ ~' O N O t7 M O O~ O (V COJ O O~ O N of~V3EHo ~ ~ 6D p O O O b l OO N O t7 ~ O m m M N ~ sm9 ~ N O~ O fA 63 r U = h~ N ~ ~ X m a m z t' ~ F- m m a Y m 6 O c ~ d U uJ U O ~n I r M 10 r a N lb 6> C4J O m N ~ p, r M N N ~O V p (9 pry C7 I~ 0] P ~ EA ~ w ~. f9 O 43 ~ r ~ OOi d' ~ O N m o o n u~ a o, r M N N ~ yy'' 'gyp cO r ~ M r N p MK ~ ~ ~ N EA <R r ('> N r V N 4 o~ o o ro ~n ° rn r N N N N y~ (~ r ~ cN] r OJ V cfl ~ ~ (A ~ N ~~ N ~ ~ 0 X ~ C ~ 0 m 0 0 N ul C ~ f 3 ~ ~i v v ~' m O m ~ ° m m o m ~ ~ L - N N ~ O i ~ ~ > r_ m m m a r`n° S 5 m' r ¢° c'n I~ O 0 N tp V O [p t+~ p CJ W O> N V 1 ri N ui 6 0$ N N O] W N N M ~D fA fA O 4 ~[j ~ Vi ~ ~ N ~ N ^ a N ~ b ~ h % tb N O N r O <p h p pp y ~ W N p n ~ N CJ t t~ Cj ~ N ~ V Po tl' ~ ro N N [N+I (rnD W V ~ ~ O v' 4i W' O f9 N 49 N~ E9 ~ ~ ~ ~ N N M T r I a Q m c O ~ m O O d a ~ ~ O [D N h m m ~ w \) N uJ d' o]' m N N [rNJ ~ H3 ffl O V 4j V3 ~ E9 ~ y m nv' ~ U N r ~ O V Lp> >. r/i Q 0) a O C L a O V O s a J E ~ N N O p U N V w pEp n 3 ~ ~C R N ~ c. O d O O N ~ 1- _ ~ ~ O 0 ~ N N p~ r ~ ~ n ~ v>in inOm n II ~ f O f E9 U '~ n ?~ i N i ~ ~ v Q n o `m o e o t a i h O ~ i £~] n Q n N r H p N N O m O N V Z O V L_ C_ O U C_ N N y m O y N N C N N V d f9 ~ O A m 7 L O N C LL N ~ O N m ~'- a U a U t o w N vl O E c ' d ro ~ c ~ ~ T ~ U _ y O U O ~ ~ L ~ U n m y d 2 U ~ ° ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ Pro Porma Table B-14 Chula Vista -Other Discretionary Revenue Allocation Factors (Basetl on 20091nformation( A1: Population 226,694 Dwelling Units 78,615 Employees 71,153 Land Uaea Developetl Acree Employees AV Share (Estimates) (estimated) Commercial (Retail and Oificel 2,048 46,842 25% Indusidal 917 21,162 8% Residential 9,565 67% Subtotal Taxable 12,530 68,004 Other (Parks, PubliGOuasi-public, Open Space) 7,171 3,149 Total 19,702 71,153 Incremental Revenue Factors b Develo ment Untt AA" Properly Taxes, Current Taxes-Secured $28,363,165 Calculated Separately State Secured -Unitary $300,000 Commemlal AV 25% $36.61 Acres Intlustrial AV 8% $26.17 Acres Resitlential AV 67% $21.01 Acres Current Texas -Unsecured $979,200 Commercial AV 25% $119.51 Acres Industrial AV e% $85.42 Acres Residential AV 67% $68.59 Acres Delinquent Taxes $590,OOD Commercial AV 25% $72.01 Acres Industrial AV 8% $51,47 Acres Residential AV 67% $41.33 Acres Other Local Taxes Sales antl Use Taxes $29,677,977 Calculated Separately Franchise Fees' $8, 732,093 Commercial Land 7% $298.40 Acres Industrial Land 3% $285.66 Acres Residential Land 90% $821.63 Acres UCiliry Taxes' $7,t 22p96 Cornrnercial Land 9% $312.92 Acres Industrial Land 4% $310.65 Acres Residential Lend 87% $647.80 Acres Business License Tax $1,322,647 Employees (Non-PUbIIc) $19.45 Employees Transient Occupancy Taxes $2,752,514 Not inclutletl Real Property Transfer Tax $841,402 Calculated Separately Revenues from Other Agencies Sales Tax: Public Safety Augment $875,347 People $3.86 Person State Homeowners Property Tax Relief $282,800 Dwelling Units $3.60 DU State Motor Vehicle Licenses $20,215,866 Calculated Separately Total Discretio nar~Revenues $102,p55,306 ~ w~~, ~ ~,µ ~, ,, ,pYM nnmm~,N, ~. r r Commercial (Acres) $839.44 IndusMel (Acres) $759.37 Resltlentlal (Acres) $1,600.36 Resltlentlal (DUJ $3.60 Employees $19.45 Po~ulatian $3.86 ' As presented in SPA Fiscal Impact Framework, allocation share by lantl use based on FIND model estimates Source: City of Chula Vista antl Pro Forrna Advisors Q ~, n ym £ F 6 ~~x^x ~~ >_ - m~~~~ ~w >~ ~~ >~g~ ~~~~~ ~~ ~~~~~ ~~~$~ e~A~~ ~ 3 d ~ ~ >g~ i tea, e ~ > o -N sa° r ~$ - o x e r 2 . ~g6o`' `6 S g b Y S a ~ $ Q m +E ~ E ~ € _ fi ~ P d z o r a S $ v S X > m n ~ Nam-_m~a ~A m~~s ~$~~ m~~ro~ro~ b~v N~~ ~ _~ ~~8 ~~ K .~ Ru~~ >s>>>>>>>' 6 A R ~ h £ g a ~ E U w AQw ~~ - „, p ~ w ~~~ w ~a~ ~" ~ I 8 ~~ a a E R 5 a o j U V 4 q erl U p e p 3 'a ~ ~`+ & 2 ' ~ e - e P e u ~ 3 c 3 ~'~ a LL '' p a`',' x f 0 a` m a ~ 9 C h Q 0 O ° a° a° o ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~. °' 2 s a °~ » ~ a~ a. a w0 ~ i ~ v n max: ~~ ,~a~ ~~e~~ ;MO, N N ~ T C Y o 1 O ~ } O O ~~ a F Gmi y) Y O O O d° e O O b O~ ~ Y O S o ~ c N 4 h G 4 ° v o ., a o O 6 ~ a ~ - 4 VI t LL (~ C ~~ o ~ ° a a _ _ m ¢ a E a ¢ ~ ¢ ¢ (g 9 'v in C ~s °n ~ o m`~'~ °'%n~w ~~»~; r ~~' , Ea F»F»w `~ ~ o xW~~W .. ~,~ ~ o,~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,~ ~ ~. a V V V O m O p V g N Yi ~ Yl O O m O~ O~ b i O O ~ ~ ~ ~n ~ O o O~ r l~9 S % h 4J W i iii r i i i i i r rH G a `o $ m o' N S' m E$ ~«' y c°.~ er° ° - ° ~ $ m n x ~ .n n ° ~ 0 o m o f Fc~ ° ' ~ m w ~ w ~~~~ N ` " ~; :~^ ' ~~ m~~o $ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O N N ~ ~fi ~ W ~1 W ~ ~ ~ m ~ ~ ~ iS w ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i S S iii 5>? i i r r r r e a a N .., 4 ~ e a` E E U w W N d N U 0 ~+ N P a F 3 o~` 3 a E: o. a`r ~ ~ 0 ~ N ~ m ~ N ~ 10 E W LL T n U ~ .4 m °' u u t °_ s J ~ -' a V a ~ ~ ~ h' " v d'o a.'~ ^> > a° a "~ a `o prna~U ~~ >c~O~Na ~a ~; v N W N p N [C ~ m °- a ~ ~ ~ in m h ~ a N ~ 0 N n m m o w .Ca L 0 o (9 Q N > G N C as > `° ¢ U ~ a a > <~~, u,o ~~a o~ N~~ ~o> o N m r_ ~ ~ c 6 ~ r_ m U~l~~ C G3 ~ Cl O O o N Ol O O u? C E~9~ hp~ ~ v ~ ~ O J 1~ ~ N mmm rn`Si m veil mro y~ :a o o a° cio ry ~m m ~ ei» m eNO ro~ ~ a o~~ aim ~ ~ ~ ~ ry ~ V m N ~D ~~~ ~ V ~ F9 N ~ d: W O ~° b O ~ V ~ p f` ~~t9 N ~ ~ M m e 0 m O N ~ CN f_A ~ N t7 f9 ~ n a O ~ a rv o M N ~ ~o es °'» N ~ ~ ~ Efl ~D ~ N h ~ ~(] p 4A ~ V3 W O h I v a h V d ~ _ = _ U LL ~ ~ ~ m ? ~ - ~ E o _ a m ~ Q E ? £ ~ N-@ ¢~ O 9 > ° -° m m s 'm ~ a &~ ~~a a > g ~ ~ ~ a c ~ OO o o- 2 t~ 88 a`3 F ~~ > s ~ m ~ E U ~ v i ~ ~ ° =° ~ mm oa ¢~ ~° a o o o o ',~ t N ~~ N m m °m w M h O N ~i N ~i a al ,i s a ~ m LL E ~ _ d a N n > U a v E 2 tll ~. ~~~ ~ ~~~ E ;$$~ roy~a¢nS Ha ~~ °cgZ F W Q ti ~ m ~® m w n ~ ~ g~ ~ 3m~'° ~~ o,b' o ° ~ P e~ ~N ~ " _ n ' 8~ o ~§ ~~ a ~~ ~° `m~ ~, Nr ~~ P^ ~ «~ ~~ w~ 4 ~ N ,-_ v 4 U~ N Tj~ ~~~~i~~ i y2~~ 6 w ~°~cnM ~..°v m ~~~ "~~° .m°.S~o m~~ M ~3m ~~~ ~~ CFO m,~ e~~ ~F~~a ?_~~m ~ m s> ~~N~~ ~~_~° ~:~8~ ~v s~~~~ ~m~°~ ~y~~~ ~~Sry ~~~Rm a°&m ~~v ~sa~a~ x~xv~ ti :~ of ~~ x ~ % ~~ E ~ _ c ~ cJ ~ ~ U ~ J ~ C m¢ L`o ~o Q2o ~~ 2 5 U 58 ea F~ 4a a ffi [~ V rcS` ~9 ZC4 RU'~O U~~¢hG $R g o~ m3 o~~~~ ~~ e ~- ~2°dg ~ V E u ~ ~ ~~ V ~ r3 ¢U 2 E~ ~ LO O ord~ `li c`~i »- '$ y ~~ ~~m3' '~~~5~ @~ obi w~N~~ry ~`~~~~ ~~ ~, .Am ~~~ ~~ °v~u°M1~ ~ `~i ~~~~m >°;°;~a~ ~~~ P )~ m pF GJ ~c P Jc Egg E '~2~JF 3y ~'~ 3 zpgn0!- P F 8 a ~ ~ a E ~ A ° ~ ~ ~ € ~ ~ ~ Ft g U b L V $ ~ V -r-' .a ~ w Q4 WYE m i3 s m ~ 8~ m ~'m m ~m ~~~~ m ~~ ` ,";80 8N a _ ~~ a~ ~~ ~ M ~~ ~ ~ M ~w a ~N ~ N ~_ a CW ~~ ° a ~° N E _ u 2p$~~i w E m Eo<2 a€ zE r" ¢~s g~ So 8" h3 oma bBoN S~ ~ 8W ~, 3'F. ~$~m~ m <~a ~~ ~o ~~~mn "'PS_ r~ m~'m~~ ~o~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~8 ~"~-~ 8°"'a m° Pga ~~ ~~~~~ 9.~~n ~~..-III ~~ ixo~xa ~~xa~ a~ m .~~~_ ~2 LL m > d x~ ¢9 E L g ~E~§~ ~'~ ~ n ~ ~~ P~ ~~ N~ " U~~~ ST{D~ 2_ V ~fl. U U Pn m~aS] fr ~3E5 y', p J S Tf) ~~ r E Ka m c~z ¢~nb UzU¢G5i8 ~° n ~~~ ~~oog ~5' °' ~~o e~ ;'a~o€ 4N ~ C F ~ o~y ~ E ~ _ O E ~~" a E ~R zomYno a's 3Nem v~v=~ ~~w ~~~ `w ~~~ ~~~£~~ ~N$rv m~~~~m it mRSR ^~~ 6 ~ 'R ~~~ €~~~m ~_ ~~~ Wtim ~ro~~ ~~~"8~ F ~Vm~J ~ ~ ~ 4 U F £~¢Jf ~~~ Z J¢iSJ~ u E s a = `~ x~- a ~m~g $~h F ~ L a 0 6 a `m e ~ n E o" LL :, O. o;: N IL a V (q ~ ~ 6~l M T N r m 9 N N ~ucOim~ m vi m N r M IA N N O ~ ~ r T M m N r M ro N N a v~Oim~ori c°o C1 N r M M N N N r N r NO OOi N T ~ n N N ~ N ~ ~ No N o n ran ~~ON Ip ~ N r W d (7 O U N O t0 ~ 6J ~ ~ ~ O O N r m ~ N .M- [J ~- M~ N O O m N ~ M O I~ O O <D O cJ M m° ~ aoco N N T OQ N N W ~ N ` C ~ Q 41 V U Q o £ ~ a ~ N O N J~ m a a ~ m~ ~ C E ~ ~ m O W rn ~ ~': N N = E b N a 2 ~ E ~ a a n` ~ U ~ ~ o m m a r vMmm~nrM N O 6l M 6J l0 a [p O r r r N ~ C] [~] (O (D N [p `- of Ol ~ ~ 0 6J (~ W tD m O M o MmorM~oM F»63 e>i»63 u~v~69l~0 e3 6s °~» O O V r C M N a ~ r o w ommo~u'~v co r~o N '- M M N (O O N N co ai~~oai ~n ~o r ai ro" M v ~ ~ m m m n N m u~ E9 EA EA ER EA ~n v H3 .- N O ~ .- .- ~ V Efl EA M19 o T 01 V r V m N O N r M N^ O O> M m m V' V' m m (O r N A M m Ol Ol N O roai~~oaS ui ¢Sromai M V Mom ~r.-cow 69 6s in is en v~ v .- ~ vi .- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 69 u> to o mm yr V M V <oorM N omMrn u~v ~n mgr r MrM N~-M Min nN Nm 1 M~ ~ ~~ m M m N t00 OMi 4A fA 6963 f9 N M~ ~N M fA H3 fA H3 T° N of r r OJ N M O M C N 6l N M 6) 6J N N c0 6J r in O M .- O N V_ CJ N r ¢] m C'J ~ m r d [O O) O~ M C ~- M r G7 61 ~(NJ Ot EA EA ~3 EA fA ~ ~ (P, EOf-. (i3 ~ M ~ ~ ~° u~~n~orNamvmo.- °vc°~om r'rnm~r' `_ m V' M ~ ~ W W m~ [p M N M EA ~ N CJ DJ r O N r Ui C9 V3 69 ~ r~ EA ~ ~ r N o d' O ~ (O CO .- N r O F .- ~n N V d' O In N N ~n (O (9 O O N :J O r M N r M in d' O m ~ M rn M ~ ENA ~ ~ U3 ~ ~ ~ tMn ~ M Ui Hi 69 69 Ui o m N [O O V Wm m ~n (O O N N r ~O to N m~ V O ~A ~ V Vl r O CJ m (O O N O ~ [O M V r 0] (O M [+~ N fA 69 d' W O N C] ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ M f9 o ~ (U ~ O N~ r N l(J W M ~ O N 6> ~~ r OJ V W M OMl '~ O V N CO N [O (O (O ~- m ~ ~ ~ N ~ r fR fR fi3 H3 fA o~° V" O m o O (O a N r O] O N O EA r b3 £A M n O N [O v N ~ r M m ~ M ~ EA (GD ~ ~ W N V O Ffl V3 Uf ~ o CJ O O O M O O N r in ^ in (~ ~~fn ¢I M(fl V M (9 .- ron M u~ ~ n N ~ m ~ ~ ~ O K LL O U N m C j v Q ~ ry C C ~ a`¢ (D uJ O C r (D mN V t9 V CJ CJ fA O ~ CNJ N O 63 m r~tO f/3 f m m O 4 d % C N ry Q ~ d Q y Q`~ u N G N ~' d C i5 Q J 4 N 3~ N W iT N ~ '" >. >. > C N N _ ~ ~ GOi N Q ~ p,j U' E j~ 0 0 LL N N CdOU °¢a'a>u~~ D Q E O N CR t p: o'i n` :{ ~- ~ N (9 N V V N N O T ~- O O O (V N O W N ~ U Q 2 0 E aQ. $' fA ~ m W N N N ~ N IL T n ~ F 2 $ U f0 In V pI N In 61 o rn o 0 ~- ~ri ei M fJ N m .- ~n c~i v ~ e> (» ro (~ ~ m ~n _r O O~ N ~ N O ('J M O O ~ N c] Y ~ fA H3 o~ (n a m ~n c+i r o m o 0 ~ e m w u~ ~D ~- N M V ~ 43 43 4l ~n r N N r N O Oi N a0 r N O CJ r V m o ~ ~ ~ m ~ v w ~ rn r O N V O n of rn ~ ~_ M ~ m m o m ~n a o <n r m co ai v r> N m m» N N " <» F» rA N m ~ V ~ N o r r o .- of of 6 N N OI r O E9 N N V V3 E9 47 N (fl (p N m W O O rn V .- (O 'n O O (7 r n m .n m v m ('n N r v o w m N ~ n N c r O O N O O m m m o N m m m m (o m m rn v (+~ N ca E» ~ ~n o ~n O c0 N N CJ r V (7 V M N M ~ N O O N m a a ~ E > '° Q N 4 m v ti ~ Z U ~ ~N ~ N Q (n N Q O m ~ ~ o 'o d ~ U N ~ o m m