HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012/09/25 Item 09 Attachment 10
DRAFT
TELIIILP
HE ASTAKE AKE OINTE
S
UPPLEMENTAL
PFFP
UBLIC ACILITIES INANCE LAN
Approved by:
Chula Vista City Council
Date: July 17, 2001, Resolution 2001-220
Lake Pointe Supplement
Approved by:
Chula Vista City Council
Date: ___________, Resolution _____________
September 4, 2012
Prepared by:
II.5-1
EastLake III Lake Pointe
Supplemental PFFP
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARYII.5-5
.............................................................................................
GENERAL CONDITIONSII.5-8
.............................................................................................
II.5.1 INTRODUCTIONII.5-12
..............................................................................................
II.5.1.1. Background ..................................................................................................... II.5-12
II.5.1.2. Purpose ............................................................................................................ II.5-13
II.5.1.3. Assumptions .................................................................................................... II.5-14
II.5.1.4. Threshold Standards ........................................................................................ II.5-14
II.5.1.5. PFFP Boundaries ............................................................................................ II.5-16
II.5.2 DEVELOPMENT SUMMARYII.5-19
........................................................................
II.5.2.1. Development Phasing ..................................................................................... II.5-21
II.5.2.2. Development Impact Fees ............................................................................... II.5-22
II.5.3 FACILITY ANALYSISII.5-24
.....................................................................................
II.5.4 PUBLIC FACILITIES THRESHOLD STANDARDS AND
INFRASTRUCTUREII.5-25
........................................................................................
II.5.4.1. Traffic ............................................................................................................. II.5-25
II.5.4.2. Police............................................................................................................... II.5-36
II.5.4.3. Fire and Emergency Medical Services ............................................................ II.5-40
II.5.4.4. Schools ............................................................................................................ II.5-44
II.5.4.5. Libraries .......................................................................................................... II.5-52
II.5.4.6. Parks, Trails and Open Space ......................................................................... II.5-56
II.5.4.7. Water ............................................................................................................... II.5-64
II.5.4.8. Sewer............................................................................................................... II.5-73
II.5.4.9. Drainage .......................................................................................................... II.5-79
II.5.4.10. Air Quality ...................................................................................................... II.5-94
II.5.4.11. Civic Center/Corporation Yard/Other Public Facilities .................................. II.5-97
II.5.4. 12 Fiscal ............................................................................................................... II.5-99
II.5.4. 13. Public Facilities Finance ............................................................................... II.5-102
APPENDIX A - FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSISII.5-106
.......................................................
LIST OF EXHIBITS
Exhibit 1 Vicinity Map ................................................................................................. II.5-10
Exhibit 2 Project Location ............................................................................................ II.5-11
Exhibit 3 General Development Plan Proposed .......................................................... II.5-17
Exhibit 4 Site Utilization Plan Proposed ...................................................................... II.5-18
Exhibit 5 Circulation .................................................................................................... II.5-35
Exhibit 6 Potable Water System ................................................................................... II.5-70
Exhibit 7 Recycled Water Plan ..................................................................................... II.5-71
Exhibit 8 Proposed Water System Layout .................................................................... II.5-72
Exhibit 9 Adopted Sewer Plan...................................................................................... II.5-77
II.5-2
EastLake III Lake Pointe
Supplemental PFFP
Exhibit 10 Off-Site Sewer .............................................................................................. II.5-78
Exhibit 11 Adopted Storm Drainage .............................................................................. II.5-91
Exhibit 12 Drainage Exhibit ........................................................................................... II.5-92
Exhibit 13 WQTR Exhibit .............................................................................................. II.5-93
LIST OF TABLES
Table A.1 Summary of Facilities ..................................................................................... II.5-9
Table A.2 Chula Vista Threshold Standards ................................................................. II.5-15
Table A.3 GDP and SPA Plan Statistical Data .............................................................. II.5-19
Table A.4 Public Facility Timing .................................................................................. II.5-21
Table A.5 TDIF Schedule .............................................................................................. II.5-22
Table A.6 Public Facilities Estimated DIF Components ............................................... II.5-23
Table A.7 Level of Analysis .......................................................................................... II.5-24
Table B.1 GMOC LOS Definition ................................................................................ II.5-25
Table B.2 Freeway Segment LOS Threshold Descriptions ........................................... II.5-26
Table B.3 Chula Vista Segment Capacity & LOS Standards ADT Volumes ............... II.5-27
Table B.4 Arterial LOS Threshold Descriptions ........................................................... II.5-27
Table B.5 Average Daily Traffic Volumes ................................................................... II.5-28
Table B.6 Intersection LOS Threshold Descriptions ..................................................... II.5-28
Table B.7 LOS Thresholds for Signalized Intersections ............................................... II.5-29
Table B.8 Intersection LOS Threshold Descriptions ..................................................... II.5-30
Table B.9 LOS Thresholds for Unsignalized Intersections ........................................... II.5-30
Table B.10 Lake Pointe TDIF Fees .................................................................................. II.5-32
Table B.11 Lake Pointe Traffic Signal Fees ..................................................................... II.5-33
Table C.1 Historic Response Times Priority I ............................................................... II.5-37
Table C.2 Historic Response Times Priority II ............................................................. II.5-38
Table C.3 Police Fees .................................................................................................... II.5-39
Table D.1 Current & Planned Fire Station Facilities ..................................................... II.5-40
Table D.2 Fire/EMS Emergency Response Times since 2000 ..................................... II.5-41
Table D.3 Fire/EMS Fee ................................................................................................ II.5-42
Table D.4 Fire/EMS Emergency Response Times Comparison .................................... II.5-42
Table E.1 Chula Vista Elementary School District Enrollment vs. Capacity ............... II.5-46
Table E.2 Sweetwater Union High School District Enrollment vs. Capacity ............... II.5-47
Table E.3 Single-Family Attached Student Generation Rates ...................................... II.5-49
Table E.4 Student Generation ....................................................................................... II.5-49
Table F.1 Existing Library Facilities ............................................................................ II.5-52
Table F.2 Future Library Facilities ............................................................................... II.5-53
Table F.3 Library Threshold Compliance ..................................................................... II.5-54
Table F.4 Library Fee .................................................................................................... II.5-54
Table G.1 Quimby Act Parkland Requirements ............................................................ II.5-57
Table G.2 Parkland Dedication Ordinance Standards ................................................... II.5-57
Table G.3 Parkland Dedication Requirements per City Ordinance ............................... II.5-57
Table G.4 SPA Amendment Plan Park Acres and Eligible Credits ............................... II.5-58
Table G.5 Estimated Park Acreage Demand Compared to Supply East of I-805 ......... II.5-58
Table G.6 SPA Amendment Park Land Dedication Required ....................................... II.5-59
Table G.7 Park Acquisition and Development (PAD) Fees Development Component ....... II.5-61
Table G.8 Public Facilities Fees For Recreation ........................................................... II.5-63
II.5-3
EastLake III Lake Pointe
Supplemental PFFP
Table H.1 Water Pressure Criteria ................................................................................. II.5-65
Table H.2 Projected On-Site Water Demands ............................................................... II.5-66
Table H.3 On-Site Water System Design Criteria ......................................................... II.5-66
Table H.4 Recommended Lake Pointe Water Service Sizes & Available Pressure ...... II.5-68
Table I.1 Adopted/Amended Wastewater Flow Projections ........................................ II.5-74
Table I.2 Estimated Sewage Flow and Treatment Capacity......................................... II.5-75
Table I.3 Off-Site Gravity Sewer Calculations ............................................................ II.5-75
Table I.4 Projected Lake Pointe Sewer Fees ................................................................ II.5-76
Table J.1 Existing Drainage Flows ............................................................................... II.5-82
Table J.2 Proposed Drainage Flows ............................................................................. II.5-82
Table J.3 Anticipated and Potential Pollutants ............................................................. II.5-83
Table J.4 Grouping of Pollutants .................................................................................. II.5-84
Table J.5 Pollutants of Concern.................................................................................... II.5-84
Table J.6 Treatment Control BMP Categories ............................................................. II.5-87
Table K.1 Civic Fee for Lake Pointe ............................................................................. II.5-98
Table K. 2 Corporation Yard Fee for Lake Pointe .......................................................... II.5-98
Table K. 3 Public Facilities Fees for Administration Facilities ...................................... II.5-98
Table N.1 Net Fiscal Impact on the City of Chula Vista ............................................. II.5-100
II.5-4
EastLake III Lake Pointe
Supplemental PFFP
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This supplemental Public Facilities Finance Plan (PFFP) addresses the public facility needs
associated with the proposed 12.4 acre Lake Pointe mixed-use project. The EastLake III SPA Plan
Amendment proposes to convert the aforementioned 12.2+ acre site from the existing C-1,
Commercial/Retail, to the MU-1, Mixed-Use, designation. Further, this supplement is a hybrid meant
guidelines.
The preparation of a supplemental PFFP is required in conjunction with the preparation of the
EastLake III Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan Amendment. This supplemental PFFP ensures that
the future development of the EastLake project is consistent with the overall goals and policies of the
Quality of Life Standards.
The proposed EastLake III Mixed Use planning area encompasses approximately 12.2 gross acres
within the City of Chula Vista. The site is located between the Olympic Training Center (OTC) on
the South and EastLake III Vistas to the North. The site fronts on the north side of Olympic Parkway
extending eastward from the New Hope Community Church to the Olympic Pointe project. The site
is approximately 9 miles east of the Chula Vista Civic Center. Exhibit 1 and 2 both illustrate the
location of the proposed EastLake III Mixed Use site and its proximity to the existing development
within the EastLake III community.
The project site is designated as Commercial/Retail in the City General Plan, and EastLake III GDP
and S-1SPA Site Utilization Plan. As envisioned in
the approved GDP, the project site would accommodate the Commercial/Retail component of the
GDP, which could support a Neighborhood Commercial Center. The EastLake III SPA describes the
at the entrance to the Olympic Training Center. The site was rough graded in 2002.
The project will consist of four development phases. Construction of the proposed Lake Pointe
Project is expected to occur over the course of approximately 4 years, commencing in late 2012 with
final build-out to take place in 2016.
A. Public Facility Cost and Fee Summary
The following discussion identifies and summarizes the various facility costs associated with
development of the 12.2-acre Lake Pointe project. The facilities and their cost 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 A.1 summarizes the
public facility phasing and associated costs within a table format.
Transportation Development Impact Fees (TDIF) generated by the Lake Pointe
Condominium project total approximately $2,888,370. Traffic Signal Fees generated by the
project are approximately $88,069. These fees do not include any credits the developer may
have or may receive through a Development Agreement.
II.5-5
EastLake III Lake Pointe
Supplemental PFFP
Backbone sewer and water improvements will be funded, in part, through the payment of DIF
fees and capacity fees established for these purposes. The Developer will fund on-site facilities.
The total costs for the Lake Pointe Condominium project Capital Improvement Plan (CIP)
Potable Water and Recycled Water Facilities 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 Lake Pointe Condominium project is
approximately $1,038,528(does not include the Administration Fee for sewer connection
permit). The entire project site is within the Salt Creek Sewer Basin DIF.
The Lake Pointe Condominium project will trigger development impact fees for schools.
Police, fire and emergency medical services, parks (acquisition and development fees),
recreation and libraries, civic center, corporation yard, and administrative facilities will be
funded from revenues generated from the payment of Public Facilities Development Impact
Fees at building permit issuance. These fee revenues plus TDIF, Traffic Signal Fees and
Sewer Fees total approximately $10,250, 660.
B. Public Facility Thresholds
City Council Resolution Number 13346 identified eleven different public facilities and
services with related threshold standards and implementation measures. The following is a
summary of the threshold compliance by the Lake Pointe Condominium project:
1. Traffic: Based upon the Lake Pointe Traffic Impact Analysis June 25, 2012, by
Linscott, Law & Greenspan the threshold compliance is projected to be maintained
with implementation of the improvements identified in Section II.5.4.1.16 of this
PFFP amendment and the payment of TDIF fees. The Lake Pointe project shall be
conditioned to provide adequate access and sight distance for two driveways. One
driveway for primary ingress and egress and one driveway for emergency vehicles
only. 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 facility 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 GMOC on an annual basis.
3. Fire and Emergency Medical Response: Threshold compliance will be met with the
payment of public facility 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 Fire Department responses to emergency fire and medical calls and report
the results to the Growth Management Oversight Commission (GMOC) on an annual
basis.
4. 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 Approval of the Final Map.
b)
II.5-6
EastLake III Lake Pointe
Supplemental PFFP
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.
5. Sewer: Threshold compliance will be met through the payment of sewer fees and the
Salt Creek DIF by the developer, the construction of the city required facilities as
identified in this PFFP and conditions of approval prior to the issuance of building
permits.
6. Drainage: Threshold 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.
7. Air Quality: The City continues to provide a development forecast to the APCD in
conformance with the threshold standard. Prior to approval of building permits for
each phase of the project, the applicant shall demonstrate that air quality control
measures outlined in the Air Quality Technical Report for the Lake Pointe Project
City of Chula Vista, CA, dated August, 2012, pertaining to the design, construction
and operational phases of the project have been implemented.
8. Fiscal: The Fiscal Impact Analysis of the Lake Pointe Development, dated August 8,
2012, by Keyser-Marston identifies the estimated fiscal impact that the project will
have on the operation and maintenance budgets of the City of Chula Vista (general
fund). Fiscal expenditures would begin at $78,838 annually and rise to $253,442
annually (Year 5). Fiscal revenues would be initially $30,310 and rise to $172,650 at
build-out (Year 5). The net fiscal impact from developing the Lake Pointe project is
negative throughout the 5-Year period and starts with a negative of $48,528 in Year 1
ending with a negative of $80,792 at Year 5.
9. Civic Center and Corporate Yard and other facilities: Threshold compliance will be
met through the collection of the public facilities fees at the rate in effect at the time
building permits are issued.
II.5-7
EastLake III Lake Pointe
Supplemental PFFP
GC
ENERAL ONDITIONS
F
OR
ELIIILP
ASTAKE AKE OINTE
SPFFP
UPPLEMENTAL
A. All development within the boundaries of the Supplemental PFFP, for the Lake Pointe
Project 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, as amended, for the Lake
Pointe Project 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 within the boundaries of the
Lake Pointe Condominium project shall also be responsible for fair share proportionate fees
that are necessary to meet the adopted facility performance standards as they relate to the
SPA Plan.
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 Plan
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 environmental review for
projects within the boundaries of this Plan. All future projects within the boundaries of this
Supplemental PFFP shall undergo environmental review as determined appropriate by the
City of Chula Vista.
E. Approval of this Supplemental PFFP does not constitute prior discretionary review or
approval for projects within the boundaries of the Plan. All future projects within the
boundaries of the Lake Pointe Condominium 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.
F. The facilities and phasing requirements identified in this Supplemental PFFP are based on the
SPA Plan, which assumes that on the approximately 12.2 acres the following project will be
built: 284 Multi-Family Condominium Units; and approximately 10,000 square feet of
commercial space will be housed in one building. If there are changes, the total number of
Dwelling Units calculated may change and facility requirements shall be adjusted
proportionately.
G. The plan analysis is based upon one single phase of development as presented in this
document. Any changes to phasing shall require an amendment to the Supplemental PFFP.
II.5-8
EastLake III Lake Pointe
Supplemental PFFP
Table A.1
Lake Pointe Summary of Facilities
1
Facility Facility Description Fee Estimate DIF Program Timing Funding Source
Transportation Transportation Facilities DIF const./
Transportation $2,880,370
Pay prior to issuance of
Facilities in Eastern Territories exaction
Building Permit
Traffic Signal $88,069 Traffic Signal Fee DIF exaction
Subtotal $2,996,439
To be Determined by City DIF fees do not apply to
Provide City Engineer OWD
Potable Water 980 Zone OWD CIP Fees
OWD the OWD
water availability letter and
required improvements prior to
Recycled Water To be Determined by City DIF fees do not apply to
950 Zone OWD CIP Fees
approval of the Final Map.
(If Required) OWD the OWD
$283,290 Salt Creek Sewer DIF DIF exaction
Connect to exist
Pay prior to issuance of
Sewer
sewer Building Permit
$740,814 Sewer Participation Fee CIP/Development
Drainage Connect to exist SD N/A DIF not required for Salt Creek Developer funded
N/A
Provide documentation that
Schools No specific facility N/A School Fees Mello-Roos CFD
school fees have been paid prior
to issuance of Building Permit
Pay prior to issuance of Building
2
Parks PAD Fees $3,694,556 PAD Fees PAD Fees
Permit
Pay prior to issuance of Building
Recreation Pay PFDIF Fee $330,576 Public Facilities DIF SF
Permit
Pay prior to issuance of Building
Library Pay PFDIF Fee $435,372 Public Facilities DIF SF
Permit
Pay prior to issuance of Building
Fire & EMS Pay PFDIF Fee $277,620 Public Facilities DIF SF
Permit
Pay prior to issuance of Building
Police Pay PFDIF Fee $504,459 Public Facilities DIF SF
Permit
Pay prior to issuance of Building
Civic Pay PFDIF Fee $732,063 Public Facilities DIF SF
Permit
Pay prior to issuance of Building
Corporate Yard Pay PFDIF Fee $128,858 Public Facilities DIF SF
Permit
Pay prior to issuance of Building
Administrative Pay PFDIF Fee $155,617 Public Facilities DIF SF
Permit
Subtotal $6,250,117
Total $10,250,660
1
Fees presented in this table are estimates only. The actual fee will be calculated prior to building permit issuance.
2
See Table G.7 in Section II.5.4.6.8.1 for the details of the Park Acquisition and Development Fee.
II.5-9
Exhibit 1
II.5-10
EastLake III Lake Pointe
Supplemental PFFP
Project Location
Exhibit 2
II.5-11
EastLake III Lake Pointe
Supplemental PFFP
II.5.1. I:
NTRODUCTION
This Supplemental PFFP identifies each improvement needed to service the Lake Pointe project, with
the appropriate funding sources.
The implementing actions covered by the 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.
II.5.1.1 B:
ACKGROUND
A Master Environmental Impact Report was completed for the 3,073-acre EastLake community in
February, 1982, which considered the impacts associated with the annexation of the project site from
the County of San Diego to the City of Chula Vista, as well as the potential impacts associated with
the implementation of a General Plan amendment, prezoning, and General Development Plan for the
future EastLake development. The discretionary actions associated with the EastLake proposal,
including the zoning of the project area to Planned Community (PC) and adoption of the EastLake
Policy Plan, were approved by the City of Chula Vista in August, 1982.
As its name suggests, the EastLake III General Development Plan (GDP) is the third in a series of
approvals addressing development of the EastLake Planned Community. The first EastLake GDP,
identified as EastLake I, included approximately forty percent of the property and was adopted in
1982. The EastLake I SPA included three residential neighborhoods, EastLake Hills, EastLake
Shores, and Salt Creek I, along with the EastLake Business Center I employment center and EastLake
Village Center commercial area.
The second major increment to the EastLake Planned Community was the planning of the EastLake
Greens and EastLake Trails residential neighborhoods, located east of the proposed alignment of SR-
125, between Otay Lakes Road, and Olympic Parkway. These two neighborhoods were planned as
separate SPAs within the EastLake II GDP. At the time of approval, the EastLake II GDP was merged
with the EastLake I GDP and the two areas combined are now known as the EastLake II GDP (see
Exhibit 2).
Concurrent with the planning of EastLake II, the opportunity to develop the Olympic Training Center
(OTC) was recognized. In order to allow for the preparation of a SPA Plan for the OTC, the original
EastLake III GDP was adopted in 1990. An OTC SPA plan was subsequently approved and the
training facility built.
In 1999, the EastLake Business Center II was removed from the EastLake III GDP and added to the
EastLake II GDP to allow its accelerated development in response to economic development
opportunities.
II.5-12
EastLake III Lake Pointe
Supplemental PFFP
The project site is designated as Commercial in the City General Plan, and EastLake III GDP. The
C-1
GDP, the project site would accommodate the Commercial/Retail component of the GDP.
II.5.1.2 P:
URPOSE
The purpose of this document is to supplement the original 2001 EastLake III PFFP and applies to the
SPA Plan Amendments to the activity core south of the Vistas portion of the EastLake III GDP and
SPA Plan. The project area was not built and the property is now proposed to be developed.
Regarding the required public facilities needs, the supplemental PFFP identifies a preliminary cost
estimate for each improvement installation, phasing and appropriate funding sources.
s 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 that 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 of the Financing Plan is to
assure adequate levels of service are achieved for all public facilities impacted by the 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 that 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 that revisions to
cost estimates and funding programs be handled as administrative revisions, 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.5-13
EastLake III Lake Pointe
Supplemental PFFP
II.5.1.3 A
SSUMPTIONS
There are a number of key assumptions implicit to this supplemental PFFP Amendment. 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 and phasing assumptions can
be summarized as follows:
A. The proposed General Plan Amendment and proposed SPA Amendment for the EastLake III
Lake Pointe Project affects the C-1 area within the EastLake Vistas portion of EastLake III
(see adopted and proposed Site Utilization Plan (SUP) (see Exhibit 5 and 6) that are located
north of Olympic Parkway and the OTC.
B. This Supplemental PFFP supplements the EastLake III SPA Plan PFFP that was adopted on
July 17, 2001.
C. SPA Plan Amendment and PC District Regulations will regulate land use allocation and
intensity of development for the proposed MU-1 site north of Olympic Parkway.
D. The proposed project consists of converting approximately 12.2 acres of Commercial/Retail
designated land to Mixed-Use land. This action if approved by the City Council would
eliminate the C-1 Commercial/Retail site, and increase the total of residential units in
EastLake III from 2,450 dwelling units to 2,734 dwelling units and add 10,000 square feet of
commercial space.
E. One primary phase of development is envisioned to complete all the infrastructure
improvements in a single increment. Build-out of all building sites may occur over a several
year period.
F. All internal streets shall be private.
II.5.1.4. TS:
HRESHOLD TANDARDS
Chapter 19.09 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code provides the requirements for the Chula Vista
Growth Management Plan. Subsection 19.09.040 provides the Quality of Life Threshold Standards
for each public facility and improvement. There are eleven (11) 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, traffic, and drainage facilities.
Each of the 11 threshold standards is stated in terms of a goal, objectives, and one or more standards.
Table A.2 pro
A. The Threshold Standards fall into three general categories:
1. A performance standard measuring overall level of service 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. A qualitative standard is established for schools, water, air quality, and fiscal impacts.
The 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
High School District; water service is provided by two independent water districts (Otay
Water District and Sweetwater Authority); and sewer service is provided by the City of Chula
Vista and has an agreement with the City of San Diego to treat the waste water. Finally, the
air-quality and fiscal threshold standards do not relate to specific public services but are
II.5-14
EastLake III Lake Pointe
Supplemental PFFP
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.
Table A.2
Chula Vista's Threshold Standards
Annual report required from Air Pollution Control District on impact of growth on air
Air Quality
quality.
Annual report required evaluating impacts on growth on city operations, capital
Fiscal
improvements, and development impact fee revenues and expenditures.
Respond to 81% of the Priority I emergency calls within 7 minutes and maintain average
Policeresponse time of 5.5 minutes. Respond to 57% of Priority II urgency calls within 7.5
minutes and maintain average response time of 7 minutes.
Fire/EMSRespond to calls within 7 minutes in 80% of all cases.
An annual report is required to evaluate the school district's ability to accommodate new
Schools
growth.
Provide 500 square feet of library space adequately equipped and staffed per 1,000
Library
population.
Parks & Maintain 3 acres of neighborhood and community parkland with appropriate facilities per
Recreation1,000 residents east of Interstate 805.
Annual report from water service agencies on impact of growth and future water
Water
availability.
Sewage flows and volumes shall not exceed City Engineering Standards. Annual report from
Sewer
Metropolitan Sewer Authority on impact of growth on sewer capacity.
Storm flows and volume shall not exceed City Engineering Standards. Annual report
Drainage
reviewing performance of city'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 "D" can occur
Trafficfor 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 to operate at their 1991 LOS but shall not worsen.
B. The Threshold 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 Oversight
Commission (GMOC) on an annual basis to ensure that 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 to
guarantee that public facilities or infrastructure improvements will keep pace with the
demands of growth.
II.5-15
EastLake III Lake Pointe
Supplemental PFFP
II.5.1.5. PFFPB:
OUNDARIES
The Growth Management Implementation Ordinance requires that the City shall establish the
boundaries of the PFFP at the time a SPA Plan or Tentative Map is submitted by the 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, 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 relationships, especially the impact on the City's planned
major circulation network;
E. Special district service territories;
F. Approved fire, drainage, sewer, or other facilities or improvement master plans.
The boundary of the Lake Pointe Condominium Project was established using the above criterion.
The Supplemental PFFP Amendment boundaries are congruent with the Adopted GDP (see Exhibit 3)
Area and the EastLake III SPA Plan Area (See Site Utilization Plan, Exhibit 4).
II.5-16
EastLake III Lake Pointe
Supplemental PFFP
Exhibit 3
Proposed
General
Development
Plan
Exhibit 3
II.5-17
EastLake III Lake Pointe
Supplemental PFFP
Site
Utilization
Plan
Exhibit 4
II.5-18
EastLake III Lake Pointe
Supplemental PFFP
II.5.2. DEVELOPMENTSUMMARY
The Lake Pointe Project is proposed on a site north of the OTC and Olympic Parkway. The site is
designated C-1 on the approved Site Utilization Plan in the Eastlake III SPA Plan. The property is
located south of the intersection between Olympic Parkway and Wueste Road in the City of Chula
Vista, California. The site has been graded and can be accessed from Olympic Parkway. Olympic
Parkway bounds the southwest, south and southeast portions of the site. The northern portions of the
property is bordered by the existing developed EastLake III Vistas neighborhood. The Lower Otay,
Reservoir is located just east of Wueste Road. The OTC is located to the west of the site. The
approximate location and extent of the site is shown on the Site Location Map (Exhibit 2).
The proposed project consists of developing the approximately 12.2 acres of Commercial/Retail
designated land into a mixed use project. The Lake Pointe project, if approved, would increase the
total of residential units in EastLake III from 2,488 dwelling units to 2,772 dwelling units. Table A.3
provides a comparison of the GDP and proposed SPA amendment.
Table A.3
GDP and SPA Plan Statistical Comparison
RESIDENTIAL
GDP Statistics SPA Plan
GDP Designation SPA Designation Average Density
Acres DU Acres DU
EastLake Woods
Low WR-1 & WR-5 216.2 410 216.2 410 1.9 du/ac
Low-Medium WR-6 & WR-7 43.0 257 43.0 257 6.0 du/ac
Subtotal 259.2 667 259.2 667
EastLake Woods Avg. Density SPA = Low Density, 2.6 du/ac
EastLake Vistas
Low VR-1 VR-3 82.0 240 82.0 56 2.5 du/ac
Low-Medium VR-4 -- VR-8 111.5 542 111.5 542 4.3 du/ac
Medium VR-9 7.3 73 7.3 73 10 du/ac
Medium-High VR-10 -- VR-11 15.9 239 15.9 239 15 du/ac
MU-1*, VR-12 --
High 42.3* 1,011 42.3* 1,011 23.9 du/ac
VR-13
Subtotal 259* 2,105 259* 2,105
EastLake Vistas Avg. Density SPA = Medium Density, 6.1 du/ac
Residential
518.2* 2,772 518.2* 2,772 5.3 du/ac
Subtotal
EastLake III Density GDP = Low Medium 5.0 du/ac
SPA = Low Medium 5.0 du/ac
* includes 11.6 acre residential component of mixed use site.
II.5-19
EastLake III Lake Pointe
Supplemental PFFP
Table A.3 (cont'd.)
GDP and SPA Plan Statistical Comparison
NON-RESIDENTIAL
EastLake Vistas
Retail Comm. C-1 0.6 0.6
Open Space OS 134.6 -- 134.6
Public/PQ PQ-1 - PQ-3 40.2 -- 40.2 -- --
CPF CPF-1 12.9 12.9* -- --
Parks & Rec. P-1 - P-2 15.2 15.2 -- --
Circulation 25.5 25.5 -- --
Subtotal 230.1 230.1
Olympic Training Center SPA
Public/PQ PQ 150 -- N/A -- --
Panhandle Parcel (future SPA)
Public/PQ N/A 45 -- N/A --
Nonresidential 436.7 -- 241.7 --
Subtotal
TOTALS 946.7 2,772 748.3 2,772 3.7 du/ac
Actions that need to be approved by the City Council include, but not limited to: a General Plan
Amendment from CR (Commercial Retail) to MUR (Mixed Use Residential), SPA Plan Amendment;
and a revision to the EastLake III Affordable Housing Program. Project CEQA documents have been
prepared concurrently to document potential environmental impacts and identify mitigation measures
to reduce potential impacts to below significance or eliminate potential impacts.
Subsequent to the approval of all the SPA level documents, Tentative Map and Final Map, the 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 are required to be consistent with the applicable provisions of this
Supplemental PFFP Amendment.
II.5-20
EastLake III Lake Pointe
Supplemental PFFP
II.5.2.1. DP:
EVELOPMENT HASING
One primary phase of development is envisioned due to the need of the project to complete the infrastructure
improvements in a single increment. However, actual construction on individual building sites may occur over
a several year period, as has been experienced within the existing Village Center/Business Center. This project
will not be phased. A summary of the infrastructure public facility timing is provided in the following table.
Table A.4
Lake Pointe Public Facility Timing
Facility Facility Description Timing Financing Method
Street Improvements Subdivision exaction
Prior to issuance of Building Permits
Traffic
Pay DIF Fees Fee Program
Prior to issuance of Building Permits
Traffic Signal Fee Fee Program
Prior to issuance of Building Permits
Service Avail Letter from
N/A
Prior to Final Map Approval
OWD to City
Potable Water Improvements per OWD Capacity Fees and
Prior to Final Map Approval
Water& SAMP Exactions
Capacity Fees and
OWD CIP Fees
Prior to issuance of Building Permits
Exactions
Recycled Improvements per OWD & Capacity Fees and
Prior to Final Map Approval
Water SAMP Exactions
Connection to Salt Creek Basin
Fee Program
Prior to issuance of Building Permits
Fee (Salt Creek Sewer DIF)
Sewer
Pay Sewerage Participation
Fee Program
Prior to issuance of Building Permits
Fee
Storm Connect to exist. public storm
Subdivision exaction
Prior to issuance of Building Permits
Drain drain system
No specific facility Subject to
Schools Mello-Roos CFD
Pay Prior to issuance of Building Permit
School Fees
Parks Pay PAD Fees Fee Program
Prior to issuance of Building Permit
Recreation Pay PFDIF Fee Fee Program
Prior to issuance of Building Permit
Library Pay PFDIF Fee Fee Program
Prior to issuance of Building Permit
Fire & EMS Pay PFDIF Fee Fee Program
Prior to issuance of Building Permit
Police Pay PFDIF Fee Fee Program
Prior to issuance of Building Permit
Civic Pay PFDIF Fee Fee Program
Prior to issuance of Building Permit
Corp. Yd. Pay PFDIF Fee Fee Program
Prior to issuance of Building Permit
ß¼³·² Pay PFDIF Fee Fee Program
Prior to issuance of Building Permit
II.5-21
EastLake III Lake Pointe
Supplemental PFFP
II.5.2.2 DIF
EVELOPMENT MPACT EES
A. Transportation
The current Transportation Development Impact Fee (TDIF) Ordinance sets forth the
calculation of development impact fees. This PFFP uses the CVMC Chapter 3.54 as the basis
for the estimated TDIF fees. Table A.5 below illustrates the current fee schedule:
Table A.5
3
TDIF Schedule East of I-805
Land Use Classification TDIF Rate
0-6 dwelling units per gross $ 12,198 per DU
Residential (Low)
acre
6.1-18 dwelling units per $ 9,758 per DU
Residential (Med.)
gross acre
>18.1 dwelling units per $ 7,319 per DU
Residential (High)
gross acre
Senior housing $ 4,879 per DU
>18 dwelling units per gross $ 4,879 per DU
Residential mixed use
acre
Commercial mixed use < 5 stories in height $ 195,163 per 20,000 sq. ft.
General commercial (acre) $ 195,163 per acre
Regional commercial (acre) > 60 acres or 800,000 sq. ft. $ 134,174 per acre
High rise commercial (acre) > 5 stories in height $ 341,534 per acre
Office (acre) < 5 stories in height $ 109,779 per acre
Industrial RTP (acre) $ 97,594 per acre
18-hole golf course $ 853,836 per acre
Medical center $ 792,848 per acre
3
TDIF Fees based on Form 5509 dated 06/26/2012. Actual fee may be different, please verify with the City
of Chula Vista at the time of building permit.
II.5-22
EastLake III Lake Pointe
Supplemental PFFP
B. Public Facilities
The Public Facilities Development Impact Fee (PFDIF) was updated by the Chula Vista City
Council on November 19, 2002 by adoption of Ordinance 2847. The PFDIF is adjusted every
st
October 1 pursuant to Ordinance 3050, which was adopted by the City Council on November
7, 2006. The current fee for single-family residential 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 A.6 provides a break-down of what facilities
the fee funds.
4
Table A.6
Public Facilities Estimated DIF Fee Components
Single Family Multi-Family Commercial Industrial
Component
/DU/DU /Acre /Acre
Civic Center $2,670 $2,528 $8,518 $2,692
Police $1,629 $1,760 $7,698 $1,660
Corporation Yard $438 $351 $7,443 $3,506
Libraries $1,533 $1,533 $0 $0
Fire Suppression $1,350 $970 $3,566 $708
GIS, Computers, Telecom &
$0 $0 $0 $0
Records Management
Administration $586 $554 $1,869 $591
Recreation $1,164 $1,164 $0 $0
Total per Residential Unit $9,370 $8,860
$29,094 $9,157
The total number of acres for the Lake Pointe Project is 12.4. The calculations of the PFDIF
due for each facility are addressed in the following sections of this report.
4
DIF Fees based on Form 5509 dated 06/26/2012. Actual fee may be different, please verify with the City of
Chula Vista at the time of building permit.
II.5-23
EastLake III Lake Pointe
Supplemental PFFP
II.5.3 FACILITY ANALYSIS
This portion of the PFFP contains 13 separate subsections for each facility addressed by this
report. Of the 13 facilities, 11 have adopted threshold standards; the Civic Center and
Corporation Yard do not. Table A.7 highlights the level of analysis for each facility.
Table A.7
Level of Analysis
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
Drainage
Air Quality
Civic Center
Corp. Yard
Fiscal
Each subsection analyzes the impact of the Lake Pointe Condominium Project based upon
the adopted Quality of Life Standards. The analysis is based upon the specific goal,
objective, threshold standard and implementation measures. The proposed SPA plan 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 Program. These indicate the requirements for
evaluating the project consistency with the threshold ordinance at various stages (General
Development Plan, SPA Plan/Public 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.
II.5-24
EastLake III Lake Pointe
Supplemental PFFP
II.5.4. PUBLIC FACILITIES THRESHOLD STANDARDS AND
INFRASTRUCTURE REQUIREMENTS
II.5.4.1. TRAFFIC
II.5.4.1.1. GMOCTS:
HRESHOLD TANDARDS
average travel speed on all signalized arterial segments except that during peak hours a
II.5.4.1.2 GMOCLS(LOS)D
EVEL OF ERVICE EFINITION
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 B.1. The City of Chula
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 Standard for signalized arterial
streets:
Table B.1
GMOC LOS Definition
Average Travel Speed (mph)
Level of Service
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 Capacity 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 II 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 III 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.
II.5-25
EastLake III Lake Pointe
Supplemental PFFP
II.5.4.1.3 FSLOST
REEWAY EGMENT AND HRESHOLDS
The analysis of freeway segment LOS is based on the procedure developed by Caltrans
,
District 11 which is based on methods described in the1994 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.
Table B.2
Caltrans District 11 Freeway Segment Level of Service Definitions
LOSV/CCongestion/DelayTraffic Description
Used for freeways, expressways and conventional highways
A <0.41 None Free flow
B 0.42-0.62 None Free to stable flow, light to moderate volumes.
Stable flow, moderate volumes, freedom to maneuver
C 0.63-0.80 None to minimal
noticeably restricted
Approaches unstable flow, heavy volumes, very limited
D 0.81-0.92 Minimal to substantial
freedom to maneuver.
Extremely unstable flow, maneuverability and psychological
E 0.93-1.00 Significant
comfort extremely poor.
Used for conventional highways
Forced or breakdown flow. Delay measured in average
F travel speed (MPH). Signalized segments experience delays
<1.00Considerable
>60.0 sec./vehicle
Used for freeways and expressways
Considerable 0-1 hr Forced flow, heavy congestion, long queues form behind
F(0)1.01-1.25
delaybreakdown points, stop and go.
Severe1-2 hr delayVery heavy congestion, very long queues.
F(l)1.26-1.35
Very Severe 2-3 hr Extremely heavy congestion, longer queues, more numerous
F(2)1.36-1.45
delay breakdown points, longer stop periods.
Extremely Severe 3+
Gridlock
F(3) >1.46
hours of delay
SOURCE: Caltrans 1992
Caltrans LOS Definition
The concept of LOS 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. LOS for freeway
segments can generally be categorized per Table B.2.
II.5.4.1.4 SLOSST
EGMENT TANDARDS AND HRESHOLDS
This section presents the LOS standards and thresholds utilized by the City of Chula Vista
to analyze roadway segment performance. Table B.3 presents the City of Chula Vista
roadway segment capacity and level of service standards for arterial roadways.
II.5-26
EastLake III Lake Pointe
Supplemental PFFP
Table B.3
Chula Vista Segment Capacity and LOS Standards Average Daily Traffic Volumes
Level of Service
Functional
Classification
A B C D E
Expressway (6-lane)52,50061,30070,00078,80087,500
Prime Arterial (6-lane)37,50043,80050,00056,30062,500
Major Street (6-lane)30,00035,00040,00045,00050,000
Major Street (4-lane)22,50026,30030,00033,80037,500
Village Entry16,50019,30022,00024,80027,500
Secondary Village Entry w/ Median 5,6006,6007,5008,4009,400
Secondary Village Entry/Promenade (1)5,6006,6007,5008,4009,400
SOURCE: City of Chula Vista Subdivision Manual (Revised 7/1/2002)
(1) If driveway access to adjacent properties is permitted
all applicable values of LOS are reduced by 2,500 ADT.
II.5.4.1.5 RSLOSST
OADWAY EGMENT TANDARDS AND HRESHOLDS
This section presents the LOS standards and thresholds utilized by the City of Chula Vista
to analyze arterial roadway segment performance. Table B.4 presents the City of Chula
Vista roadway segment capacity and LOS standards for arterial roadways.
Table B.4
Arterial Segment LOS Threshold Descriptions
LOS Description
A Describes primarily free-flow operations. Average operating speeds at the free-flow speed generally
prevail. Vehicles are almost completely unimpeded in their ability to maneuver within the traffic stream.
B Also represents reasonably free-flow, and speeds at the free-flow speed are generally maintained. The
ability to maneuver within the traffic stream is only slightly restricted, and the general level of physical and
psychological comfort provided to drivers is still high.
C Provides for flow 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 experiences a noticeable increase in tension because of the additional
vigilance required for safe operation.
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 stream
is more noticeably limited, and the driver experiences reduced physical and psychological 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 traffic stream has no ability to dissipate even the most minor
disruptions, and any incident can be expected to produce a serious breakdown with extensive queuing.
F Describes breakdowns in vehicular flow. Such conditions generally exist within queues forming behind
breakdown points such as traffic incidents and recurring points of congestion. Whenever LOS F conditions
exist, there is a potential for them to extend upstream for significant distances.
SOURCE: Highway Capacity Manual, 1994
.
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. City of Chula Vista LOS D are used to determine if a
segment would operate over or under capacity. Table B.5, Street Segment Level of Service
Threshold Descriptions, is a description of the various street segment LOS thresholds.
II.5-27
EastLake III Lake Pointe
Supplemental PFFP
Table B.5
Chula Vista Segment Capacity and LOS Standards
Average Daily Traffic Volumes
Level of Service
Functional
A B C D E
Classification
Expressway (6-lane)52,50061,30070,00078,80087,500
Prime Arterial (6-lane)37,50043,80050,00056,30062,500
Major Street (6-lane)30,00035,00040,00045,00050,000
Major Street (4-lane)22,50026,30030,00033,80037,500
Class I Collector (4-lane)16,50019,30022,00024,80027,500
Class II Collector (3-lane)9,00010,50012,00013,50015,000
Class III Collector (2-lane)5,6006,6007,5008,4009,400
SOURCE: City of Chula Vista Street Design Standards Policy (July 1991)
II.5.4.1.6 ILOSST
NTERSECTION TANDARDS AND HRESHOLD
The City of Chula Vista requires an analysis of existing and projected peak hour intersection
performance be conducted using the methodology documented in the 1994 Highway Capacity
Manual (Transportation Research Board Special Report 209). LOS D 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 under an analysis of future
conditions are considered to have significant impacts and will require mitigation.
Table B.6
Intersection LOS Threshold Descriptions
LOS Description
Occurs when progression is extremely favorable and most vehicles arrive during the green phase. Most
A
vehicles do not stop at all. Short cycle lengths may also contribute to low delay.
Generally occurs with good progression and/or short cycle lengths. More vehicles stop than for LOS A,
B
causing higher levels of average delay.
Generally results when there is fair progression and/or longer cycle lengths. Individual cycle failures may
C
begin to appear in this level. The number of vehicles stopping is significant at this level, although many
still pass through the intersection without stopping.
Generally results in noticeable congestion. Longer delays may result from some combination of
D
unfavorable progression, long cycle lengths, or high volume-to-capacity ratios. Many vehicles stop, and
the proportion of vehicles not stopping declines. Individual cycle failures are noticeable.
Considered to be the limit of acceptable delay. These high delay values generally indicate poor
E
progression, long cycle lengths, and high volume-to-capacity ratios. Individual cycle failures are frequent
occurrences.
Considered to be unacceptable to most drivers. This condition often occurs with over saturation i.e. when
F
arrival flow rates exceed the capacity of the intersection. It may also occur at high volume-to-capacity
ratios below 1.00 with many individual cycle failures. Poor progression and long cycle lengths may also
be major contributing causes to such delay levels.
SOURCE: Highway Capacity Manual, 1994.
A. Signalized Intersection Analysis
The City of Chula Vista requires an analysis of signalized intersections during the
AM and PM peak hours by determining the average delay per vehicle entering the
II.5-28
EastLake III Lake Pointe
Supplemental PFFP
intersection. The delay is determined by using a computer program that utilizes the
methodology found in Chapter 9 of the 1997 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). The
delay values (seconds) are qualified by giving a Level of Service (LOS) or "Grade" to
the corresponding delay value for the intersection as a whole. LOS for signalized
intersections vary from A (free flow, little delay) to F (forced flow, significant
delays). Table B.6 is a description of the various intersection LOS thresholds.
B. Unsignalized Intersection Analysis
The City of Chula Vista requires an analysis of unsignalized intersections be analyzed
by determining the delay and LOS based on Chapter 10 of the 1997 HCM. Different
methodologies are used to assess two-way stop-controlled intersections and all-way
stop-controlled intersections.
II.5.4.1.7 Intersection LOS Standards and Threshold
The analysis of existing and projectedpeak hour intersection performance was conducted
using the methodology documented in the 1994 Highway Capacity Manual
(Transportation Research 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 under an analysis of
future conditions are considered to have significant impacts and will require mitigation.
II.5.4.1.7.1 Signalized Intersection Analysis
The measure of effectiveness for intersection operations is level of service. In the 2000
Highway Capacity Manual (HCM), 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 B.7).
Table B.7
Level of Service Thresholds
For Signalized Intersections
Average Control Delay per Vehicle
Level Of Service
(Seconds/Vehicle)
0.0 < 10.0 A
10.1 to 20.0 B
21.1 to 35.0 C
35.1 to 55.0 D
55.1 to 80.0 E
> 80.0 F
SOURCE: Highway Capacity Manual, 2000.
II.5-29
EastLake III Lake Pointe
Supplemental PFFP
Table B.8
Intersection LOS Threshold Descriptions
Level of
Description
Service
LOS A describes operations with very low delay, (i.e. less than 10.0 seconds per vehicle). This
A occurs when progression is extremely favorable, and most vehicles arrive during the green phase.
Most vehicles do not stop at all. Short cycle lengths may also contribute to low delay.
LOS B describes operations with delay in the range 10.1 seconds and 20.0 seconds per vehicle.
B This generally occurs with good progression and/or short cycle lengths. More vehicles stop than
for LOS A, causing higher levels of average delay.
LOS C describes operations with delay in the range 20.1 seconds and 35.0 seconds per vehicle.
C These 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 significant at this level, although
many still pass through the intersection without stopping.
LOS D describes operations with delay in the range 35.1 seconds and 55.0 seconds per vehicle.
D At level D, the influence of congestion becomes more noticeable. Longer delays 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. Individual cycle failures are
more frequent.
LOS E describes operations with delay in the range of 55.1 seconds to 80.0 seconds per vehicle.
E This is considered to be the limit of acceptable delay. These high delay values generally indicate
poor progression, long cycle lengths, and high v/c ratios. Individual cycle failures are frequent
occurrences.
LOS F describes operations with delay in excess of over 80.0 seconds per vehicle. This is
F considered to be unacceptable to most drivers. This condition often occurs with over-saturation
(i.e., when arrival flow rates exceed the capacity of the intersection). It may also occur at high
v/c ratios below 1.00 with many individual cycle failures. Poor progression and long cycle
lengths may also be major contributing causes to such delay levels.
SOURCE: Highway Capacity Manual, 2000.
Delay is a measure of driver discomfort, frustration, fuel consumption, and lost travel
time. Table B.8 is a description of the various intersection LOS thresholds.
II.5.4.1.7.2 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 B.9 below depicts the criteria, which are
based on the average control delay for any particular minor movement.
Table B.9
Level of Service Thresholds for Unsignalized Intersections
Average Control Delay Per Expected Delay to Minor Street
Level of Service
Vehicle (Seconds/Vehicle) Traffic
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 traffic 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.
II.5-30
EastLake III Lake Pointe
Supplemental PFFP
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 LOS 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.
II.5.4.1.8 CVTMP
HULA ISTA RAFFIC ONITORING ROGRAM
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 Development
Services 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 traffic threshold standards. The adopted Growth Management Ordinance
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
Chula Vista requires the application of these guidelines to the development of the Lake Pointe
Supplemental SPA Amendment Project.
Utilization of the roadway and 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.
II.5.4.1.9 SA
ERVICE NALYSIS
The Development Services Department of the City of Chula Vista is responsible for
ensuring that 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 Development Services
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
Element. 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, Traffic Impact Analysis for Lake Pointe, June 25, 2012, by Linscott, Law
II.5-31
EastLake III Lake Pointe
Supplemental PFFP
and Greenspan (LL&G), was prepared for the City of Chula Vista. This document is
Analysis addresses both existing and planned circulation system conditions, details
necessary improvements and outlines the incremental circulation improvements based
upon planned project phasing. Further, the LL&G Traffic Impact Analysis also includes
an evaluation of impacts that are considered significant as a result of project development.
Specific detailed information regarding trip generation and phasing is available within the
LL&G Traffic Analysis.
II.5.4.1.10. FTI:
INANCING RAFFIC MPROVEMENTS
A. Transportation Development Impact Fees (TDIF):
The project is within the boundaries of the TDIF program and, as such, the project is
subject to the payment of the fees at the rates in effect at the time building permits are
issued. However, the improvements identified in the Threshold Compliance and
Requirements Section II.5.4.1.11 of this PFFP is required to be constructed prior to
approval of the first building permit.
The current Transportation Development Impact Fee (TDIF) Ordinance sets forth the
calculation of development impact fees. This PFFP uses the CVMC Chapter 3.54 as
the basis for the estimated fees. This amount is subject to change as it is amended
-6
DU/gross acre) is $12,198
density (6.1-18 DU/gross acre) is $9,758
7,319/DU. The General Commercial TDIF
rate is $195,163 per acre. The estimated TDIF for the Lake Pointe Project is
presented in Table B.10 below.
Table B.10
Lake Pointe TDIF Fees
Fee per TDIF Rate
Dwelling
Land Use Acres Residential $195,163 Total Fees
Units S.F.
Dwelling Unit /acre
Residential High Density 11.6 284 $9,758 $2,771,272
Commercial .6 10,000 $195,163 $117,098
Totals12.2 284 10,000 $2,888,370
B. Traffic Signal Fees:
Future development within the project will be required to pay Traffic Signal Fees in
accordance with Chula Vista Council Policy No. 475-01. The estimated fee is
calculated based on the current fee of $31.80 (the date of this PFFP) per vehicle trip
generated per day for various land use categories. Table B.11 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 time
building permits are applied for.
II.5-32
EastLake III Lake Pointe
Supplemental PFFP
Table B.11
Lake Pointe Traffic Signal Fees
Traffic Signal Fee @
Land Use Residential Trips
$32.57/Trip
Lake Pointe Project 2,704 $88,069
Total 2,704$88,069
II.5.4.1.11. TCR:
HRESHOLD OMPLIANCE AND EQUIREMENTS
Based upon the Lake Pointe Traffic Impact Analysis, June 25, 2012, by Linscott, Law and
Greenspan, threshold compliance is projected to be maintained with implementation of the
identified measures and improvements and the payment of the TDIF Fees. The following
measures are recommended to maintain compliance with city threshold standards:
A. Threshold compliance shall continue to be monitored through the annual congestion
monitoring program.
B. The Lake Pointe project shall be conditioned to pay TDIF Fees and Traffic Signal
Fees prior to the issuance of building permits; the fees shall be paid at the rate in
effect at the time payment is made.
C. Prior to any building permit, Developer shall signalize Driveway #1 and complete all
modifications to the Olympic Parkway intersection all to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer:
1. Adequate internal access via private streets, parking and on-site circulation shall
be available with the within the proposed project. The following improvements
are required at the project access driveways in order to provide and maintain
adequate operations:
Driveway #1
Provide one inbound lane and one outbound lane at the
project driveway. The project driveway should be designed to align with the
corresponding lanes on the south leg (Arco Olympic Training Center
driveway) of the intersection to avoid any potential geometric off-set issues.
Modify the existing signal and phasing to accommodate the fourth (north) leg
of this intersection.
Driveway #2
Provide a secondary access driveway for emergency vehicles
only at the western end of the site to provide right-in / right-out only access.
The utility easement / unpaved trail at the east end of the project site could be
used for evacuation or emergency vehicles during an emergency. Exclusive
westbound right-turn lanes are not required at any of the project driveways based
on very low peak hour demand from the east.
II.5-33
EastLake III Lake Pointe
Supplemental PFFP
Sight Distance:
2.
Driveway #1
The project should ensure a minimum stopping sight distance of 330 feet to
the east of the signalized project Driveway #1. Any landscaping in the line of
sight should be less than 4.25 feet high, and no structures should be built in
the line of sight.
Driveway #2
The project should ensure a minimum corner sight distance of 500 feet to the
east of the project Driveway #2. Any landscaping in the line of sight should
be less than 4.25 feet high and no structures should be built in the line of
sight.
II.5-34
EastLake III Lake Pointe
Supplemental PFFP
Circulation
Proposed
Exhibit 5
II.5-35
EastLake III Lake Pointe
Supplemental PFFP
II.5.4.2 POLICE
II.5.4.2.1Threshold Standard
A. Emergency Response: properly equipped and staffed police units shall respond to
7 minutes and
minutes or less (measured annually).
B. Urgent Response: Properly equipped and staffed police units shall respond to 57% of
oughout the city within 7 minutes and maintain an
annually).
II.5.4.2.2Service Analysis
The City of Chula 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
hreshold
Performance 1990-
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.
II.5.4.2.3Project 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.
II.5.4.2.4Existing 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
th
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 32 that is served by at least one Beat Officer per
shift.
Police Facility Inventory
th
New Police Headquarters at 4 Avenue and F Street.
II.5-36
EastLake III Lake Pointe
Supplemental PFFP
II.5.4.2.5 Adequacy Analysis
According to the GMOC 2011
for Service (CFS) were met during the 2009-2010 time period (see Table C.1). The
85.1% of the calls responded
to within 5:30 minutes (see Table C.1 below). The FY 2009-2010 average response time
was 5.1% better than the required threshold standard.
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 of
9:55 minutes. The GMOC has determi
Response time threshold has not been met.
Table C.1
Historic Response Times
Priority I -- Emergency Response, Calls For Service
% of Call Response Average
Call Volume
w/in 7 Minutes 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
FY2004-05 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 71,268 80.8% 4:55
Î×
FY 2001-02 1,539 71,859 80.0% 5:07
Î×
FY 2000-01 1,734 73,977 79.7% 5:13
Î×
FY 1999-00 1,750 76,738 75.9% 5:21
Î×
5
11,890 74,405 70.9% 5:50
CY 1999 Î×
Source: GMOC 2011 Annual Report
After reviewing the history of the Priority II threshold standard being out of compliance
for thirteen consecutive years, the GMOC recommended that the City Council direct the
Police Department to gather and provide the GMOC with historical statistical and any
other necessary information regarding the Priority II Threshold during a top-to-bottom
review to consider modifying the Priority II 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
rformance 1990-
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.
5
The FY98-99 GMOC Report used calendar 1999 data due to the implementation of the new CAD system in mid-1998.
II.5-37
EastLake III Lake Pointe
Supplemental PFFP
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 alarm 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.
Despite the Police modernization, extra training and other intermediary steps that were
taken over the past 13 years to try and meet the Priority II threshold standard, achieving
the Priority II threshold
adequate staffing levels are crucial to meeting the existing Priority II threshold standard;
additional staff is needed, and the department does not anticipate having the necessary
resour
Table C.2
Historic Response Times
Priority II -Urgent Response, Calls for Service
% of Call Response Average Response
Call Volume
within 7 Min.
Time*
7 Minutes
7:30
̸®»¸±´¼ 57.0%
FY 2009-10 22,240 of 68,145 49.8% 9:55
FY 2008-09 22,686 of 70,051 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 2005-06 24,876 of 73,075 40.0% 12:33
FY 2004-05 24,923 of 74,106 40.5% 11:40
FY 2003-04 24,741 of 71,000 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 2000-01 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 22,140 of 69,904 62.2% 6:50
FY 1995-96 21,743 of 71,197 64.5% 6:38
Source: GMOC 2011 Annual Report
threshold standard might be appropriate, and recommended that this be considered during
the top-to-bottom review. In anticipation of top to bottom discussions, the Police
standard and how it compares to the standard in other local police departments. In that
process, they discovered that a comparison was not possible, due to the way that other
agencies calculate their response time averages. The Police Department indicated to the
GMOC that they have further research to conduct before they can determine what their
recommended change to the Priority II threshold standard will be.
II.5-38
EastLake III Lake Pointe
Supplemental PFFP
II.5.4.2.6Financing Police Facilities
The Public Facilities Development Impact Fee (PFDIF) was updated by the Chula Vista
City Council on November 19, 2002 by adoption of Ordinance 2847. The PFDIF is
st
adjusted every October 1 pursuant to Ordinance 3050, which was adopted by the City
Council on November 7, 2006. The Police P DIF Fee for Multi-Family Development is
6
$1,760/unit (see Table A.6). The Police PFDIF for Commercial development is $7,698
per acre. 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 build-out is
$504,459.
Table C. 3
Police Fee For Lake Pointe
Number SF Police Fee for
Development Acres
of DUs PFDIF/DU PFDIF/AC. Lake Pointe
Multi-Family Residential 284 $1,760 $499,840
Commercial 0.60 $7,698 $4,619
Totals 284 0.60 $504,459
The projected fee illustrated in Table C.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.
II.5.4.2.7. TCR
HRESHOLD OMPLIANCE AND EQUIREMENTS
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.
That City Council direct the Police Department to gather and provide the GMOC with
historical, statistical and any other necessary information regarding the Priority II
-to-
bottom review.
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.
6
Fee based on Form 5509 dated 06/26/2012. Actual fee may be different, please verify with the City of Chula
Vista at the time of building permit.
II.5-39
EastLake III Lake Pointe
Supplemental PFFP
II.5.4.3 FIRE AND EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES
II.5.4.3.1Threshold 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).
II.5.4.3.2 Service Analysis
The City of Chula Vista Fire Department (CVFD) provides Fire and Emergency 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 time. 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
(see Table D.1). Additionally, the City of Chula Vista is updating the currently adopted
Fire Station Master Plan. The updated Master Plan will set forth the locations and
staffing for future fire and emergency service resources/facilities.
II.5.4.3.3Existing Conditions
There are currently nine (9) fire stations serving the City of Chula Vista. The existing
station network is listed below:
Table D.1
Current Fire Station Facilities
Station Location Equipment Staffing
Current Fire Station Facilities
Station 1 447 F St. Engine 51/Truck 51/Battalion 51 Assigned: 24 - On Duty: 8
Station 2 80 East J St. Engine 52/Brush 52 Assigned: 9 - On Duty: 3
Station 3 1410 Brandywine Ave. US & R 53 Assigned: 12 - On Duty: 4
Station 4 850 Paseo Ranchero Engine 54 Assigned: 9 On Duty: 3
Station 5 391 Oxford St. Engine 55 Assigned: 9 On Duty: 3
Station 6 605 Mt. Miguel Rd. Engine 56 Assigned: 9 On Duty: 3
Station 7 1640 Santa Venetia Rd. Engine 57/Truck 57/Battalion 52 Assigned: 24 On Duty: 8
Station 8 1180 Woods Dr. Engine 58 Assigned: 9 On Duty: 3
Station 9 291 E. Oneida Street Engine 59 Assigned: 9 On Duty: 3
Source: CVFD
II.5-40
EastLake III Lake Pointe
Supplemental PFFP
II.5.4.3.4Adequacy Analysis
The City of Chula Vista Fire Department (CVFD) currently serves areas within the City's
boundaries, including the Lake Pointe project. The closest CVFD stations to the project
site are:
Fire Station #4, located Rancho Del Rey
Fire Station #6, located in Rolling Hills
Fire Station #7, located in Village 2.
Fire Station #8, located in EastLake III
The station nearest to the Lake Pointe Condominium project is Station #8. This station is
within 2 miles of the Lake Pointe Condominium project. Station #8 is located in the
EastLake Woods neighborhood. a fire at the
project site with the proposed uses could include: Four Fire Engines from Stations 6, 8, 7
& 4; Two Trucks from Stations 1 & 7; Two Battalion Chiefs from Stations 1 & 7; and
One Urban Search & Rescue team from Station 3.
The Fire/EMS response time threshold was met for calendar year 2010. This is the sixth
year in a row that the CVFD met the threshold. Dispatch time has improved significantly
since the fire full operation of its dispatch center.
American Medical Response (AMR) provides emergency medical services to the project
site, on a contract basis for the City of Chula Vista. There are two AMR stations, which
provide paramedic with EMT services to the City of Chula Vista exclusively.
Table D.2
Lake Pointe PFFP
Fire/EMS - Emergency Response Times Since 2000
% of All Call Response
Years Call Volume
Within 7:00 Minutes
FY 2010 10,296 85.0%
FY 2009 9,363 84.0%
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 80.8%
Source: GMOC 2011 Annual Report
II.5.4.3.5. F&EMSFA:
IRE ACILITY NALYSIS
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.
Generally, the actual response and travel times for 80% of the calls improved from last
year. Response times improved from 6 minutes 31 seconds in FY 2008 to 4 minutes 46
seconds in FY 2009. The average travel time also improved from 3 minutes 17 seconds
II.5-41
EastLake III Lake Pointe
Supplemental PFFP
in FY 2008 to 3 minutes 1 second in FY 2009. Of all calls received, 3% were for fire,
87% were for medical, and 10% were for other emergencies.
The City of Chula Vista has contracted with San Diego Dispatch since March, 2008, to
respond to fire and medical dispatch calls. 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 (see Table D.3 below).
Table D.3
Lake Pointe PFFP
Fire/EMS - Emergency Response TimesComparison
Average Response Time
Years Average Travel Time
for 80% of Calls
FY 2010 5:09 3:40
FY 2009 4:46 3:33
FY 2008 6:31 3:17
FY 2007 6:24 3:30
CY 2006 6:43 3:36
CY 2005 7:05 3:31
FY 2003-04 7:38 3:32
FY 2002-03 7:35 3:43
FY 2001-02 7:53 3:39
FY 2000-01 7:02 3:18
Source: GMOC 2011 Annual Report
Development of the Lake Pointe project is not anticipated to change the need for fire
service in the area. Fire Station No. 8, located at 1180 Woods Drive in the EastLake
Woods neighborhood, would be the primary station to serve the project.
II.5.4.3.6. FF&EMSF:
INANCING IRE ACILITIES
The Public Facilities Development Impact Fee (PFDIF) was updated by the Chula Vista City
Council on November 19, 2002 by adoption of Ordinance 2847. The PFDIF is adjusted every
st
October 1 pursuant to Ordinance 3050, which was adopted by the City Council on November
7
7, 2006. The Fire PFDIF Fee for Multi-Family Development is $970/unit (see Table A.6).
The Fire PFDIF for Commercial development is $3,566 per acre. 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 build-out is $277,620.
Table D.4
Fire/EMS Fee For Lake Pointe
MF
Development Acres Fire/EMS Fee
PFDIF/DU PFDIF/AC.
Single Family Residential 284 $970 $275,480
Commercial 0.60 $3,566 $2,140
Totals 284 0.60 $277,620
7
Fee based on Form 5509 dated 06/26/2012. Actual fee may be different, please verify with the City of Chula
Vista at the time of building permit.
II.5-42
EastLake III Lake Pointe
Supplemental PFFP
The projected fee illustrated in Table D.4 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.
II.5.4.3.7 TCR:
HRESHOLD OMPLIANCE AND EQUIREMENTS
A. 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.
B. The Lake Pointe Condominium 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.
C. The GMOC and the CVFD will continue to monitor the effectiveness of using San Diego
Dispatch in regards to meeting the threshold standard.
II.5-43
EastLake III Lake Pointe
Supplemental PFFP
II.5.4.4 SCHOOLS
II.5.4.4.1Threshold 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. The 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 communicate to the City
and GMOC.
II.5.4.4.2Service 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 Union High School District (SUHSD) administers
education for the Junior/Middle and Senior High 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 1A, the Class Size
Reduction Kindergarten-University Public Education Facilities Bond Act of 1998. Prior
to the passage of Proposition 1A, 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 memorialized in a mitigation
agreement, after January 1, 2000, will be replaced by Alternative Fees (sometimes
referred to as Level II and Level III Fees). The 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 for 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 2011, to
quantify, for the next five-year period, the impacts of new residential development on the
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 $ 2.35 per square
II.5-44
EastLake III Lake Pointe
Supplemental PFFP
foot of new residential construction. A corresponding Level III Fee of $ 4.69 per square
foot of new residential construction is also identified.
ter Union High
Implementation of the SUHSD Plan is ongoing and has resulted in the upgrading of older
schools and accommodating continuing growth. In 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 Proposition 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.
II.5.4.4.3Project 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.
II.5.4.4.4Existing Conditions
School Facilities Inventory, Chula Vista Elementary 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 year-
round calendar. Table E.1 lists existing schools together with the capacity and enrollment
of each. Capacity using existing facilities is approximately 30,459. Projected enrollment
for the 2010-2011 school year was approximately 27,484. Thirty-seven of the 44 schools
have capacity. Three schools are near capacity and five schools are over capacity (see
Table E.1). At this time there is sufficient capacity throughout the district to
EastLake CFD No. 1.
II.5-45
EastLake III Lake Pointe
Supplemental PFFP
Table E.1
Chula Vista Elementary School District
Enrollments vs. Capacity
School Enrollment 11/2011 Approximate Capacity Remaining Capacity
Allen/Ann Daly 376 457 81
Arroyo Vista Charter 815 823 8
Casillas 570 696 126
Castle Park 385 578 193
Chula Vista Hills 526 578 52
Chula Vista LCC 624 678 54
Clear View Charter 501 566 65
Cook 437 592 155
Discovery Charter 758 947 189
EastLake 572 707 135
Feaster/Ed Charter 1038 1186 148
Finney 412 548 136
Halecrest 429 563 134
Harborside 589 862 273
Hedenkamp 968 1045 77
Heritage 849 963 114
Hilltop Drive 530 561 31
Juarez-Lincoln 570 676 106
Kellogg 329 629 300
Lauderbach 780 962 182
Liberty 683 800 117
Loma Verde 464 630 166
Los Altos 387 472 85
Marshall 692 761 69
McMillin 809 852 43
Montgomery 385 483 98
Mueller Charter 834 863 29
Olympic View 744 772 28
Otay 550 774 224
Palomar 331 444 113
Parkview 395 551 156
Rice 733 705 -28
Rogers 466 618 152
Rohr 363 465 102
Rosebank 625 731 106
Salt Creek 971 985 14
Silver Wing 381 612 231
Sunnyside 372 485 113
Tiffany 488 665 177
Valle Lindo 528 669 141
Valley Vista 509 663 154
Veterans 804 850 46
Vista Square 561 716 155
Wolf Canyon 897 849 -48
Totals 26,030* 31,032 5,002
Less capacity for future students2,191 2,191
Total available capacity:28,841 2,811
Source: CVESD School Facilities Needs Analysis, June 2011
* Does not include unassigned pupils, preschool or Daley Academy.
II.5-46
EastLake III Lake Pointe
Supplemental PFFP
Table E.2
Sweetwater Union High School District
Enrollments vs. Capacity
Adjusted Total 11/1/2011 Capacity vs.
School Site
Capacity Enrollment Projected
Middle Schools
Bonita Vista 1,292 1,062 230
Castle Park
1,401 1,023 378
Chula Vista
1,315 1,042 273
EastLake
1,581 1,581 0
Granger*
1,380 980 400
Hilltop
1,182 1,062 120
Mar Vista*
1,581 1,103 478
Montgomery*
1,614 893 721
National City*
1,054 738 316
Rancho del Rey
1,524 1,571 -47
Southwest*
1,350 614 736
Subtotal 15,274 11,669 3,605
High Schools
Bonita Vista
2,244 2,221 23
Castle Park
2,037 1,583 454
Chula Vista
2,831 2,675 156
EastLake
2,349 2,646 -297
Hilltop
2,273 2,044 229
Mar Vista*
1,879 1,671 208
Montgomery*
2,440 1,652 788
Otay Ranch
2,432 2,603 -171
Olympian
1,942 1,720 222
Palomar
593 462 131
San Ysidro*
2,400 2,450 -50
Southwest*
2,400 1,695 705
Sweetwater*
2,163 2,464 -301
Subtotal 27,983 25,886 2,097
Total 43,257 37,555 5,702
Source: SUHSD
* Schools outside of the City of Chula Vista
II.5-47
EastLake III Lake Pointe
Supplemental PFFP
Several master-planned communities within eastern Chula Vista are currently in a CFD
while several other communities have entered into agreements with the District to form a
CFD. Because these developments have already secured mitigation to ensure the timely
construction of school facilities to house students generated from these developments they
are deemed Mitigated Developments by the district and are excluded from the payment of
Alternative Fees. Residential development projects that have currently not mitigated the
impacts that result from their development projects
Developments.
The District has identified almost 6,369 future dwelling units to be constructed within the
next 5 years and within Mitigated Developments. Further, the district estimates that
approximately 2,191 elementary school students will be generated from Mitigated
Developments. The Lake Pointe project is considered within the district's Mitigated
Development category since it is within an existing CFD.
Some excess capacity is suggested by comparing existing enrollment identified in Table
E.1 to the current capacity. However, by applying the current student generation rates
identified in Table E.3, to the estimated undeveloped dwelling units to be constructed
within Mitigated Developments which must be housed within the District's current
facilities, a significant number of students are expected to be generated. These students
are expected to come from the following Mitigated Developments EastlakeLandswap
(CFD No. 1), Rolling Hills Ranch (fee mitigation), Otay Ranch Villages 2, 6, 7 & 11
(CFD Nos. 11, 14, 15, &17), San Miguel Ranch (CFD No. 13) and Bella Lago, El Dorado
Ridge and Dennery Ranch (CFD No. 10). However, the district anticipates that
Unmitigated Developments could generate approximately 817 students. The district
anticipates there may be a shortage of seats available to house students from Unmitigated
Developments.
School Facilities Inventory, Sweetwater Union High School District
The SUHSD currently administers eleven (11) junior high/middle schools and thirteen (13)
senior high schools including one continuation high school within the District. In 2002,
the district completed construction of the San Ysidro High School. In July of 2003 the
district opened the Otay Ranch High School (near Otay Ranch Village 2) located at 1250
Olympic Pkwy, 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. There 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. The district currently projects the need
for Middle School #12 and High School #14 no earlier than 2015. The school will relieve
EastLake, Otay Ranch and Olympian High Schools. The district has not established
enrollment will be reduced.
The district wide student enrollment is very stable (in fact it is declining at many schools).
According to the district, the Lake Pointe Condominium project is within the EastLake
Middle School and the EastLake High School and the Otay Ranch High School
attendance areas. In addition, the site is within CFD 1.
II.5-48
EastLake III Lake Pointe
Supplemental PFFP
II.5.4.4.5School Sizing and Location
The project is proposed to consist of 284 dwelling units at build out. At completion, the
proposed project could generate approximately 134 students using the following Student
Generation Factors:
Ì¿¾´» Ûòí
Single-Family Attached Student Generation Rates
Elementary (K-6) .2747 students/d.u.
Middle School (7-8) .0635 students/d.u.
High School (9-12) .1229 students/d.u.
Source: CVESD SFNA June 2011 & SUHSD June 2010
By school category, the project is expected to generate the following students:
Table E.4
Student Generation
Multi- Family Elementary Middle High School Total Students
Dwelling Units (K-6) (7-8) (9-12)
284 79 19 36 134
School Size Standards:
Elementary 750-1,000 students
Middle 1,500 students
Senior High 2,400 students
Chula Vista Elementary School District
As noted in Table E.4, the build-out of the Lake Pointe project would generate the need
to house approximately 79 elementary school age students. Construction began in April
of 2012 for a school at 1650 Exploration Drive in Village 11 of Otay Ranch. This school
will be completed in the summer of 2013 and would be the nearest school to the Project.
However, students from Village 11 will have priority. The students from the project may
be bussed to EastLake Elementary School or another nearby school. The district has not
made definitive plans at the time of report preparation.
Sweetwater Union High School District
The maximum capacity of a middle school is approximately 1,500 students. It is
anticipated that the approximately 19 middle school students generated by the Lake
Pointe project will attend the EastLake Middle School located approximately 3 miles
north of the project. Currently, EastLake Middle has the capacity to accept the estimated
students generated by the project.
The maximum capacity of a high school is approximately 2,400 students. It is anticipated
that approximately 36 high school students will be generated from the Lake Pointe
project. These students will attend EastLake high school located approximately 3 miles
northwest of the project. Currently, EastLake High has the capacity to accept the
estimated students generated by the project.
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
Eastern Urban Center (EUC) or a site reserved pursuant to the Otay Ranch GDP.
II.5-49
EastLake III Lake Pointe
Supplemental PFFP
II.5.4.4.6Financing 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. The
SUHSD is unable to meet the needs of this project with current school facilities and it is
unable to construct new facilities to meet the impacts of this project through the provision
of school fees.
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. The following Mello-Roos Districts have been
created by each district:
SUHSD CVED
CFD CFD
Location Location
Number Number
1 EastLake 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 Ranch (Village 1, West)
10 Remington Hills/Annexable 13 San Miguel Ranch
11 Lomas Verdes 14 Otay Ranch Village 11 ()
Brookfield/Shea
12 Otay Ranch (Village 1 West) 15 Otay Ranch Village 6 (ORC)
13 San Miguel Ranch
14 Otay Ranch Village 11
Based on historical data available from each district an estimate of costs for the
construction of school facilities on a per student basis is provided. Both districts follow
state standards for determining the costs and size for school construction. The cost for a
high school, including land acquisition, is approximately $ 30,000 per student (2011
dollars). Excluding land, the cost for a high school is approximately $ 16,700 per student.
The cost for a middle school, including land acquisition, is approximately $ 25,000 per
student (2011 dollars). Excluding land, the cost for a middle school is $13,300 per
student. The cost for an elementary school, including land acquisition, is approximately $
18,750 per student (2011 dollars). Excluding the land, the cost for an elementary school
is approximately $9,375 per student. Land acquisition cost is calculated at approximately
$ 750,000/net usable acre (10 acre elementary school site). Using the aforementioned
costs per student together with the school size, the following estimated costs per facility
can be anticipated.
II.5-50
EastLake III Lake Pointe
Supplemental PFFP
Elementary School Cost
(800 students) ($9,375/student w/o land cost) $ 7,500,000
(800 students) ($ 18,750/student w/land cost) $ 15,000,000
Middle School Cost
(1,500 students) ($ 13,300/student w/o land cost) $ 20,000,000
(1,500 students) ($ 25,000/student w/ land cost) $ 37,500,000
High School Cost
(2,400 students) ($ 16,700/student w/o land cost) $ 40,000,000
(2,400 students) ($ 30,000/student w/ land cost) $ 72,000,000
II.5.4.4.7 Threshold Compliance and Recommendations
A. Prior to building permit approval, the project proponent(s) shall provide
documentation to the City confirming satisfaction of SUHSD 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 High School
District and the Chula Vista Elementary School District.
B. Since this project is a part of EastLake, portions of the school mitigation have been
satisfied through participation in the CFD for both districts. The mitigation agreement
also established a fee due at the time permits for residential units are pulled. The rate
in effect should be verified with the SUHSD and CVESD at the time building permits
are requested.
II.5-51
EastLake III Lake Pointe
Supplemental PFFP
II.5.4.5 LIBRARIES
II.5.4.5.1 Threshold Standard
In the area east of I-805, the city shall construct, by buildout (approximately year 2030)
60,000 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.
II.5.4.5.2 Service Analysis
The City of Chula Vista Library Department provides library facilities.
II.5.4.5.3 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.
II.5.4.5.4 Existing Conditions
The City provides library services through the Chula Vista Public Library at Fourth and
planning area, and the library at the EastLake High School. The Castle Park and
Woodlawn Libraries have been closed. The existing and future libraries are listed on the
Table F.1 and Table F.2, respectively.
Table F.1
Existing Library Facilities
Existing Libraries Square Footage
Civic Center 55,000
South Chula Vista 37,000
EastLake 10,000
Total Existing SquareFeet 102,000
I
I.5.4.5.5 Adequacy Analysis
Using the threshold standard of 500 square feet of library space per 1,000 population, the
2011
8
of a population of 237,329 is 118,665 square feet. Chula Vista currently provides
102,000 square feet of library space. This represents a 16,665 square foot deficit. The
demand by the 2015 forecasted population (GMOC 2011 Annual Report) of 249,435 is
124,718 square feet. Comparing this forecasted demand to the existing library square
8
GMOC 2011 Annual Report
II.5-52
EastLake III Lake Pointe
Supplemental PFFP
footage of 102,000 square feet results in a deficit of 22,718 square feet unless the first
Regional Library is completed before 2015. The SANDAG build-out population for
Chula Vista is approximately 282,664. This population will require approximately
152,000 square feet of Library Facilities.
The Chula Vista Public Library Master Plan addresses such topics as library siting and
phasing, the impacts of new technologies on library usage, and floor space needs. The
plan calls for the construction of a full service regional library of approximately 30,000
square feet in the Rancho del Rey area at the corner of Paseo Ranchero and East H Street
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
become available for the construction of the Rancho del Rey Branch Library.
Preconstruction planning and design have been completed. In addition, the timing of the
EUC Library is unknown at this time.
Future library facilities are listed in the following table:
Table F.2
Future Library Facilities
Future Libraries Square FootageEstimated 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.
** Assumes construction of the second 30,000-square foot (minimum size) regional library and the closure
of the 10,000-square foot EastLake library, per the Chula Vista Public Library Master Plan.
Table F.3 highlights existing plus forecasted project demands for library space as
compared to the existing and scheduled library space as well as the impact of the project
on library facilities.
According to the GMOC Annual Report, the
standard has been out of compliance for seven years in a row. The threshold standard is
to construct 500 gross square feet per 1,000 population. The City currently has a deficit
of approximately 16,665 square feet.
For the past several years, it has been anticipated that construction of a 30,000-square-foot
library on vacant, city-owned property in Rancho del Rey would satisfy the Libraries
threshold standard, and that construction of a 30,000-square-foot library in the Eastern
population increases. The current economic situation may continue to delay construction
of the Rancho del Rey and EUC Libraries for the foreseeable future.
Currently, a 30,000-square-foot library is planned for the Rancho del Rey site, and
another 30,000-square-foot library is planned for a site in the Eastern Urban Center
(EUC). The draft Library Facilities Master Plan proposes combining the Rancho del Rey
square footage with the library branch planned in the EUC, which may be more fiscally
feasible for the city, and the threshold standard may be met sooner, since city
II.5-53
EastLake III Lake Pointe
Supplemental PFFP
management estimates that construction funds for the Rancho del Rey library may not be
available for ten more years.
Table F.3
Library Threshold Compliance
Total Gross Square Gross Square Feet of
Population Footage of Library Library Facilities Per 1000
Facilities Population
Threshold X X 500 Square Feet
1
92,000 369
5-Year Projection
2
249,435 95,400382
(12/31/11)
3
102,000 409
12-Month Projection
237,329 102,000 430
(12/31/11)
FY 2009-10 233,692 102,000 436
FY 2008-09 233,108 102,000 437
FY 2007-08 231,305 102,000 441
FY 2006-07 227,723 102,000 448
FY 2005-06 220,000 102,000 457
FY 2004-05 211,800 102,000 464
FY 2003-04 203,000 102,000 482
FY 2002-03 195,000 102,000 502
FY 2000-01 187,444 102,000 544
FY 1999-00 178,645 102,000 571
1 If Eastlake shared use library closes
2 If Eastlake closes and Otay Ranch storefront alternative opens
3 If Eastlake remains open
GMOC 2011 Annual Report
11.5.4.5.6Financing Library Facilities
The Public Facilities Development Impact Fee (PFDIF) was updated by the Chula Vista City
Council on November 19, 2002 by adoption of Ordinance 2847. The PFDIF is adjusted every
st
October 1 pursuant to Ordinance 3050, which was adopted by the City Council on November
7, 2006. The Library PFDIF Fee for Single and Multi-Family Development is $ 1,533/unit (see
9
Table A.6). There is no Library PFDIF for Commercial Development. 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 $435,372.
Table F.4
Library Fee For Ô¿µ» б·²¬»
SF
Development Acres Library Fee
PFDIF/DU PFDIF/AC.
Multi-Family
284 $1,533 $435,372
Residential
Commercial .6 $0 $0
Totals 284 .6 $435,372
9
Fee based on Form 5509 dated 06/26/2012. Actual fee may be different, please verify with the City of Chula Vista at
the time of building permit.
II.5-54
EastLake III Lake Pointe
Supplemental PFFP
The projected fee illustrated in Table F.4 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.
11.5.4.5.7 Threshold Compliance and Recommendations
A.
(approximately 102,000 square feet) are 16,665 square feet below the threshold
standard (see Table F.3). The library threshold standard will not be met until the new
library at Rancho del Rey is completed.
B. The GMOC provided recommendations to the City Council to improve the library
threshold compliance. These recommendations include:
1. That City Council adopt a Library Facilities Master Plan that provides interim and
long-term solutions to bringing the library system into conformance.
2. The GMOC supports the Library Director seeking interim solutions to a full
service location on the east side of I-805.
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.
II.5-55
EastLake III Lake Pointe
Supplemental PFFP
II.5.4.6 PARKS, TRAILS AND OPEN SPACE
II.5.4.6.1 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.
II.5.4.6.2 Service Analysis
The City of Chula Vista provides public park and recreational facilities and programs
through the Community Services Department, 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
advises the City Council on issues that relate to parks, open space, playgrounds and
recreational programs.
The City Council approved the Chula Vista Parks and Recreation Master Plan in
November 2002. An update to the Parks & Recreation Master Plan is currently being
drafted by the Development Services Department. The Plan provides guidance for
planning, siting and implementation of neighborhood and community parks.
II.5.4.6.3Project Processing Requirements
1.
constructed, street improvements and in coordination with the construction of water
and sewer facilities.
2. The specific siting of public parks and recreation facilities shall be in conformance
with the Chula Vista Parks and Recreation Master Plan.
3. Site/s reserved for park purposes within the project.
II.5.4.6.4 Existing Conditions
The Lake Pointe Project is a proposed 284 multi-family attached unit development that
includes a 10,000 square foot community commercial building and a recreation center.
The project is located approximately 500 feet southwest of the Mountain Hawk
Neighborhood Park
Recreat
Parks and Recreation Master Plan.
II.5.4.6.5 Project Park Requirements
Compliance with Public Park Standards
The Lake Pointe Condominium Project generates an estimated population of 912 (284
10
dwelling units x 3.21 population factor). To meet the city threshold requirements the
10
City of Chula Vista, 2011 Annual Growth Management Review Cycle.
II.5-56
EastLake III Lake Pointe
Supplemental PFFP
amount of parkland dedicated is based on a standard of 3 acres per 1,000 populations (see
Table G.1). The standard is based on State of California Government 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.
Table G.1
Quimby Act Parkland Requirements
Parkland Acres
Lake Pointe Population Standard
Required
3 acres per 1,000
912 2.74
population
All new development in the City of Chula Vista is subject to the requirements contained
in 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 family 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 defined as
any freestanding structure that contains two or more residential units. Parkland dedication
requirements are shown below on Table G.2.
Table G.2
City of Chula Vista Parkland Dedication Ordinance Standards
Dwelling Unit Type Land Dedicationper Unit Dwelling Unitsper Park Acre
Single-Family 460 sf/du 95 du/ac.
Multi-Family 341 sf/du 128 du/ac.
Table G.3
Lake Pointe Project
Preliminary Parkland Dedication Requirements
City Ordinance Applied to Planning Prediction of Unit Numbers and Types
Number of Parkland
Dwelling Unit Type* Required Acres
D.U. Required/DU
Multiple Family 284 341 sf/du 2.22
TOTALS 284 2.22
*
Dwelling unit type - Note that number and type of units listed reflect 'Land Use Designations' listed in the
EastLake III General Development Plan, since this level of information is all that is available at the time of this
document's preparation. Definitions of dwelling unit type used for 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 are defined from a planning, land-use and zoning perspective that uses unit density per acre to categorize the
type of unit. CVMC chapter 17.10 uses product type to categorize the type of unit distinguishing between
attached and detached units. Consequently, the 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.
klands and Public Facilities Ordinance, the parkland
II.5-57
EastLake III Lake Pointe
Supplemental PFFP
requirement for the Lake Pointe Project is approximately 2.22 acres (see Table G.3).
However, the entire EastLake III SPA Amendment will be re-evaluated in the PFFP.
The Site Utilization Plan (Exhibit 4) identifies the park designations and acreage that are
shown in Table G.4. The Neighborhood Park has been graded and it is currently under
requirements for the EastLake
III SPA 2006 Amendment are outlined in Table G.4 are applicable to the Lake Pointe
Project.
Table G.4
EastLake III SPA 2006 Amendment
Park Acreage Provided and Eligible Credits
Neighborhood Park Provided Proposed CreditEstimated Credit Acres
EastLake Woods PAD Fees = 5.6 Ac 100% 5.6
EastLake Vistas
12.9 Ac 100% 12.9
P-1 Public Park & P-2 Private Park
Total Provided 18.5 Ac--
Total Required-- -- 21.51
SPA Balance-- -- -3.01 ac
Table G.4 indicates that the 2006 EastLake III SPA Amendment provided parkland less
than that required, by 3.01 acres, based on the Site Utilization Plan statistics. This park
acreage calculation may be refined during the more detailed levels of review.
II.5.4.6.6 Park Adequacy Analysis
Table G.5 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 project. A review of the
existing and approved park demands for Chula Vista east of I-805 including the project
indicates a projected 2016 demand of approximately 449.79 acres of Neighborhood and
Community Parks. The 2012-projected supply of park acreage east of I-805, 424.91
acres, is 24.88 acres less than the projected demand.
Table G.5
Estimated Park Acreage Demand Compared to Supply East of Interstate 805
Demand
PopulationExistingEligibleNet Acres
Park
11
East of I-805
Park AcresCredit Acres+/-Standard
12
Acres
13
Estimated 6/2011 132,357 397.07 418.01 418.01 + 20.94
Forecasted Projects
1415
17,574 52.72 6.9 6.9 - 45.82
12/2012 to 12/2016
Total149,931449.79 424.91 424.91 - 24.88
11
Population figures are from the draft GMOC 2011 questionnaire.
12
City of Chula Vista's Thresholdrequirement is 3 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents that are east of I-805.
13
Existing Park Acreage is from the draft GMOC 2011 questionnaire.
14
Population figure derived from the draft GMOC 2011 questionnaire.
15
Figure includes the assumption that Mt. Miguel Community Park, All Seasons and Park P-3 in Village 2 are built by
2014.
II.5-58
EastLake III Lake Pointe
Supplemental PFFP
Table G.6
EastLake III Lake Pointe SPA Amendment
Park Land Dedication Required
Dwelling Unit (DU) Types
Acres
Dwelling
17.10.040 Acres Acres
Required
Vistas
Unit Park Required Required
Vistas
Olympic
Woods Olympic
Area/DU Woods Lake Pt.
Type
Lake Pt.
Pt.
Pt.
SFD 667 782 -- 460 7.04 8.25 --
SFA -- 73 -- 341 -- 0.57 --
MF -- 928 284 341 -- 7.26 2.22
667 1783 284 - 7.04 16.08 2.22
The dedication requirement for the EastLake III SPA Amendment, based on the proposed
changes in dwellings calculated in Table G.6, results in a 2.22 acre requirement for the
Lake Pointe Project.
II.5.4.6.7Open Space, Trails and Recreation
A. Open Space
Open space within Eastlake III will be provided for buffer areas, slopes and open
space corridors as required by the Eastlake III GDP. Open space lands indicated on
the Eastlake III Site Utilization Plan include the Salt Creek corridor within the
Eastlake Woods neighborhood, slopes adjacent to both Upper and Lower Otay
Reservoirs, slope/buffer areas adjacent to Otay Lakes Road, Hunte Parkway and
Olympic Parkway, and a buffer between the western edge of the Eastlake Woods
residential neighborhood and the Eastlake Business Center light industrial uses, off-
site to the west.
B. Trails
Eastlake III is served by two types of trails. These include:
Greenbelt trails
Community trails
These trails provide non-vehicular circulation throughout the community linking
Eastlake III with the adjacent regional trail system within the City's greenbelt. The
trails also provide limited and controlled access into the open space areas and provide
access for Eastlake III neighborhoods to the parks and community facilities. See
Trails Plan for the location of the main framework of the trails system. It should be
noted that these trails are in addition to concrete sidewalks required as part of street
construction.
1. Greenbelt/Multi-Purpose Trail
In accordance with the Chula Vista General Plan, the Greenbelt Trail is a proposed 26-
mile continuous loop trail that generally encircles the city. The trail is designed as an
eleven-foot wide, grade separated trail free from vehicular traffic.
II.5-59
EastLake III Lake Pointe
Supplemental PFFP
2. Community Trail
Community trails provide access to regional trails and destination points and are
typically the internal routes of communities and neighborhoods. They can be
similar in design to regional trails but are determined by volume. In some cases,
the trail will be the concrete sidewalk in residential areas.
The Eastlake III General Development Plan, containing the Vistas and Woods
planning areas, identifies two major off-street pedestrian trails: the Eastlake
Community Trail and the Chula Vista Greenbelt Trail. The Eastlake Community
Trail (Thematic Corridor) extends from Eastlake Hills through the developed
portion of the Eastlake Planned Community to Eastlake Trails within Salt Creek
and will be continued across Eastlake Vistas to overlook Otay Lakes. A
pedestrian trail through Salt Creek Canyon will connect to the Greenbelt Trail
System. The Greenbelt trail runs along Olympic Parkway, inside the property line
of the Lake Pointe Project.
All trails will be designed and constructed to City standards. In the absence of
specific trail design standards, all trails will be designed and constructed to the
satisfaction of the Director of Parks and Recreation.
II.5.4.6.8 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 final building permit application.
II.5.4.6.8.1 SPA Plan Amendment
The project is responsible for both the park development component and the acquisition
component PAD Fees. The Developer will pay the acquisition and development
components of the PAD Fees as required by the City. The estimated acquisition
component of the PAD Fee is $2,671,872. The estimated development component of the
PAD Fee is $1,022,684 (see Table F.7). Combined, the estimated fee for both components
of the PAD Fee is $3,694,556.
II.5-60
EastLake III Lake Pointe
Supplemental PFFP
Table G.7
Lake Pointe Condominium Project
Acquisition and Development (PAD) Fees (Preliminary Calculation)
Acquisition Development
Dwelling Unit
Component of Component of PAD
Total
Type*
Development
Fees Due
MF MF @ $9,408 MF @ $3,601
Lake Pointe
284 $2,671,872 $1,022,684 $3,694,556
Condominiums
*
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.
PAD Fees are subject to periodic annual increases. Table G.7 identifies the estimated fees
calculated for the parkland Acquisition and Development Component of the PAD fees.
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.
II.5.4.6.9 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,
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 to
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 from
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 DIF, November 2002
Amendment', adding a new recreation component to the Public Facilities DIF, updating
the impact fee structure and increasing the overall fee.
II.5-61
EastLake III Lake Pointe
Supplemental PFFP
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 (drinking fountains, trash receptacles, bicycle racks, etc.)
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, baseball/softball fields. basketball
courts, multi-purpose sports fields, 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 sufficient to construct these additional large capital
items. However, major recreation facilities are now funded through a newly created
component of the Public Facilities DIF. The major capital items to be included in the new
component are community centers, gymnasiums, swimming pools, and senior/teen
centers. Based on the Parks and Recreation Master Plan, 140,595 square feet of major
recreation facilities will be required to meet new development growth through 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
G
commercial/industrial development. Table .8 provides an estimate of the Recreational
PDIF Fees for the project.
II.5-62
EastLake III Lake Pointe
Supplemental PFFP
Table G.8
Lake Pointe Condominium Project
16
Public Facilities Fees for Recreation (Preliminary Calculation)
Dwelling Units Recreation Fee
Development Total
$1,164/ $ïôïêì/
SF MF
SF Unit MF Unit
Lake Pointe
0 284 0 $330,576 $330,576
Condominium Project
The projected fee illustrated in Table G.8 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.
II.5.4.6.10 Threshold Compliance and Recommendations
Based upon the analysis contained in this section of the PFFP, the parks standard for both
neighborhood and community parks measured on an area-wide basis east of Interstate 805
is projected to be met at the completion of the project.
Prior to issuance of the building permit, the Developer shall pay to the City the applicable
acquisition in lieu fee payment and the development component of the PAD fee in
accordance with CVMC Chapter 17.10, Parkland Dedication Ordinance ("PDO") and the
Recreation Fees.
16
Fee based on Form 5509 dated 06/26/2012. Actual fee may be different, please verify with the City of Chula Vista at
the time of building permit.
II.5-63
EastLake III Lake Pointe
Supplemental PFFP
II.5.4.7 WATER
II.5.4.7.1 CTS:
ITY HRESHOLD TANDARDS
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 GMOC for
inclusion in its review.
II.5.4.7.2 EC:
XISTING ONDITIONS
The Otay Water District (OWD) provides water service for the EastLake III SPA including
the proposed Lake Pointe Condominium project. The OWD has existing facilities in the
vicinity of the project that can provide domestic water service. The OWD also provides
recycled water to the project and has existing facilities in the vicinity of the project.
The OWD utilizes the 1995 Water Resources Master Plan prepared by Montgomery Watson.
This document is the planning document used for all future CIP water facilities work. An
environmental impact report was also prepared to assess the impacts of the Master Plan.
The City of Chula Vista Growth Management Ordinance requires a Water Conservation Plan
to accompany a SPA Plan. The EastLake III SPA Plan Amendment for the Lake Pointe
Condominium project includes a Water Conservation Plan. Details of the project and
developer commitments to minimize the use of water can be found in the Water Conservation
Plan chapter of the EastLake III SPA Amendment. No SPA application shall be deemed
complete or accepted, by the city, unless:
A. It is accompanied by a city approved Water Conservation Plan; or
B. A Water Conservation Plan which includes the project has already been initiated; or
C. The applicant initiates the preparation of a Water Conservation Plan that is acceptable to
the Director of Planning.
This section of the PFFP is based upon the Lake Pointe On-Site Water Study dated January
20, 2011, by Atkins and the Lake Pointe Fire Protection Plan dated, January 20, 2012, by
Atkins. In addition, the Atkins Reports uses the approved Sub-Area Water Master Plan for
EastLake III (SAMP) dated January 2002 by Atkins as the basis of their report.
II.5-64
EastLake III Lake Pointe
Supplemental PFFP
II.5.4.7.3 WFA
ATER ACILITY NALYSIS
A. Potable Water:
The design criteria implemented to evaluate the potable water systems for the Project area are
established in accordance with the aforementioned 1995 Water Resources Master Plan. 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 of the proposed Project.
1. Pressure Zones:
OWD has established criteria to determine pressure zone
boundaries within new and existing developments. Minimum pressure criteriaare
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 H.1 will also protect the water
distribution system piping, valves, pumps, and other appurtenances from premature
failure or increased maintenance requirements.
Table H.1
Water Pressure Criteria
Operating Condition Criteria Pressure
Static Minimum Pressure 65 psi
Static 17 Maximum Pressure 200 psi
Peak Hour Minimum Pressure 40 psi
Maximum Day plus Fire Flow Minimum Pressure 20 psi @ Fire Hydrant
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 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 8 fps
under peak hour flow conditions.
Potable water service for the Lake Pointe project will be provided by two connections
to the existing District 16-inch 980 Pressure Zone (PZ) water main in Olympic
Parkway. Based on a graded pad elevation range of 546 to 560 feet, the static
hydraulic pressures within the proposed on-site domestic system are estimated at 182
to 189 psi.
2. Water Consumption:
Lake Pointe domestic water use projections were based on
planning criteria in the 2010 California Plumbing Code (2010 CPC). The
methodology employed in this study utilized fixture counts provided by Summa
Architecture (December, 2011) to Atkins to determine peak potable water demands
for each building. The estimated peak water demand for the total Project is provided
in Table H.2. The peak water demand is estimated at 700 gallons per minute (gpm)
based on a total development fixture count of 5,907 fixture units. The estimated
17
Static pressure is based on high water level of operational reservoir.
II.5-65
EastLake III Lake Pointe
Supplemental PFFP
Daily Demand (MDD) is estimated to be 300 gpm (432,000 gpd).
Table H.2
Projected On-Site Water Demands
Peak
Total Fixture
Land Use/Unit No. DU Fixture Units
Demand (gpm)
Units
Residential Unit 284 20.4 5,875
Commercial Unit 2 16.0 32
Site Total 5,907 700
1. Fixture unit counts provided by Summa Architecture on December 22, 2011.
2. Total peak water demand for Development is based the total fixture count and Chart A-2 in
Appendix A of 2001 CPC, not the cumulative total of peak demand for all buildings on-site.
Source: Atkins
3. Fire Flows:
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
building areas were provided bySumma Architecture on December 22, 2011. Based on
those areas, a minimum fire flow of 2,750gallons per minute (gpm) for a 2 hour duration,
flowrequirement is based on the largest potential fire in the Development, which would
occur at a 10,000square foot 12-plex residential building.
The design criteria for sizing public on-
Water Resources Master Plan (WRMP) Update and the latest Water Agency Standards
(WAS). Private fire main sizes for the project are based on the City of Chula Vista Building
Department Design Guidelines for Water Systems. The on-site private fire distribution
system has been sized to provide the fire flow required for the Development while
maintaining a minimum system operating pressure of 20 psi. The Chula Vista Building
Department Design Guidelines require a maximum velocity of 10 fps during fire flow
conditions as long as the residual pressures exceed 20 psi. Table H.3 summarizes the design
criteria within the fire service system under specified system operating conditions.
Table H.3
On-Site Water System Design Criteria
Parameter Criteria
Maximum Velocity, max day demand plus fire 10 fps
Hazen-Williams Roughness Coef., C
< 12 inch diameter 120
Maximum Static Pressure 200 psi
Minimum Static Pressure 65 psi
Minimum Pressure (max day plus fire) 20 psi at fire hydrant
Notes:
1. Maximum velocity requirements are based on Chula Vista Building Department design criteria.
2. Static pressure is based on high water level of operational reservoir.
3. Pipe material for on-site fire system is assumed to be polyvinyl-chloride (PVC).
4. C-
Source: Atkins
II.5-66
EastLake III Lake Pointe
Supplemental PFFP
B. 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. Recycled water service for
the Lake Pointe project can be provided by a connection to the existing District 16-inch
recycled water main in Olympic Parkway. Internal irrigation will be required to have a
separate meter. The irrigation service system will be separate from the domestic service
system and therefore has no impact on the domestic service sizing. The project site is graded
such that the western half of the site drains to the west, while the eastern half of the site drains
to the northeast. However the eastern half of the site drains to a collection basin and is then
connected to a storm drain that drains to the west. Based on the recycled water service area
-site will be as
directed by the District. Exhibits 8 and 9 illustrate the Adopted Potable Water Plan and
Recycled Water Plan for EastLake III, respectively.
II.5.4.7.4 WS
ATER YSTEM DESIGN CRITERIA
A. Water Systems Design and Hydraulic Analysis:
The criteria for sizing on-
latest water agency standards (WAS). The on-site water distribution system, including
service laterals, was evaluated for meeting peak hour domestic water demands while
maintaining a minimum system operating pressure of 40 pounds per square inch (psi) and
a maximum velocity of 8 feet per second in network piping per District criteria.
Hydraulic analysis presents an estimated minimum pressure at the project connection
point in Olympic Parkway of 173 psi and 116 psi (during maximum day and peak hour
demand conditions).
B. Domestic Water Service System:
The proposed private Lake Pointe domestic service system consists of 4-inch water
service lines and ½ inch water service laterals supplied through a 6-inch connection to the
existing public 16-inch main in Olympic Parkway. A master meter and backflow
prevention device are also required at the domestic service connections. The backflow
device downstream of the meter shall be regulated to less than 150 psi per WAS
standards, due to high static pressure in the area. No fire service will be provided from
the private on-site domestic water service system. Buildings will be privately metered
Table H.4 shows the recommended water service lateral, meter size, and available
pressure at each building connection for peak hour demand conditions. With the
proposed service mains for the on-
minimum pressure criteria of 40 psi and below the maximum velocity of 8 fps during
peak hour. Each individual connection should be equipped with a pressure regulator to
reduce pressure to 120 psi or less. Table H.4 provides minimum pressures during peak
hour conditions. Water supply from the 980 PZ would provide adequate pressures for the
Lake Pointe project to meet peak hour demand and minimum 40 psi pressure. Thus Lake
Pointe will have no significant impacts to the existing regional water system and will not
require any off-site improvements for service.
II.5-67
EastLake III Lake Pointe
Supplemental PFFP
Ì¿¾´» Øòì
λ½±³³»²¼»¼ Ô¿µ» б·²¬» É¿¬»® Í»®ª·½» Í·¦» ¿²¼ ߪ¿·´¿¾´» Ю»«®»
Peak Available Pressure
Sub-Meter Size Service Lateral
Building Description Demand
ï
(inches) Size (inches)
î
(gpm) (psi)
Residential Unit 19.4 3/8 1/2 55
Commercial Unit 2.1 3/8 1/2 102
Notes:
1.Water service laterals are sized based on maximum velocity of 8 feet per second.
2.
The available pressure is determined by taking the pressure at the service tap during peak hour
conditions and subtracting losses in the lateral, plus an additional 5 psi loss to account for
unanticipated pressure losses within the proposed system.
Source: Atkins
B. Fire Flows:
The proposed fire service distribution system will be supplied from a connection to the 16-
inch 980 PZ public main at the Development's entry way at Olympic Parkway. The
connection will utilize a District-approved reduced pressure backflow devices to isolate the
private fire line from the public main. The fire backflow prevention devices were sized by
Atkins based on Febco Master Series manufacturer's data. No domestic service connections
will be made to this main.
The on-site fire service loop design, which consists of 8-inch and 12-inch PVC to serve the
hydrants. The sizing of the riser stubs, fire sprinkler laterals to the buildings and associated
pressure and flow for each fire service will be determined during detailed design. The
necessary on-site fire service facilities will be verified and provided to ensure that the
minimum design criteria per the City of Chula Vista Fire Department, Chula Vista Building
Department, and relevant fire service standards and codes are met prior to final approval of
the design plans.
C. Recycled Water
The Lake Pointe Project will connect to the existing 16-inch recycled water main within
Olympic Parkway.
II.5.4.7.5. FP:
ACILITY HASING
It is anticipated that the project water facilities will be built in one phase.
II.5.4.7.6. FWF:
INANCING ATER ACILITIES
Potable Water:
There are two methods of financing and construction of potable water facilities for the Lake
Pointe Condominium project. These methods are as follows:
A.
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
CIP projects typically include supply facilities, pumping facilities, operational storage,
terminal storage, and transmission mains. Specific CIP projects, if required, are identified in
II.5-68
EastLake III Lake Pointe
Supplemental PFFP
B. Exaction: The Developer designs and constructs facilities that serve their development only.
OWD will provide reimbursement for construction and design costs associated with
development of these improvements.
II.5.4.7.7. TCR:
HRESHOLD OMPLIANCE AND EQUIREMENTS
A. Prior to approval of the Final Map, the Developer shall present verification to the City
Engineer in the form of a letter from Otay Water District that the subdivision will be provided
adequate water service and long-term water storage facilities.
B. The developer shall provide water and recycled improvements according the OWD approved
SAMP for the EastLake III SPA Plan Amendment. The construction of potable water and
recycled water facilities, based on the approved SAMP, shall be completed prior to the
approval of building permits.
II.5-69
EastLake III Lake Pointe
Supplemental PFFP
Exhibit 6
II.5-70
EastLake III Lake Pointe
Supplemental PFFP
Exhibit 7
II.5-71
EastLake III Lake Pointe
Supplemental PFFP
Proposed Water System Layout
II.5-72
II.5.4.8. SEWER
II.5.4.8.1 CTS:
ITY HRESHOLD TANDARDS
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 confirmation that the projection is within
the City's purchased capacity rights and an evaluation of their ability to accommodate the
forecast and continuing growth, or the City Development Services Department staff
gathers the necessary data. The information provided to the GMOC includes the
following:
1. 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.
II.5.4.8.2. EC:
XISTING ONDITIONS
The City of San Diego Metro provides sewer treatment services for the City of Chula Vista and
14 other participating agencies in accordance with the terms of a multi-agency agreement
(Metro Agreement). The Metro system currently has adequate sewage treatment capacity to
serve the region until approximately 2025. The Developer shall pay capacity fees prior to
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 Municipal Code sections 19.09.010(A) 6 and 13.14.030.
Sewer service to the project site is provided by the City of Chula Vista. A private on-site
sewer collection system will convey wastewater flows to an existing City owned 8-inch
and 12-inch diameter gravity main located north of Olympic Parkway. This sewer
collects flows generated within the EastLake Vistas Tentative Map neighborhoods located
north of Olympic Parkway and conveys the flow to an existing 15-inch diameter sewer in
Olympic Parkway. The Olympic Parkway sewer conveys the flows westerly
approximately 1,700 feet to a connection to the 18-inch Salt Creek Interceptor.
The capacity of the off-site sewer facilities to serve the Lake Pointe project has been
analyzed by the Lake Pointe Off-Site Sewer Capacity Analysis Study dated January 20,
2012, by Atkins. The study includes an analysis of the existing off-site sewer from the
Development to a connection to the Salt Creek Interceptor Sewer west of the
Development, and the identified critical reach in the Salt Creek Interceptor. This study is
the basis for the Supplemental PFFP sewer analysis.
II.5-73
EastLake III Lake Pointe
Supplemental PFFP
Atkins utilized the City Subdivision Manual to calculate by land use type the
average daily wastewater inflows to the off-site sewer. The calculated average
inflows for the Development are presented in Table I.1. The Development is estimated to
have an average wastewater flow of 58,174 gallons per day (gpd), approximately 27,674
gpd more than the adopted SPA Plan designation for the subject site.
Table I.1.
Adopted / Amended Wastewater Flow Projections
Projected
Pop/ Generation
Description Land Use Units Average Flow EDU
Unit Rate
(gpd)
Multi-Fam/
284 DU 2.5 80 gpd/person 57,600 216
Proposed
Comm
Lake Pointe
Commercial .23 Ac. - 2,500 gpd/ac.574 2
Adopted
Commercial12.3 - 2,500 gpd/ac. 30,500 116
Increase - 27,674 102
Source: Atkins
According to the GMOC 2011 Annual Report, the City's average daily sewage flow of
16.22 million gallons per day (mgd), which does not exceed the treatment capacity that
has been allotted through the contract with the City of San Diego Metro System (see
Table I.2). The city has been working with Metro to address the best way to increase the
-out sewage
flow estimates.
The City of San Diego provides sewer treatment services for the City of Chula Vista and
14 other participating agencies in accordance with the terms of a multi-agency agreement
(Metro Agreement). 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 16.22
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. The Metro system includes the Point Loma Sewage
Treatment Plant, the North City Reclamation Plant and the Southbay Treatment Plant.
For the longer term capacity needs the Wastewater Master Plan, completed in 2005,
build-out treatment capacity and infrastructure needs. The Master
Plan indicates that the City would need to acquire an additional 5 mgd of treatment
capacity to facilitate build-out. In addition, the plan also established the basis for the
sewer capacity fee update.
II.5-74
EastLake III Lake Pointe
Supplemental PFFP
Table I.2
Estimated Sewage Flow and Treatment Capacity
Approximate Projection for next Projection for next Projection
Current Flow 18 mo. 5 years Build-out
Average Flow
16.22 16.92 18.54** 26.2*
(MGD)
Capacity20.8720.8720.8720.87
* Build-out Projection based on the General Plan Update (Adopted General Plan "Build-out" = 26.2 MGD)
** Assumes a total of 1,752 EDUs/Year
Source: GMOC 2011 Annual Report
II.5.4.8.3. FA:
ACILITY NALYSIS
The Atkins August, 2012, study used calculations in accordance with the methods described in
the City of Chula Vista Subdivision Manual. Dwelling unit counts for the Lake Pointe project
were based upon information provided to Atkins by Fuscoe Engineering. The average daily
wastewater inflows to the off-site sewer were calculated at each node by land use type (see
Atkins January 2012 study for details).
Atkins concluded that there are no significant impacts to the existing off-site wastewater
facilities due to the proposed change in land use of the Eastlake Vistas Neighborhood C-
1. The critical reach in the Salt Creek Interceptor and the off-site pipe reaches shown in
Table I.3 and Exhibit 12 are in compliance with the City Design Criteria.
Table I.3
Off-Site Gravity Sewer Calculations
Projected Peak Flow
Diameter Slope Depth Velocity
Pipe d/D (%)
(inches) (%) (inches) (fps)
gpd gpm
P1 213,500 148 8 0.44 3.42 42.75% 2.32
P2 492,335 342 12 0.17 5.85 48.75% 2.00
P3 524,155 364 12 0.28 5.26 43.83% 2.45
P4 560,265 389 15 2.83 2.75 18.33% 5.61
P5 715,230 497 15 1.00 4.03 26.87% 4.16
P6 974,807 677 15 1.09 4.62 30.80% 4.69
Source: Atkins
II.5.4.8.4. FP
ACILITY HASING
One primary phase of development is proposed due to the need to balance grading and
complete infrastructure improvements in a single increment. The off-site connection to
the City Sewer system shall be constructed at the first phase of the project. 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
proposed project are the responsibility of the developer.
II.5.4.8.5. FSF:
INANCING EWER ACILITIES
To fund the necessary future improvements to the Salt Creek Interceptor Sewer,
development impact fees have been established by the City of Chula Vista. Adoption of
City of Chula Vista Ordinance Number 2617, as amended, established a fee to be paid
II.5-75
EastLake III Lake Pointe
Supplemental PFFP
for future development within the Salt Creek 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 $1,330/EDU.
Single Family Dwellings are considered 1.00 EDU and Multi-Family Units (apartments
and condominiums) are considered .75 EDU. The Sewer Capacity Fee for commercial
projects is based on the number of Equivalent Fixture Units (EFU). The Sewer Capacity
Fee is subject to periodic adjustments. The following table summarizes the fees to be
paid by the Lake Pointe Project. These fees will be collected before building permits
are issued.
Table I.4 18
Projected Lake Pointe Sewer Fees
Land Use Acres Fee Estimated Fee
Salt Creek Sewer DIF
Lake Pointe project 12.2 213 $283,290
$1,330/ EDU
Sewerage Participation Fee
Lake Pointe12.2 213 $740,814
$3,478/EDU
Total 12.2 213 $1,024,104
II.5.4.8.6. TCR:
HRESHOLD OMPLIANCE AND EQUIREMENTS
Based on the Atkins off-site sewer analysis, there are no significant impacts to the
existing off-site wastewater facilities due to the proposed Lake Pointe Project. The
critical reach in the Salt Creek Interceptor and the off-site pipe reaches are in compliance
with the City Design Criteria.
The Lake Pointe Project shall pay fees pursuant to City of Chula Vista ordinance, as may
be amended from time to time. Fees shall be paid prior to the issuance of Building
Permits.
treatment services for the City of Chula Vista and 14 other participating agencies in
accordance with the terms of a multi-
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.
18
This table is only an estimate of potential fees that may be required for the Lake Pointe Condominium Project.
Actual fees will be calculated at the time building permits are issued and may be different than this table. Table does
not include the current Sewer Administration Fee.
II.5-76
EastLake III Lake Pointe
Supplemental PFFP
Adopted
Exhibit 9
II.5-77
EastLake III Lake Pointe
Supplemental PFFP
II.5-78
II.5.4.9. DRAINAGE
II.5.4.9.1. ECTS:
XISTING ITY HRESHOLD TANDARDS
A. Storm water flows and volumes shall not exceed City Engineering Standards.
B. The GMOC shall annually review the performance of the City
II.5.4.9.2. EC:
XISTING ONDITIONS
The Lake Pointe Condominium property is located north of Olympic Parkway between
Wueste Road on the east and the New Hope Community Church driveway on the west.
The elevations on the property range from approximately 545 to 560 feet above mean sea
level. The proposed development is located on an undeveloped, graded parcel consisting
of approximately 11.0-acres of graded pad area and approximately 1.4-acres of vegetated
slopes.
The 12.4-acre site is proposed for 284 condominium homes and 10,000 square feet of
commercial area. The project will include two types of units- two-story row homes, and
three story carriage units. These units are clustered in three product types. Private streets
within the project consist of a main entrance road, a loop road around the rear portion of
the project, and alleys which provide access to the majority of the dwelling units. Parking
for the units will be provided primarily in garages, with surface parking for guests and
customers of the commercial space. One recreation center with a pool will be provided on
the south side of the project. A secondary recreation area will be provided at the northeast
corner of the project. The entrance to the project will be from Olympic Parkway, utilizing
the existing signalized intersection shared with the Olympic Training Center to the south.
The approximate 11.0 acre existing graded pad gently slopes to the west and east,
draining into large desilting basins in the extreme east and west portions of the site. A
easement. The existing slope on the northern portion of the site connects to an existing
existing brow ditch is high pointed near the center of the site, and connects to the existing
extreme east and west ends.
Both desilting basins on-site collect runoff and convey it via a riser pipe to an existing
connects into the public storm drain system at Olympic Parkway and flows to the west,
where it discharges to Salt Creek on the south side of Olympic Parkway approximately
0.5 miles from the project site.
According to the Drainage Study for Lake Pointe by Fuscoe Engineering dated January
26, 2010, the storm drain in Olympic Parkway has been sized for the ultimate
development of the project site and surrounding area. The discharge point to Salt Creek
is located just downstream of a regional detention facility which has also been designed
for ultimate development of the area and which over detains upstream flows in order to
account for the additional flow from the Olympic Parkway storm drain system.
II.5-79
EastLake III Lake Pointe
Supplemental PFFP
II.5.4.9.3. DFA:
RAINAGE ACILITY NALYSIS
According to the 2012 Fuscoe Drainage Study, the Lake Pointe project will not
significantly alter the . Within the site is an existing ridge,
which sheet flows to either the east or west at 2-4% towards the existing desilting basins
at the easterly and westerly corners of the site. The easterly desilting basin outlet
c
conveys the flows
RCP also collects runoff from hen
The combined flows are conveyed westerly in
outlets to the southerly side of
from large areas to
drainage
from areas to the south and east of the project site. An existing regional detention facility
is located on Salt Creek just north of Olympic Parkway.
The Lake Pproposed runoff pattern of the site will be similar to the
existing pattern, with the center of the site as a high point and runoff flowing in an east
and west direction. Runoff on the main roads will flow towards the curb inlets on the
east or west portion of the site. Flows from the slopes along the northern edge of the
property will be collected within the proposed drive aisle. Landscaped areas within the
project will surface flow toward catch basins. The curb inlets and catch basins will be
connected to a storm drain system in the main roads which will convey the flows to the
southwest corner of the project. At this point, the storm drain will connect to the existing
in Olympic Parkway.
The current approved land use of the site is Neighborhood Commercial. The hydrologic
and hydraulic aspects of this basin were analyzed in the City approved Drainage Study
for Windstar Pointe Resort by Rick Engineering, revised on January 4, 2008. The study
included an analysis of the public storm drain system in Olympic Parkway and the Salt
Creek detention facility. The study also considered the ultimate development of the area
and concluded that the downstream storm drain system in Olympic Parkway was
adequate to convey this runoff. Additionally, the Salt Creek detention facility was shown
to over detain flows from the regional area for the 2-year, 10-year, 50-year and 100-year
storms such that the developments analyzed in the Windstar Pointe Resort Report would
not increase flow rates in Salt Creek just south of Olympic Parkway to above historical
levels. The Rick Engineering Study concluded that onsite detention was not required for
the Windstar Pointe Resort.
The 2012 Fuscoe Drainage Study for Lake Pointe was prepared as an addendum to the
previously approved Rick Engineering Drainage Study. The Fuscoe study analyzed the
onsite hydrology of the Lake Pointe project in order to show that the peak flow rate will
be equal to or below that of the proposed flow rate used in the Winstar Pointe Resort
Report, which was based on the ultimate development of the area.
The analysis within the 2012 Fuscoe Drainage Study concluded that the Lake Pointe
project will not have a substantial impact on the hydrology of the surrounding area and
that the hydrology/hydraulics characteristics of Lake Pointe are in accordance with the
neighborhood analysis of the approved Rick Engineering Drainage Study. The storm
drain system for Lake Pointe has been designed with adequate capacity to safely convey
runoff from the 50-year storm in accordance with the design guidelines of the City of
II.5-80
EastLake III Lake Pointe
Supplemental PFFP
Chula Vista. Additionally, the downstream storm drain system in Olympic Parkway has
adequate capacity to convey flows from the project site to Salt Creek. Although
discharge from the project site will increase due to the construction of the project, the Salt
Creek detention facility over detains flows from the region such that the project will have
no adverse impacts on Salt Creek.
II.5.4.9.4. UR-:
RBAN UNOFF
A. Existing Conditions:
The Lake Pointe Condominium project is subject to National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) requirements. NPDES requirements are contained in
Section 402(p) of the Federal CleanWater Act, which established a framework for
regulating storm water discharges from municipal, industrial, and construction
activities. These requirements are implemented through permits issued by the State
Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) or the local Regional Water Quality
Control Board in which the project is located. In San Diego County the local board is
the California Regional Water Quality Control Board San Diego Region, herein
(SDRWQCB). For implementation through the City of Chula Vista a Water Quality
Technical Report (WQTR) is required per the 2011 City of Chula Vista Development
Storm Water Manual, and City Municipal Code Chapter 14.20, under the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Municipal Permit, Order No. R9-
2007-0001.
The Preliminary Water Quality Technical Report for Lake Pointe, by Fuscoe
Engineering dated January 26, 2012, was prepared to address the 2011 storm water
requirements of the City of Chula Vista, including all LID (Low Impact
Development) BMP, and Hydromodification Control BMP requirements. The 2011
City of Chula Vista Development Storm Water Manual was used by Fuscoe
Engineering to comply with the rules and regulations enforced by the City, under
RWQCB Permit 2007-0001 issued by the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control
Board to the County of San Diego, and the incorporated cities within.
The Lake Pointe Condominium project is a planned residential condominium
development. The project applies to three priority project categories based on
Appendix B of the City of Chula Vista's Storm Water Standards Manual: (1) Home
subdivisions of over 10 units, (2) Parking lots 5,000 square feet or more with 15 or
more parking spaces, and potentially exposed to urban runoff, and (3) Streets, roads,
highways, and freeways.
The San Diego Basin Plan dated September 8, 1994, indicates that the proposed Lake
Pointe Condominium project is located in the Savage Hydrologic Sub Area within the
Dulzura Hydrologic Area within the Otay Hydrologic Unit. The corresponding number
Lake Pointe , however, goes
through the Otay Valley Hydrologic Area (910.20) which also contains Poggi Canyon
Creek, a 303(d) listed water body. The drainage from the Lake Pointe Condominium
project does not directly discharge to Poggi Canyon Creek. Based on the definition of
primary pollutants of concern from the Storm Water Standards Manual, there are no
primary pollutants of concern for the project. For projects where no primary pollutants of
concern exist, the identified pollutants of concern shall be considered secondary
II.5-81
EastLake III Lake Pointe
Supplemental PFFP
pollutants of concern. Post-construction BMPs were selected for the project based on the
anticipated pollutants.
B. Pre-Construction Conditions and Flow:
The Drainage Study for Windstar Pointe Resort by Rick Engineering, dated January
4, 2008, determined the following pre-construction flow rates at Olympic Parkway
below the Salt Creek detention facility.
Table J.1
Existing Drainage Flows
DRAINAGE
Q
50
CONDITIONAREA Q (CFSQ(CFS)Q(CFS)
210 100
(CFS)
(SQ. MILES)
Historical2.52 789 1,623 2,480 2,874
Source: Fuscoe Engineering
C. Post-Construction Conditions and Flow
Fuscoe Engineering prepared Onsite runoff calculations for the 50-year 6-hour storm
event. The proposed development was assigned a runoff coefficient of 0.67 based on the
project's impervious area. The peak runoff from the project during the 50-year storm
event will be approximately 31 cfs.
The Rick Engineering Drainage Study determined the pre-construction flow rates at
Olympic Parkway below the Salt Creek detention facility. The Rick analysis accounted
for 41.12 cfs from the project site, so actual runoff quantities after the development of
Lake Pointe will be slightly below those presented in the table. These flows are below the
historical condition due to the attenuation provided by the Salt Creek detention facility.
Fuscoe determined that the development of Lake Pointe will not create any hydrologic
conditions of concern, and no onsite detention is required.
Table J.2
Proposed Drainage Flows
Drainage Area
Condition
Q (CFSQ(CFS)Q(CFS)Q(CFS)
210 50 100
(sq. miles)
Post-
3.647741,3602,2972,723
Project
Source: Fuscoe Engineering
1. Potential Pollutants:
Based on the Storm Water Standards Manual, the project is
expected to generate the following pollutants: sediment, nutrients, heavy metals,
organic compounds, trash and debris, oxygen demanding substances, oil and
grease, bacteria and viruses, and pesticides; because it includes the following
an (see table below).
II.5-82
EastLake III Lake Pointe
Supplemental PFFP
Table J.3
Anticipated and Potential Pollutants
Development
Type
Detached
X X X X X X X
Residential
Attached
(1)(2)(1)
X X X P P P X
Residential
(2)(5)(3)(5)
P P P X P X P P
Commercial
Automotive
(4) (5)
X X X X
Repair Shops
X X X X
Restaurants
X X X X X X
Steep Hillside
(1)(1)(1)
P P X X P X
Parking Lots
Streets,
(1)(4)(5)
X P X X X P X
Highways &
Freeways
Notes:
X = Anticipated
P= Potential
(1) A potential pollutant if landscaping exists on-site.
A potential pollutant if the project includes uncovered parking areas
(1)
A potential pollutant if land use involves food or animal waste products.
(2)
Including petroleum hydrocarbons
(3)
Including solvents
(4)
Source: Fuscoe Engineering
The City of Chula Vista Development Storm Water Manual groups pollutants into
categories based on their behavior in a liquid- course sediments and trash, pollutants
that tend to associate with fine particles during treatment, and pollutants that tend to
be dissolved following treatment. The following table categorizes the anticipated and
potential pollutants from the project into these groups.
II.5-83
EastLake III Lake Pointe
Supplemental PFFP
Table J.4
Grouping of Pollutants
Pollutants that tend to Pollutants that tend
Course Sediment
associate with Fine Particles to be dissolved
and Trash
during treatmentfollowing treatment
Sediment X X
Nutrients X X
Heavy Metals X
Organic Compounds X
Trash & Debris X X
Oxygen Demanding X
Substances
Bacteria X
Oil & Grease X
Pesticides X
Source: Fuscoe Engineering
Receiving waters have 303(d) beneficial use impairments consisting of PCBs. Since
PCBs have been banned in the United States since 1979 due to their toxicity, PCBs are
not an anticipated or potential pollutant from the project. Therefore, the project has no
primary pollutants of concern, which are designated as anticipated or potential
pollutants from the proposed site that also have 303(d) impairments downstream.
Table J.5
Pollutants of Concern
Primary Pollutants of Concern Specific 303(D) Impairment
None None
Source: Fuscoe Engineering
In both the pre and post project condition the interior of the project area drains
westerly and easterly and then joins an existing storm drain system
along the northern boundary of the site (see Exhibit 14 and 15). The existing
storm drain system will convey flows westerly to Salt Creek. approximately 0.5
miles southwest from the project site. Salt Creek will convey the flows southerly
to the Otay River. The Otay River conveys the flows westerly until ultimately
conveyed to the Pacific Ocean.
Just upstream of where the Olympic Parkway system confluence's with Salt
Creek,' there is an existing detention basin, which has been designed to over-
detain flows to account for the ultimate build-out of the surrounding area. This
detention basin is in essence two detention basins in series. The Olympic
Parkway storm drain system does not outlet into either of the detention basins.
However, this detention basin has been designed to over detain for the 5-, 10-, 25-,
50-, and 100-year storm events for the ultimate development of the surrounding area,
including the project site. Because a 2-year storm analysis is required to show that
this detention basin is mitigating for possible erosion problems, a 2-year analysis was
II.5-84
EastLake III Lake Pointe
Supplemental PFFP
run by Rick Engineering. The Rick Engineering report determined that the existing
detention basin adequately mitigates for the 2-, 10-, 50-, and 100-year storm events,
no on site detention is necessary and no pre-project analyses for the Windstar Pointe
Resort site were performed.
2. Construction BMPs
The construction of the Lake Pointe project will disturb more than one acre of land.
Therefore, the project construction will need a Statewide General Construction
Permit (GCP) and a Waste Discharge Identification (WDID) number prior to the
beginning of site preparation and grading operations. The Fuscoe Engineering study
discusses the construction phase pollutants and BMPs in general terms only. These
subjects will be addressed in more detail in a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
that will be completed prior to the start of construction.
3. Post Construction BMPs
For this project, BMPs to be implemented include the site planning, activities on site,
and structural treatment. The 2010 City of Chula Vista Development Storm Water
Manual guidelines were utilized by Fuscoe Engineering in the selection of post
construction BMPs. In addition, any features or activities of in the project that are
applicable for the inclusion of California Storm Water Quality Association (CASQA)
BMPs are included as well.
a. Low Impact Development Site Design BMPs
The Lake Pointe project will be designed to include LID Site Design BMPs,
which reduce runoff, prevent storm water pollution associated with the project,
and conserve natural areas onsite. Incorporating LID design strategies for
priority development projects is required per R9-2007-0001, the Municipal
Storm Water Permit issued to the County of San Diego and the incorporated
cities and districts within. The Fuscoe Preliminary WQTR provides a discussion
of the suitability and, where feasible, implementation of the LID BMPs listed in
Table 3.3 of the City of Chula Vista Development Storm Water Manual. See
Exhibit 13, WQTR Exhibit, for locations of LID site design BMPs.
b. Source Control BMPs
-
site planning practices, or structures that aim to prevent urban runoff pollution by
reducing the potential for contamination at the source of pollution. Source
Control BMPs minimize the contact between pollutants and urban runoff. Based
on the City of Chula Vista Development Storm Water Manual, the following is a
19
summary of the Source Control BMPs are applicable to Lake Pointe project:
Provide storm water conveyance system stenciling and signage: Curb
stenciling for storm drain inlets associated with the project shall say "No
Dumping- I Live Downstream" or equivalent massage as desired by the
City of Chula Vista.
Design trash storage areas to reduce pollution introduction: Trash
enclosures will be on an impervious surface, walled, covered by a roof,
and designed in accordance with Chula Vista Municipal Code 09.58.340.
19
Please see the City of Chula Vista Development Storm Water Manual for complete Source Control
descriptions.
II.5-85
EastLake III Lake Pointe
Supplemental PFFP
Use efficient irrigation systems and landscape design: Rain shutoff
devices will be required to prevent irrigation during and after
precipitation events.
Building and grounds maintenance: Additional Building and Grounds
Maintenance BMPs from SC-41 to be implemented to prevent or reduce
the introduction of nutrients from fertilizers.
Employ integrated pest management principles: Eliminate and/or reduce
the need for pesticide use in the project through maintenance, using
native plant materials and construction techniques.
Pool and fountain maintenance: The pool in the recreation center will be
maintained in accordance with SC-
Design new building fire sprinklers systems to enable discharge to
sanitary sewer: The buildings within the project that provide fire
sprinkler systems shall be able to drain to sanitary sewer for operational
maintenance and testing.
Plazas, sidewalks, and parking lots: Plazas, sidewalks and parking lots
shall be swept regularly to prevent the accumulation of letter and debris.
Roads (Individual Priority Project Category): Drainage from the interior
roadways of the project will drain to either permeable pavers or high-rate
biofilters.
Residential Driveways & Guest Parking (Individual Priority Project
Category): The alleys within the project will drain to a strip of
permeable pavers along the low side of the alley
Surface Parking Areas (Individual Priority Project Category): Much of
the guest parking areas will be paved with permeable pavers as well,
while the remaining parking spaces will drain either to the permeable
pavers or to high-rate biofilters.
D. Treatment Control BMPs
The Lake Pointe Project is designed with structural treatment facilities to remove
pollutants contained in storm water runoff. Internal project runnoff will flow from
impervious and semi-pervious surfaces, picking up pollutants and other associated
debris as it does so. Treatment of these anticipated pollutants will be accomplished
by implementing the BMPs from the list below. Table J.6 below is based on the
treatment matrix located in the City of Chula Vista Development Storm Water
Manual. While there are no primary pollutants of concern for the project, anticipated
and potential pollutants from the project exist in all three categories of pollutants.
Treatment Control BMPs will be implemented to remove these anticipated and
potential pollutants to the Maximum Extent Practicable (MEP). The shaded columns
on Table J.6 indicate the Treatment Control BMPs proposed for the Lake Pointe
project.
II.5-86
EastLake III Lake Pointe
Supplemental PFFP
Treatment Control 1 Bioretention Basins
The project proposes bioretention basins along the main entry road in the central
portion of the site. See Exhibit 15, WQTR Exhibit, for the locations of
bioretention basins. Roadway drainage will be diverted via a sidewalk under
drain. The drainage is directed to the depressed landscaped areas between the
rows of buildings. The bioretention basins will be sized in accordance with City
Regulations. These basins
surface area of at least 4% of the tributary area. The basins will be planted with
turf and will be
soil, and a gravel layer with a perforated pipe to act as a subdrain. The
bioretention basins will be lined with an impermeable liner due to the poor
infiltration capacity of the onsite soils. See the Fuscoe Engineering Report for
details.
Table J.6
Treatment Control BMP Categories
Coarse
Sediment and High High High High High High High High High
Trash
Pollutants that
tend to
associate
with fine High High High High High Med. Med. Low Med.
particles
during
treatment
Pollutants that
tend to be
dissolved Med. Low Med. High Low Low Low Low Low
following
treatment
Overall
Ranking 1
2 3 2 1 3 4 4 5 4
(High) -5
(Low)
Source: Fuscoe Engineering
Treatment Control 2 Permeable Pavers
Permeable pavers are planned for the alleys and much of the surface parking
areas throughout the project. These
the low side of the alley to intercept and treat runoff from the building roof drains
on either side of the alley along with runoff from the alley pavement. In addition,
permeable pavers will also be strategically used in the surface parking areas to
treat runoff from the site roads, as well as from adjacent buildings, hardscape,
and landscaping.
II.5-87
EastLake III Lake Pointe
Supplemental PFFP
E. Hydromodification BMPs
On July 14, 2010, the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Diego
Region (San Diego Water Board) adopted Tentative Resolution No. R9-2010-0066, a
Resolution for Approval of the Hydromodification Management Plan for the County
of San Diego, the Incorporated Cities of San Diego County, the San Diego Unified
Port District, and the San Diego County Regional Airport Authority. This action was
taken pursuant to Section D.1.g. of Order No. R9-2007-0001.
Provisions D.1.g and J.2.a of Order No. R9-2007-0001 (the San Diego County
Municipal Storm Water Permit) require the incorporated cities of San Diego County,
the San Diego Unified Port District, and the San Diego County Regional Airport
Authority (Copermittees) to submit a Hydromodification Management Plan (HMP) to
manage increases in runoff discharge rates and durations from all Priority
Development Projects (PDPs), where such increased rates and durations are likely to
cause increased erosion of channel bed and banks, sediment pollutant generation, or
other impacts to beneficial uses and stream habitat due to increased erosive force.
The City of Chula Vista is required to incorporate the approved HMP into its local
SUSMP and implement the HMP for all applicable Priority Development Projects
(PDPs) by January 14, 2011.
F. Maintenance
The owner of the project shall enter into a Storm Water Management Facilities
Maintenance Agreement with Grant of Access and Covenants with the City. The
terms of this agreement will run with the land, so the responsibility may be pass to
to-be-formThe -be-
shall be responsible for all areas within private
property as follows: properly disposing of waste material from their assumed areas
within the project site, maintaining landscaping throughout those areas in a manner
that will prevent soil erosion and minimize sediment transport, maintaining drainage
facilities in a clean manner and in good repair, and properly maintaining all post-
construction BMPs (both structural and non-structural) that exist within the private
property of the project.
G. Storm Water Quality Conclusions:
The project has the potential to introduce pollutants into storm water runoff. However,
LID Site Design, Source Control, and Treatment Control BMPs will be required in order
to maintain water quality. The use of Source Control and LID Site Design BMPs in
practice through the day-to-day function of the project will result in a decreased potential
for storm water pollution. Treatment Control BMPs will function around the clock,
providing removal of pollutants from storm water runoff. In addition, maintenance will
be conducted by a the Property Owner through their own staff, or a Property Manager
who will maintain the Site Design, Source Control, and Treatment Control BMPs
throughout the lifetime of the project. In addition, in the event of the cessation of the
Property Owner through their staff, or a Property Manager, the new owner or responsible
party shall be required to maintain the BMPs, ensuring proper function in perpetuity.
II.5.4.9.5. FDF:
INANCING RAINAGE ACILITIES
A. On-site facilities: City policy requires that all master planned developments provide for
II.5-88
EastLake III Lake Pointe
Supplemental PFFP
the conveyance of storm waters throughout the project to City Engineering standards. As
such, the Developer will be required to construct those facilities to the satisfaction of the
City Engineer.
B. Maintenance of On-site Facilities: Storm drain facilities not located within the right of
way of a public street or easement dedicated to the City of Chula Vista shall be private
and maintained by the property owners. These facilities include graded swales, concrete
swales, drainage inlets, pipes, headwalls, sedimentation basins, stormwater treatment
devices, etc. Before the approval of grading plans for the site, the Developer shall enter
into a Storm Water Maintenance Agreement with the City to ensure the maintenance and
operation of the aforementioned On-site Facilities.
C. Off-site facilities: Any permanent or temporary storm drain facilities required by the City
Engineer of Chula Vista, shall be designed and installed pursuant to city standards.
D. Maintenance of Off-site facilities: Storm drain facilities constructed to convey, collect,
detain or retain runoff from the project, that are not located within the right of way of a
public street or easement dedicated to the City of Chula Vista, will be maintained by the
City of Chula Vista. These facilities include but are not limited to graded swales,
concrete swales, drainage inlets, pipes, headwalls, sedimentation basins, detention basins,
stormwater treatment devices, etc.
II.5.4.9.6. TCR:
HRESHOLD OMPLIANCE AND EQUIREMENTS
A. The Developer of the Lake Pointe Condominium project shall enter in to a Storm
Water Facilities Maintenance Agreement with the City before approval of the grading
plans for the site. The Developer shall agree to install, inspect, maintain, repair and
replace all private S
project.
B. Prior to approval of grading plans, the Developer shall demonstrate the adequacy of
existing drainage runoff detention facilities or include, in the grading plans, the
construction of additional detention facilities, to ensure that the maximum allowable
discharges after development do not exceed pre-development discharges, all to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer. The Developer shall provide for the future
maintenance of the detention basin facilities through the establishment of a Master
Home Owners Association, or other funding mechanism as approved by the City.
C. Development of this project shall comply with all requirements of State Water Resources
Control Board (SWRCB) NPDES General Permit No. CAS000002, Waste Discharge
Requirements for Discharges of Storm Water Runoff Associated with Construction
Activity. In accordance with said Permit, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWPPP) and a Monitoring Program Plan shall be developed and implemented
concurrent with the commencement of grading activities. The SWPPP shall specify both
construction and post-construction structural and non-structural pollution prevention
measures. The SWPPP shall also address operation and maintenance of post-
construction pollution prevention measures, including short-term and long-term funding
sources and the party or parties that will be responsible for the implementation of said
measures.
A complete and accurate Notice-of-Intent (NOI) must be filed with the SWRCB. A copy
of the acknowledgement from the SWRCB that a NOI has been received for this project
shall be filed with the City of Chula Vista when received. Further, a copy of the
II.5-89
EastLake III Lake Pointe
Supplemental PFFP
completed NOI from the SWRCB showing the Permit Number for this project shall be
filed with the City of Chula Vista when received.
Development and Redevelopment Storm Water Management Requirements Manual) and
equirements. The Storm Water Manual is available on the
web at:
http://www.chulavistaca.gov/City_Services/Development_Services/Engineering/stor
mWaterManual.asp
Pursuant to NPDES Municipal Permit, Order No. 2007-0001, the proposed project is
considered a Priority Development Project and therefore subject to the requirements of
the Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plans (SUSMPs) and Numeric Sizing
Criteria.
D. The owner/developer of the property is responsible for the maintenance of the BMPs. A
Storm Water Management Facilities Maintenance Agreement with Grant of Access and
Covenants shall be executed between the City of Chula Vista and the owner/developer.
The terms of the agreement will run with the land. The responsibility may be passed to
-be-
E.
Facilities Maintenancowner/developer of the
property and the City of Chula Vista.
F. The owner/developer of the property shall verify BMP implementation and ongoing
maintenance through inspection, self-certification, survey, or other equally effective
measure. The certification shall verify that, at a minimum, the inspection and
maintenance of all structural BMPs including inspection and performance of any required
maintenance in the late summer / early fall, prior to the start of the rainy season. The
enforcement and verification of this task is conducted by The City of Chula Vista Storm
Water NPDES Coordinator, who can be reached at 619-397-6000, or at 1800 Maxwell
Road, Chula Vista, CA 91911.
G. The City of Chula Vista will only verify that the appropriate documentation of
maintenance exists. It is the owner/developer
maintenance and provide work orders/receipts etc, upon request.
H. The Lake Pointe project shall comply with the new HMP requirements that were
effective on January 14, 2011, as described in the Chula Vista Development Storm Water
Manual.
I. The Lake Pointe project shall meet the Hydromodification Management Requirements as
described in the Chula Vista Development Storm Water Manual.
II.5-90
EastLake III Lake Pointe
Supplemental PFFP
Adopted
Exhibit 11
II.5-91
EastLake III Lake Pointe
Supplemental PFFP
Drainage Exhibit
II.5-92
WQTR
II.5-93
II.5.4.10. AIR QUALITY
II.5.4.10.1. CTS:
ITY HRESHOLD TANDARDS
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 impact on current
and future air quality management programs, along with recent air quality data. The
growth forecast and APCD response letters must be provided to the GMOC for inclusion
in its review.
II.5.4.10.2. SA:
ERVICE NALYSIS
ß·® Ï«¿´·¬§ ׳°®±ª»³»²¬ д¿²æ
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. Although adopted in 1989, the GME has remained current by not only requiring
air pollution reduction measures identified in 1989 but also "measures developed in the
future."
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. See the Air Quality Technical Report for the Lake
Pointe Project, dated June 2012 by Dudek.
The project was previously evaluated under the 2002 AQIP Guidelines and, pursuant to
those guidelines, opted to comply with the GreenStar program. The developer is now
required to comply with the Green Building and Energy Efficiency Ordinances, CVMC
15.12 and 15.26.030 respectively, which require developers/applicants to implement
sustainable design features and improve building energy conservation 20% more efficient
than the 2008 State Energy Code requirements for low rise residential development and
15% more efficient for non-residential devleopment. 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. There is no local Master Plan for Air
Quality. An Air Quality Improvement Plan EastLake III SPA dated August 13, 2002.
The plan identifies the following goals:
A. To minimize air quality impacts during and after construction of the Project.
B. To comply with the air quality standards and policies of the City of Chula Vista and
San Diego County APCD.
II.5-94
EastLake III Lake Pointe
Supplemental PFFP
C. To create a framework for the design and implementation of air quality mitigation
measures in this commercial and employment development project.
D. To be economically efficient and cost effective.
The 2012 Dudek air quality report concluded that the analysis evaluated the potential for
adverse impacts to the ambient air quality due to construction and operational emissions
resulting from the proposed project. Construction of the proposed project 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. Air quality impacts resulting from construction would be less than significant.
The proposed project would not result in any significant longterm (operational) impacts to
air quality, as new mobile and stationary sources associated with the proposed project
following the completion of construction activities would remain well below the
significance thresholds.
The Dudek report also evaluated the n 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. With implementation of Chula Vista
required GHG reduction measures the proposed project would reduce GHG emissions by
as much as 28.5% by the year 2020. The proposed project would therefore exceed the
target of 20% below business as usual that has been established for the purposes of
assessing operational GHG emissions of projects in the City of Chula Vista, and this
reduction would be consistent with the goals of AB 32. Furthermore, the proposed project
would cipal Code by employ
energy efficient measures beyond that required by the Energy Code, resulting in a 20%
reduction in emissions generated by in-home energy use. Lastly, it should be noted that
the project is higher-density residential development, which ultimately helps in reducing
vehicle miles traveled. The project would therefore have a less-than significant impact on
global climate change.
II.5.4.10.4. TCR:
HRESHOLD OMPLIANCE AND EQUIREMENTS
The City will continue to provide a development forecast to the APCD in conformance
with the threshold standard. See the Air Quality Technical Report for the Lake Pointe
Project, dated June 2012 by Dudek., located in the EastLake III SPA Plan Amendment.
A. Prior to approval of building permits for Lake Pointe project, the applicant shall
demonstrate that air quality control measures outlined in the Air Quality Improvement
Plan pertaining to the design, construction and operational phases of the project have
been implemented.
B. Prior to approval of the grading permit for Lake Pointe project, the following
measures shall be placed as notes on all grading plans and implemented during
grading of each phase of the project:
1. Minimize simultaneous operation of multiple construction equipment units;
2. Use low pollutant-emitting equipment;
3. Use catalytic reduction for gasoline-powered equipment;
II.5-95
EastLake III Lake Pointe
Supplemental PFFP
4. Use injection timing retard for diesel-powered equipment;
5. Water the grading areas twice daily to minimize fugitive dust;
6. Stabilize graded areas as quickly as possible to minimize fugitive dust;
7. Apply chemical stabilizer or pave the last 100 feet of internal travel path within
the construction site prior to public road entry;
8. Install wheel washers adjacent to a paved apron prior to vehicle entry on public
roads;
9. Remove any visible track-out into traveled public streets within 30 minutes of
occurrence;
10. Wet wash the construction access point at the end of each workday if any vehicle
travel on unpaved surfaces has occurred;
11. Provide sufficient perimeter erosion control to prevent washout of silty material
onto public roads;
12. Cover haul trucks or maintain at least 12 inches of freeboard to reduce blow-off
during hauling;
13. Suspend all soil disturbance and travel on unpaved surfaces if winds exceed 25 mph;
14. Cover/water onsite stockpiles of excavated material; and
15. Enforce a 20 mile-per-hour speed limit on unpaved surfaces.
II.5-96
EastLake III Lake Pointe
Supplemental PFFP
II.5.4.11. CIVIC CENTER/CORPORATE YARD/OTHER PUBLIC FACILITIES:
The City of Chula Vistas General Plan land use and public facilities elements require that
adequate public facilities be available to accommodate increased population created by
new development within the City of Chula Vista. These public facilities are funded
through the collection of the Public Facilities Development Impact Fees (PFDIF) in effect
at the time building permits are issued. The Chula Vista Municipal Code, Chapter 3.5,
requires the imposition of the PFDIF.
The Public Facilities Development Impact Fee (PFDIF) is intended to identify the public
facilities and related capital needs required to support future development within the City
of Chula Vista. The PIFDIF program consists of 11 components:
Component 1: Civic Center Expansion
Component 2: Police Facilities and Equipment
Component 3: Corporation Yard Relocation
Component 4: Libraries
Component 5: File Suppression System
Component 6: Geographic Information Systems (GIS)
Component 7: Computer Systems
Component 8: Telecommunications Systems
Component 9: Records Management System
Component 10: Administration
Component 11: Recreation Facilities
Individual PFDIF components may include multiple projects. For example, Component
5: Fire Suppression System includes various fire stations (eg Otay Ranch Village 2, Otay
Ranch EUC); Component 2: Police Facilities and Equipment also includes the purchase of
new police cars to accommodate growth in the Police Department related to the growth of
the City. Discussions on Police, Fire, Library and the Recreation Components and the
required fee obligations are located in other parts of this document. The PFDIF program
currently includes the following future facilities (yet to be constructed):
Fire Eastern Urban Center Fire Station
Library- Rancho Del Rey Library
Library - Eastern Urban Center Library
Recreation Otay Ranch Village 4 Recreation Facility
Recreation Otay Ranch Village 4 Aquatic Facility
Some of the completed facilities such as the Civic Center, Corporate Yard and the Police
station were financed through the PFDIF. The debt on some of the existing facilities as
well as the funds needed for the future facilities is paid for by the PFDIF
The Public Facilities Development Impact Fee (PFDIF) was updated by the Chula Vista
City Council on November 19, 2002 by adoption of Ordinance 2847. The PFDIF is
st
adjusted every October 1 pursuant to Ordinance 3050, which was adopted by the City
Council on November 7, 2006. The PFDIF amount is subject to change as it is amended
from time to time. The Civic Center PFDIF Fee for Multi-Family Development is
II.5-97
EastLake III Lake Pointe
Supplemental PFFP
20
$2,528/unit (see Table A.6) and the Fee for Commercial is $8,518/acre. At the current
fee rate, the Lake Pointe Condominium Civic Center Fee obligation at build-out is
$732,749 (see Table K.1).
Table K.1
Civic Center Fee For Lake Pointe
MF
Development Acres Civic Center Fee
PFDIF/DU PFDIF/AC.
Multi-Family Residential 284 $2,528 $717,952
Commercial 0.60 $8,518 $5,111
Totals 284 0.60 $723,063
The Corporate Yard PFDIF Fee for Multi-Family Development is $351/unit (see Table
A.6) and the Fee for Commercial is $7,443/acre. At the current fee rate, the Lake Pointe
Corporate Yard Fee obligation at build-out is $128,858 (see Table K.2).
Table K.2
Corporate Yard Fee For Lake Pointe
Estimated
MF
Development Acres Corporate Yard
PFDIF/DU PFDIF/AC.
Fee
Multi-Family Residential 284 $438 $124,392
Commercial 0.60 $7,443 $4,466
Totals 284 0.60 $128,858
At the current fee rate, the Lake Pointe Administration Public Facilities Fee obligation at
build-out is $155,617 (see Table K.3).
Table K.3
Public Facilities Fees For ß¼³·²·¬®¿¬·±² Ú¿½·´·¬·»
MF Admin.
Development Acres
PFDIF/DU PFDIF/AC. Fee
Multi-Family Residential 284 $544 $154,496
Commercial 0.60 $1,869 $1,121
Totals 284 0.60 $155,617
The projected fees, illustrated in Tables K.1, K.2 and K.3, are estimates 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.
TCR:
HRESHOLD OMPLIANCE AND EQUIREMENTS
Civic Center, Corporate Yard and Administration Facilities fees shall be paid prior to the
issuance of building permits, at the rate in effect at the time payment is made.
20
Fee based on Form 5509 dated 06/26/2012. Actual fee may be different, please verify with the City of Chula Vista at the
time of building permit.
II.5-98
EastLake III Lake Pointe
Supplemental PFFP
II.5.4.12. FISCAL:
II.5.4.12.1. TS:
HRESHOLD TANDARD
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.
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.
II.5.4.12.2.FIAC:
ISCAL MPACT SSUMPTIONS AND ONCLUSIONS
There is no existing Master Plan for fiscal issues. However, the City of Chula Vista has a
fiscal model that is used to determine the land use changes to the General Plan. A Fiscal
Impact Analysis (FIA) was prepared by Keyser-Marston Associates, Inc. (KMA). The
FIA is fiscal model. The FIA was required by the City of Chula Vista
to identify the estimated fiscal impact that the Lake Pointe Project will have on the
operation and maintenance budgets of the City of Chula Vista (general fund).
The Fiscal Impact Analysis of the Lake Pointe Development, dated August 8, 2012, by
Keyser-Marston identifies the estimated fiscal impact that the project will have on the
operation and maintenance budgets of the City of Chula Vista (general fund). The entire
FIA is attached as Appendix A to this PFFP. The 12.2-acre Lake Pointe project is
proposed to be developed into a Mixed Use Project consisting of 284 Multi-Family
condominium units and 10,000 square feet of Commercial Use. This project is located
Wueste
north of the Olympic Training Center (OTC) along Olympic Parkway, between
Road on the east and the New Hope Community Church driveway on the west
.
Keyser Marston prepared an analysis of the fiscal impacts on the City of Chula Vista
(City) General Fund resulting from the Lake Pointe project, which requires an amendment
to the Chula Vista General Plan and the EastLake III Section Planning Area (SPA) Plan to
allow for the conversion of a 12.2-acre portion of the EastLake III SPA Plan from
commercial/retail land use to mixed-use. As background, the City requested that KMA
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 of
commercial/retail (Existing Land Use Designations); and (2) assuming a mix of
residential/retail land uses (Proposed Land Use Designations). The KMA models address
recurring annual revenues and operating expenditures to the City over a 5-year period.
The models relied on methodology specifications outlined in t
Analysis Framework and demographic, land use, and fiscal inputs provided by City staff.
II.5-99
EastLake III Lake Pointe
Supplemental PFFP
Table L.1
Net Fiscal Impact of The Lake Pointe Project
On The City of Chula Vista
II.5-100
The project applicant indicated that the units would sell for approximately $217,000.
II.5.4.12.3.TCR:
HRESHOLD OMPLIANCE AND EQUIREMENTS
Utilizing the previously mentioned scenarios, Keyser-Marston estimated the net fiscal
impacts that are presented in Tables N.1. As previously mentioned, all values are in 2012
dollars. The estimated annual flows of costs and revenues are primarily related to the
estimated project absorption.
Table N.1 presents the results of the fiscal impact associated with the Lake Pointe Project.
Fiscal expenditures would begin at $78,838 annually and rise to $253,442 annually (Year
5). Fiscal revenues would be initially $30,310 and rise to $172,650 at build-out (Year 5).
The net fiscal impact from developing the Lake Pointe project is negative throughout the
5-Year period and starts with a negative of $48,528 in Year 1 ending with a negative of
$80,792 at Year 5.
II.5-101
EastLake III Lake Pointe
Supplemental PFFP
II.5.4.13. PUBLIC FACILITIES FINANCE
II.5.4.13.1 O:
VERVIEW
Management Program. The appropriate 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.
××òëòìòïíòîò DIF (DIF):
EVELOPMENT MPACT EE
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 Lake Pointe 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 traffic 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. Salt Creek Sewer Development Impact Fee: To pay for sewer facilities within the Salt
Creek Sewer Basin.
II.5.4.13.3. DFP:
EBT INANCE ROGRAMS
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.
A. Assessment Districts
Special assessment districts may be proposed for acquiring, constructing and/or maintaining
certain public improvements under the Municipal Improvement Act of 1913 and the
Improvement 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
Proposition 218. The administration of the special assessment district is the responsibility of
the public agency.
II.5-102
EastLake III Lake Pointe
Supplemental PFFP
B. Community Facilities District (CFD)
goals and policies regarding the establishment of Community Facilitie
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.
-Roos Act with modifications
to additionally include the following:
Incorporate all maintenance
-
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.
C. Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982
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 the 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.
II.5.4.13.4. OMUFF:
THER ETHODS SED TO INANCE ACILITIES
A. 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.
B. 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.
II.5-103
EastLake III Lake Pointe
Supplemental PFFP
C. Dedications:
Dedication of sites by Developers for public capital facilities is a common financing
tool used by many cities.
D. 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.
E. 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.
F. Special Agreements/Development Agreement:
This 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 and requirements of both parties.
G. Park Acquisition and Development Fees: Fee established to pay land and
improvements by new development.
II.5.4.13.5. CD
UMULATIVE EBT
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 not the only agency that
can utilize public finance mechanisms and, therefore, can not 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 necessary to guarantee all public facilities needed to support a
development can be financed and constructed as needed.
II.5.4.13.6. LC
IFECYCLE OST
Section 19.09.060 Analysis subsection F (2) of the Growth Management Ordinance
requires the following:
II.5-104
EastLake III Lake Pointe
Supplemental PFFP
"...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 LCC projections shall be
for estimated life cycle for each element analyzed. The model used shall be able to
identify and estimate initial and recurring life cycle costs...
A. 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.
B. 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
the Capital Outlay sections of the annual Operating Budget.
There are no project facilities that are not covered by LCC analysis. In these existing
processes, the City should require the use of LCC 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.
II.5-105
EastLake III Lake Pointe
Supplemental PFFP
APPENDIXA
FIA
ISCAL MPACT NALYSIS
II.5-106
EastLake III Lake Pointe
Supplemental PFFP
MEMORANDUM
To:
Anthony G. Ambrose, AICP, Principal Associate
Burkett & Wong Engineers
From:
KEYSER MARSTON ASSOCIATES, INC.
Date:
August 8, 2012
Subject:
Fiscal Impact Analyses
Amendment to Eastlake III Sectional Planning Area
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Background
In accordance with your request, Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. (KMA) has
undertaken an analysis of the fiscal impacts on the City of Chula Vista (City) General
Fund resulting from a proposed amendment to the Chula Vista General Plan and the
EastLake III Section Planning Area (SPA) Plan to allow for the conversion of a 12.2-acre
portion of the EastLake III SPA Plan (Lake Pointe project) from commercial/retail land
use to mixed-use.
As background, the City requested that KMA 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 of commercial/retail (Existing Land Use
Designations); and (2) assuming a mix of residential/retail land uses (Proposed Land
Use Designations).
The KMA models address recurring annual revenues and operating expenditures to the
City over a five-year period. The models relied on methodology specifications outlined in
the City?s Fiscal Impact Analysis Framework and demographic, land use, and fiscal
inputs provided by City staff.
12046ndh
10957.002.001
To:
Anthony G. Ambrose, AICP, Principal Associate August 8, 2012
Subject:
Fiscal Impact Analyses Page 2
Amendment to Eastlake III Sectional Planning Area
B. KMA Approach
In completing this assignment, KMA undertook the following work tasks:
Reviewed documentation and historical data relevant to the SPA Plan and
surrounding areas.
Conducted site and field reconnaissance.
Reviewed budget information provided by the City reflecting a five-year average.
Reviewed market data on comparable residential, retail, and commercial land uses.
Prepared fiscal impact models to project recurring General Fund revenues and
operating expenditures over a five-year period for each scenario.
C. Report Organization
Following this introduction, the KMA analysis and findings are presented as follows:
Section II provides a summary of the key KMA findings.
Section III provides a description of the development program for the Lake Pointe
project under each scenario.
Section IV details the key assumptions used in the KMA fiscal impact models.
Section V presents the KMA estimates of net General Fund expenses to the City
under each scenario.
Section VI presents the KMA estimates of net General Fund revenues to the City
under each scenario.
Section VII details limiting conditions pertaining to this report.
Additionally, KMA?s detailed technical analyses for each scenario are presented in
Appendices A and B.
12046ndh
10957.002.001
To:
Anthony G. Ambrose, AICP, Principal Associate August 8, 2012
Subject:
Fiscal Impact Analyses Page 3
Amendment to Eastlake III Sectional Planning Area
II. KEY FINDINGS
Table 18 of Appendices A and B present the KMA of annual net fiscal impact of the Lake
Pointe project under the Existing Land Use Designations and Proposed Land Use
Designations. The key findings are summarized below:
A. Existing Land Use Designations
Under the Existing Land Use Designations, the Lake Pointe project is projected to
generate a negative net fiscal impact to the City. As shown below, the net fiscal impact
at stabilization (Year 5) is estimated at negative $14,000.
Lake Pointe Existing Land Use Year 5
Designations(Stabilized Year)
General Fund Annual Revenues $210,000
(Less) General Fund Annual Expenses ($224,000)
Net Fiscal Impact to City ($14,000)
These projections indicate that under the existing SPA Plan, the Lake Pointe project is
projected to be fiscally negative, with revenues falling below the cost to provide services.
B. Proposed Land Use Designations
Under the Proposed Land Use Designations, the Lake Pointe project is also projected to
generate a negative net fiscal impact to the City. As shown below, the net fiscal impact
at stabilization (Year 5) is estimated at negative $81,000.
Lake Pointe Proposed Land Use Year 5
Designations(Stabilized Year)
General Fund Annual Revenues $172,000
(Less) General Fund Annual Expenses ($253,000)
Net Fiscal Impact to City ($81,000)
12046ndh
10957.002.001
To:
Anthony G. Ambrose, AICP, Principal Associate August 8, 2012
Subject:
Fiscal Impact Analyses Page 4
Amendment to Eastlake III Sectional Planning Area
These projections indicate that the proposed amendment to the Chula Vista General
Plan and the EastLake III SPA Plan to allow development of the Lake Pointe project with
residential and retail uses is projected to have a fiscally negative impact, with the cost to
provide services to the Lake Pointe project exceeding the revenues.
III. LAKE POINTE PLAN DESCRIPTION
Table 1 of Appendices A and B provides the development program for the Lake Pointe
project at build-out. As summarized below, the Existing Land Use Designations scenario
contains 130,000 square feet (SF) of retail and office space. The development program
under the Existing Land Use Designations reflects the maximum floor area square
footage for each use permitted within the SPA Plan?s Village Commercial Land Use
District.
The development program under the Proposed Land Use Designations was provided to
KMA by the City and assumes a more intensified use of the Lake Pointe site. As shown
below, under the Proposed Land Use Designations the Lake Pointe project is projected
to include a total of 284 multi-family residential units and 10,000 SF of retail space.
Lake Pointe Development Program at Build-out
Existing Land Use Proposed Land Use
DesignationsDesignations
Site Area 12.2 Acres12.2 Acres
Non-Residential Uses
Retail Space 65,000 SF10,000 SF
Office 65,000 SF0 SF
Total Non-Residential Uses 130,000 SF10,000 SF
Residential Uses
Multi-Family ----284 Units
Assumed FAR
Commercial 0.240.38
Source: City of Chula Vista
12046ndh
10957.002.001
To:
Anthony G. Ambrose, AICP, Principal Associate August 8, 2012
Subject:
Fiscal Impact Analyses Page 5
Amendment to Eastlake III Sectional Planning Area
IV. KEY FISCAL IMPACT ASSUMPTIONS
Key assumptions used in the KMA fiscal analyses can be found in Tables 2 through 5 of
Appendices A and B, as follows:
1. City?s existing distribution of land uses (Table 2);
2. City?s existing population and employment estimates (Table 3);
3. Assumed absorption schedule for each land use and resulting estimates of
employment and population (Table 4); and
4. Employment density factors for retail and office uses (Table 5).
The assumptions used are based upon an assessment of future circumstances
regarding population and employment. The key demographic assumptions used in the
fiscal impact analyses are as follows:
Demographic Assumptions
Employment
(1)
Retail 3.0persons per 1,000 SF GBA
Office 4.0persons per 1,000 SF GBA
Population
Multi-Family Units 2.58persons per unit
(2)
(1) KMA assumption based on industry standard employment factors for retail
and office uses.
(2) Per City of Chula Vista, reflects the General Plan Update coefficient for
multi-family units.
Using these demographic assumptions, the projected development program for the two
scenarios yields the following estimates of population and employment at build-out.
Existing Land Use Proposed Land Use
DesignationsDesignations
Total Employment 389 employees26 employees
Total Population ----733 residents
12046ndh
10957.002.001
To:
Anthony G. Ambrose, AICP, Principal Associate August 8, 2012
Subject:
Fiscal Impact Analyses Page 6
Amendment to Eastlake III Sectional Planning Area
V. RECURRING ANNUAL GENERAL FUND EXPENSES
This section discusses the recurring annual General Fund expense assumptions utilized
to estimate the impact of the Lake Pointe project under the two scenarios. Estimates of
the annual fiscal costs are presented in Tables 6 through 8 of Appendices A and B, as
follows:
1. Per-unit cost factors for costs associated with: legislative and administration,
development and maintenance services, public safety, and culture and leisure
(Table 6);
2. Estimate of public safety costs based on the application of a density coefficient
reflecting anticipated population and residential acres to be developed (Table 7);
and
3. A summary of total estimated annual fiscal costs (Table 8).
Expenses for the Lake Pointe project were estimated by applying cost factors provided
by the City to building area estimates, the projected number of dwelling units, and
residents under the two scenarios, as follows:
Existing Land Proposed Land
Expense Factors
Use DesignationsUse Designations
General Fund Expenses
(1)(2)
Office $1.61 per SF-----
Retail $1.70 per SF$1.03 per SF
Residential -----$624 per unit
Population -----$77 per resident
(1) Reflects City operating costs associated with legislative and administration,
development and maintenance services, public safety, and culture and
leisure.
(2) Source: City of Chula Vista.
12046ndh
10957.002.001
To:
Anthony G. Ambrose, AICP, Principal Associate August 8, 2012
Subject:
Fiscal Impact Analyses Page 7
Amendment to Eastlake III Sectional Planning Area
VI. RECURRING ANNUAL GENERAL FUND REVENUES
This section discusses the recurring annual General Fund revenue assumptions utilized
to estimate the of the Lake Pointe project under the two scenarios. Estimates of the
annual fiscal revenues are presented in Tables 9 through 17 of Appendices A and B, as
follows:
1. Estimate of discretionary revenues to the City based on five-year General Fund
averages (Table 9);
2. Estimated assessed values for commercial and residential land uses (Table 10).
3. Annual assessed value derived from the Lake Pointe project (Table 11);
4. Estimate of annual property taxes to the City (Table 12);
5. Estimate of annual property transfer taxes to the City (Table 13);
6. Estimate of annual motor vehicle license fee revenues to the City (Table 14);
7. Estimate of annual retail sales taxes to the City from the retail space and resident
and employee spending (Table 15);
8. Allocation factors for other discretionary revenues to the City (Table 16); and
9. Summary of total annual revenues to the City (Table 17).
Revenues to the City?s General Fund were estimated using two methods: (i) annual
recurring revenues from property tax and sales and use tax were estimated based on
assumed real estate market factors such as market values of the residential and non-
residential uses and projected sales productivity for retail uses; (ii) recurring annual
revenues generated by increases in population and employment (i.e., State secured
unitary tax, unsecured taxes, franchise fees, utility taxes, and revenues from other
agencies) were estimated based on projected population, employment, the number of
dwelling units, and estimated building area, as summarized below:
12046ndh
10957.002.001
To:
Anthony G. Ambrose, AICP, Principal Associate August 8, 2012
Subject:
Fiscal Impact Analyses Page 8
Amendment to Eastlake III Sectional Planning Area
Existing Land Use Proposed Land Use
Revenue Factors
DesignationsDesignations
Estimated Valuation
Non-Residential Value $250 per SF $250 per SF
(1)
Residential Value ----- $217,000 per unit
(2)
$223 per SF
Projected Annual Revenue
Taxable Sales $300 per SF$250 per SF
Other Discretionary Revenues
(3)
Population ----$3.68 per resident
Private Employment $19.45 per employee$19.45 per employee
Dwelling Unit ----$3.60 per unit
Commercial SF $0.06 per SF$0.04 per SF
Residential SF ----$0.04 per SF
(1) KMA assumption based on a survey of comparable commercial building sales transactions.
(2) Source: REEB Development Consulting on behalf of Integral Communities, March 1, 2012.
(3) Includes State secured unitary tax, current taxes-unsecured, delinquent taxes, franchise fees,
utility taxes, and revenues from other agencies.
VII. LIMITING CONDITIONS
The KMA fiscal impact models do not address: (a) non-recurring revenues, such
as development impact fees and building permit fees which are used to offset one-
time services costs; and (b) recurring revenues not used to fund General Fund
services, such as water and sewer charges.
The KMA analysis is based, in part, on data provided by secondary sources such
as state and local governments, and other third parties. While KMA believes that
these sources are reliable, we cannot guarantee their accuracy.
Any estimate of revenue or cost projections are based on the best fiscal data
available at this time as well as experience with comparable projects. They are not
intended to be projections of actual future performance of any specific project. Any
changes to development program or project performance may render the
conclusions contained herein invalid.
12046ndh
10957.002.001
To:
Anthony G. Ambrose, AICP, Principal Associate August 8, 2012
Subject:
Fiscal Impact Analyses Page 9
Amendment to Eastlake III Sectional Planning Area
Revenue estimates are based on the assumption that sufficient market support
exists for the proposed uses and that the development programs will achieve
industry standard productivity levels.
A projection of economic impacts is inherently based on judgment. The projections
contained herein are based on the best information available at the time that this
document was prepared. However, the actual impacts may vary.
If an unforeseen change occurs in the economy, the conclusions contained herein
may no longer be valid.
KMA assumes that all applicable laws and governmental regulations in place as of
the date of this document will remain unchanged throughout the projection period
of our analysis. In the event that this does not hold true, i.e., if any tax rates
change, the analysis would need to be revised.
It has been assumed that the property valuation will not be impacted by the
presence of any soils, toxic, or hazardous conditions that require remediation to
allow development.
Value estimates assume that any necessary entitlements or zoning changes for
development can be obtained in a reasonable time frame.
Value estimates assume that property titles are good and marketable; no title
search has been made, nor has KMA attempted to determine property ownership.
The value estimates are given without regard to any questions of boundaries,
encumbrances, liens or encroachments.
No assurances are provided by KMA as to the certainty of the projected tax
revenues shown in this document. Actual revenues may be higher or lower than
what has been projected and are subject to valuation changes resulting from new
developments or transfers of ownership not specifically identified herein, actual
resolution of outstanding appeals, future filing of appeals, or the non-payment of
taxes due.
attachments
12046ndh
10957.002.001
APPENDIX A
LAKE POINTE
EXISTING SCENARIO
FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
City of Chula Vista
TABLE A-1
DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM AT BUILD-OUT - LAKE POINTE EXISTING LAND USE RESTRICTIONS
(1)
LAKE POINTE FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
I.Site Area
Acres
Total Site Area531,432SF12.20
(2)
II.Commercial
Gross Building Area
(3)
Retail Space
Retail Space #165,000SF
Retail Space #20SF
Retail Space #30SF
Total Retail Space65,000SF
Office Space
Office Space #165,000SF
Office Space #20SF
Office Space #30SF
Total Office Space65,000SF
Total Gross Building Area - Commercial0.24FAR130,000SF
(1)Source: City of Chula Vista.
(2)Source: Burkett & Wong Engineers, August 6, 2012.
(3)Reflects the maximum floor area square footage permitted within the Village Commercial Land Use District.
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filename i:\Lake Pointe_FIA_Lakepointe_Existing_v6;8/7/2012;lag
LAKE POINTE
EXISTING
TABLE A-2
CHULA VISTA: EXISTING DEVELOPED LAND USE DISTRIBUTION
(1)
LAKE POINTE FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
I.Non Residential Uses
Commercial2,048Acres
General Industrial917Acres
Other (Parks, Public/Quasi-Public, Open Space)7,171Acres
Total Acres Non Residential10,136Acres
II.Residential Uses
Total Acres Residential9,565Acres
III.Total Acres19,701Acres
IV.Units
Total Units78,615Units
(1)Source: City of Chula Vista, based on July 2010 information.
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filename i:\Lake Pointe_FIA_Lakepointe_Existing_v6;8/7/2012;lag
LAKE POINTE
EXISTING
TABLE A-3
CHULA VISTA: EXISTING POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT ESTIMATES
LAKE POINTE FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
CITY OF CHULA VIST
A
I.Dwelling Units
Units
Total Dwelling Units78,615
(1)
II.Occupied Dwelling Units
Total Occupied Units @ Vacancy Rate of3.01%
76,249Units
(2)
III.Estimated Existing Population
Total Estimated Population237,595
(2)
IV.Estimated Employment
(1)
Commercial46,842
Industrial21,162
Other3,146
Total Employment71,150
(1)Source: City of Chula Vista, based on July 2010 information.
(2)Source: California Department of Finance as of January 1, 2010.
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filename i:\Lake Pointe_FIA_Lakepointe_Existing_v6;8/7/2012;lag
TABLE A-4
PROJECT ABSORPTION
S
LAKE POINTE FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSI
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
Year 1Year 2Year 3Year 4
I.Commercial
(1)
Retail
Retail Space #116,25032,50048,75065,00065,000
Retail Space #200000
000
Retail Space #30
Total Retail16,25032,50048,75065,00065,000
Office
Office Space #116,25032,50048,75065,00065,000
Office Space #200000
000
Office Space #30
Total Office16,25032,50048,75065,00065,000
Total Commercial Absorption32,50065,00097,500130,000130,000
II.Employment
(2)
Retail Employment
Retail Space #14283125167167
Retail Space #200000
000
Retail Space #30
Total Retail4283125167167
Office Employment
Office Space #156111167222222
Office Space #200000
000
Office Space #30
Total Office56111167222222
Total Employment97195292389389
(1)Absorption rate for both retail and office development reflect KMA assumption.
(2)See Table A-4 for employment density factors.
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filename i:\Lake Pointe_FIA_Lakepointe_Existing_v6;8/7/2012;lag
TABLE A-5
EMPLOYMENT DENSITY FACTORS
LAKE POINTE FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
EmploymentBuildingTotal
SFFactorEfficiencyOccupancy
Occupied SFEmployees
(1) (2) (3)
I.
Retail65,0003.0 per 1,000 SF95%90%55,575166.7
II.
Office65,0004.0 per 1,000 SF95%90%55,575222.3
III.Total130,000111,150389.0
(1) KMA assumption based on industry standard employment factors for retail and office uses.
(2) KMA assumption based on typical difference between net rentable vs. gross building area.
(3) KMA assumption reflecting average vacancy rate, based on typical lender underwriting criteria for unanchored commercial use.
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filename i:\Lake Pointe_FIA_Lakepointe_Existing_v68/7/2012;lag
TABLE A-6
INCREMENTAL PER UNIT COST FACTORS
(1)
LAKE POINTE FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
Land Uses
PopulationRetailOfficeHotelIndustrialOpen SpaceOtherResidential
Parks (per Acre)
(per Acre)(per Acre)(per Acre)(per Acre)PrivatePublic(per Acre)
(per Person)
I.Legislative and Administration
City Council$2.00
Boards and Commissions
City Clerk$1.37
City Attorney$80.11$86.52$51.21$21.13
Administration$0.29
Management and Information Services$4.60
Human Resources
Finance
Subtotal, Legislation and Administration$8.26$80.11$86.52$51.21$21.13$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$12.46
II.Development and Maintenance Services
Economic Development Function$301.43$325.55$192.68$79.51
Planning and Building Services$203.44$219.57$130.70$55.00$31.70$30.69
Engineering$274.44$145.29$64.57$27.44$15.53$16.85$3.07
Public Works$5,914.17$3,131.00$1,391.57$591.42$69.58$347.89$347.89$68.43
General Services
Subtotal, Development and Maintenance Services$0.00$6,693.48$3,821.41$1,779.52$753.37$0.00$85.11$347.89$396.44$102.19
III.Public Safety
Police (Excluding Residential)$11.01$6,836.27$6,836.27$6,836.27$1,006.09$2,202.49$2,202.49$2,202.49
Fire (Excluding Residential)$1.05$2,917.22$2,917.22$2,917.22$396.88$160.46$160.46$160.46$160.46
Subtotal, Public Safety$12.06$9,753.49$9,753.49$9,753.49$1,402.97$160.46$2,362.95$2,362.95$2,362.95$0.00
IV.Culture and Leisure
Parks and Recreation$18.90
Library$37.32
Nature Center
Subtotal, Culture and Leisure$56.22$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$4.77
$76.54$16,527.08$13,661.42$11,584.22$2,177.47$160.46$2,448.06$2,710.84$2,759.39$119.42
V.Total Unit Cost
VI.Density Adjusted Cost per Commercial Acre$17,204.10$18,129.84$14,598.66$2,276.70
(2)
VII.Density Adjusted Cost per Commercial SF @ 0.24 FAR$1.61$1.70
(3)
(1)Source: City of Chula Vista.
(2)Density adjustment reflects higher FARs in the proposed project. Per City of Chula Vista e-mail correspondence dated November 17, 2010 and February 2, 2011.
(3)Adjusted by KMA to reflect costs on a per-SF basis. Assumed FAR based on maximum floor area square footage permitted within the Village Commercial Land Use District, as follows:
Retail65,000SF
SF
Office65,000
Total130,000SF0.24FAR12.20Acres
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filename i:\Lake Pointe_FIA_Lakepointe_Existing_v6;8/7/2012;lag
TABLE A-7
DENSITY COEFFICIENT ADJUSTMENT FOR PUBLIC SAFETY COSTS
S
LAKE POINTE FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSI
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
Year 2Year 3Year 4
Year 1
I.Residential Acres - To be Developed0.00.00.00.00.0
s
II.Current Service Cost
Current Police Service Costs$0.00/Unit
Current Fire Service Costs$0.00/Unit
t
III.Adjusted Public Safety Costs per Dwelling Uni
Police$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00
Fire$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00
)
IV.Annual Public Safety Costs (Allocated to Dwelling Units
Police$0$0$0$0$0
$0$0$0
Fire$0
Total$0$0$0$0$0
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filename i:\Lake Pointe_FIA_Lakepointe_Existing_v6;8/7/2012;lag
TABLE A-8
ANNUAL FISCAL COST SUMMARY
LAKE POINTE FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
Year 1Year 2Year 3Year 4
Expense Drivers
Unit Cost
I.
Inflation Factor1.00% 1.011.00 1.02 1.03 1.04
(1)
II.
Retail$1.61$26,236$52,997$80,291$108,125$109,206
III.
Office$1.70$27,648$55,849$84,611$113,943$115,083
IV.Total Annual Costs$53,884$108,846$164,902$222,068$224,289
(1)Source: Per the City of Chula Vista, March 16, 2012.
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filename i:\Lake Pointe_FIA_Lakepointe_Existing_v6;8/7/2012;lag
TABLE A-
9
CITY OF CHULA VISTA: DISCRETIONARY REVENUES
(1)
LAKE POINTE FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSI
S
CITY OF CHULA VIST
A
Discretionary ProgramNetRevenue Distribution
RevenuesRevenuesFixed Revenues
Non-Departmental Revenue CategoriesRevenues
I.Property Taxes
Current Taxes - Secured$28,363,165$0$28,363,165$0$28,363,165
State Secured - Unitary$300,000$0$300,000$0$300,000
Current Taxes - Unsecured$979,200$0$979,200$0$979,200
Delinquent Taxes$590,000$0$590,000$0$590,000
Subtotal$30,232,365$0$30,232,365$0$30,232,365
II.Other Local Taxes
Sales and Use Taxes$29,677,977$0$29,677,977$0$29,677,977
Franchies Fees$8,732,093$0$8,732,093$0$8,732,093
Utility Taxes$3,276,164$0$3,276,164$0$3,276,164
(2)
Business License Tax$1,322,847$0$1,322,847$0$1,322,847
Transit Occupancy Taxes$2,752,514$0$2,752,514$0$2,752,514
Real Property Transfer Tax$841,402$0$841,402$0$841,402
Subtotal$46,602,997$0$46,602,997$0$46,602,997
III.Use of Money and Property$4,163,212$0$4,163,212$4,163,212$0
IV.Revenues from Other Agencies
Sales Tax: Public Safety Augment$875,347$0$875,347$0$875,347
State Homeowners Property Tax Relief$282,800$0$282,800$0$282,800
State Motor Vehicle Licenses$20,215,866$0$20,215,866$0$20,215,866
Other Reveunes from Other Agencies$4,324,532$0$4,324,532$0$4,324,532
Subtotal$25,698,545$0$25,698,545$0$25,698,545
.Charges for Services $8,854,774$0$8,854,774$8,854,774$0
V
(3)
I.Other Revenues (less CIP) $10,580,609$0$10,580,609$10,580,609$0
V
(4)
II.Transfers In $12,272,473$0$12,272,473$12,272,473$0
V
VIII.Total Discretionary Revenues (less CIP Transfers)$138,404,975$0$138,404,975$35,871,068$102,533,907
(1)Per City of Chula Vista, based on five-year General Fund Averages, November 17, 2010.
(2)Reflects 46% of total utility tax revenues of $7,122,095, as only 46% of utility user tax is currently allocated for General Fund budget purposes (City of Chula Vista e-mail correspondence,
June 7, 2012).
(3)Includes Licenses and Permits.
(4)Other Revenue excludes funds from the CIP fund. Fines, Forfietures, and Penalities are included in this category.
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filename i:\Lake Pointe_FIA_Lakepointe_Existing_v6;8/7/2012;lag
TABLE A-10
ESTIMATED ASSESSED VALUATION
LAKE POINTE FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
Assessed ValueTotal
Per SF
Unit Size
(1)
I.Non-Residential Uses
Retail65,000SF$250$16,250,000
Office65,000SF$250$16,250,000
II.Total Assessed Valuation
(1)Retail and office values based on surveys of comparable commercial building sales transactions.
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filename i:\Lake Pointe_FIA_Lakepointe_Existing_v6;8/7/2012;lag
TABLE A-11
ASSESSED VALUE ABSORPTION
LAKE POINTE FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
Year 1Year 2Year 3Year 4
I.Income Producing Products
Retail$16,250,000$16,250,000$16,250,000$16,250,000$16,250,000
Office$16,250,000$16,250,000$16,250,000$16,250,000$16,250,000
Gross Assessed Value (AV)$32,500,000$32,500,000$32,500,000$32,500,000$32,500,000
(Less) Existing AV($5,381,169)($5,381,169)($5,381,169)($5,381,169)($5,381,169)
(1)
Net New Income Producing AV$27,118,831$27,118,831$27,118,831$27,118,831$27,118,831
(1)Existing assesed value estimated at $5,381,168 (per MetroScan).
Prepared by Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filename i:\Lake Pointe_FIA_Lakepointe_Existing_v6;lag
2
TABLE A-1
PROPERTY TAX ESCALATION
LAKE POINTE FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
Year 1Year 2Year 3Year 4
I.Annual Income Producing Products AV$27,118,831$0$0$0$0
Annual For-Sale Products AV Increment$0$0$0$0$0
Appreciation Factor
(1)
Year After Property First SoldAnnual RateYear 1Year 2Year 3Year 4Year 5
Real Appreciation Rate2.0%100%102%104%106%108%
Inflation Rate0.0%100%100%100%100%100%
Proposition 13 AV Limitation less Inflation of 2%2.0%2.0%2.0%2.0%2.0%2.0%
Income Products Annual Turnover Rate5.0%5.0%5.0%5.0%5.0%5.0%
For-Sale Products Annual Turnover Rate10.0%10.0%10.0%10.0%10.0%10.0%
II.Income Products
Year Property First SoldYear 1$27,118,831$27,661,208$28,214,432$28,778,720$29,354,295
Year 2$0$0$0$0
Year 3$0$0$0
Year 4$0$0
Year 5
Income Products Assessed Value$27,118,831$27,661,208$28,214,432$28,778,720$29,354,295
III.For-Sale Products
Year Property First SoldYear 1$0$0$0$0$0
Year 2$0$0$0$0
Year 3$0$0$0
Year 4$0$0
Year 5
For-Sale Products Assessed Value$0$0$0$0$0
IV.Total Assessed Value - Residential and Commercial$27,118,831$27,661,208$28,214,432$28,778,720$29,354,295
V.Total Property Tax Collected @ 1.0%$271,188$276,612$282,144$287,787
(2)
VI.Annual Incremental Property Taxes to the City @10.84%$0$29,409$29,997$30,597$31,209
(3)
(1)Source: City of Chula Vista SPA Fiscal Impact Analysis Framework, prepared by: Economic Research Associates, February 2008.
(2)Assumes one year delay between the assessment year and the receipt of corresponding property taxes.
(3)Source: County of San Diego.
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filename i:\Lake Pointe_FIA_Lakepointe_Existing_v6;8/7/2012;lag
TABLE A-13
REAL PROPERTY TRANSFER TAX ESTIMATES
LAKE POINTE FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
Year 1Year 2Year 3Year 4
I.
Annual Income Producing Products AV$27,118,831$0$0$0$0
Annual For-Sale Products AV Increment$0$0$0$0$0
II.Income Producing Products New AV
$27,118,831
For-Sale Products New AV
$0
Appreciation Factor
(1)
Year After Property First SoldAnnual Rate
Real Appreciation Rate2.0%100%102%104%106%108%
Inflation Rate0.0%
Income Products Annual Turnover Rate5.0%5.0%5.0%5.0%5.0%5.0%
For-Sale Products Annual Turnover Rate10.0%10.0%10.0%10.0%10.0%10.0%
Real Property Transfer Tax
$0.55
(2)
III.
Income Products
Year Property First SoldYear 1$14,915$761$776$791$807
Year 2$0$0$0$0
Year 3$0$0$0
Year 4$0$0
Year 5
$14,915$761$776$791$807
Income Products Transfer Tax (with lag period)$14,915$761$776$791
(3)
IV.
For-Sale Products
Year Property First SoldYear 1$0$0$0$0$0
Year 2$0$0$0$0
Year 3$0$0$0
Year 4$0$0
Year 5
$0$0$0$0$0
For-Sale Product Transfer Tax (with lag period)
$0$0$0$0
(3)
V.Total Annual Property Transfer Tax$14,915$761$776$791
(1)Source: City of Chula Vista SPA Fiscal Impact Analysis Framework, prepared by: Economic Research Associates, February 2008.
(2)Assumes transfer tax of $0.55 for every $1,000 of real property sale value.
(3)Assumes one year delay between the assessment year and the receipt of corresponding property taxes.
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filename i:\Lake Pointe_FIA_Lakepointe_Existing_v6;8/7/2012;lag
TABLE A-14
MOTOR VEHICLE LICENSE FEE
LAKE POINTE FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
I.VLF Fees
Current Population of City
237,595
(1)
Current Allocation of 0.65%VLF$1,328,857
(2)
Per Capita VLF Allocation
$0
(3)
Year 1Year 2Year 3Year 4
II.Lake Pointe Population Growth
00000
III.VLF Revenues Allocated to LakePointe
$0$0$0$0$0
Motor Vehicle In Lieu Fees Adjustmen
IV.
t
(4)
Base Year (2004) Assessed Value of the City$15,596,195,543
Base Year (2004) Motor Vehicle In-Lieu Fees Adjustment $11,832,115
V.
Cumulative AV of New Development$27,118,831$27,661,208$28,214,432$28,778,720$29,354,295
License Fee Per ($1,000 in AV growth)$0.7587$20,574$20,985$21,405$21,833$22,270
VI.Total Annual VLF Revenues$20,574$20,985$21,405$21,833$22,270
(1)As reported by California Department of Finance as of January 1, 2010.
(2)Source: City of Chula Vista SPA Fiscal Impact Analysis Framework, prepared by: Economics Research Associates, February 2008.
(3)Due to legislative changes, the City no longer receives population based VLF fees (City of Chula Vista, e-mail correspondence, June 7, 2012).
(4)Source: State of California Controller's Office, Division of Accounting and Reporting.
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filename i:\Lake Pointe_FIA_Lakepointe_Existing_v6;8/7/2012;lag
LAKE POINTE
TABLE A-15
EXISTING
ESTIMATED RETAIL SALES TAXES
LAKE POINTE FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
Average Household Income
Single-Family$0
Live/Work Units$0
Year 1Year 2Year 3Year 4Year 5
I.Spending by Residents
A.
Households
Single-Family00000
Live/Work Units00000
Total Units00000
B.
Aggregate Incomes$0$0$0$0$0
C.
Average Annual Income/Household $0(at buildout)
Allocation of Household
Income to Taxable Spending
General Merchandise5.0%$0$0$0$0$0
Other Comparison Goods6.0%$0$0$0$0$0
Eating and Drinking5.0%$0$0$0$0$0
Convenience Goods4.0%$0$0$0$0$0
Auto Dealers and Supplies4.0%$0$0$0$0$0
Home Improvement3.0%$0$0$0$0$0
Total Spending27.0%$0$0$0$0$0
City of Chula Vista Capture @60.0%$0$0$0$0$0
II.Spending by Employees
Total Employees97195292389389
Annual Spending by Employees @ $5.00/Day$177,493$354,985$532,478$709,971$709,971
(1)
III.Taxable Sales from Retail Space
(2)
Retail SF16,25032,50048,75065,00065,000
Net Taxable Sales
$3,334,500$6,669,000$10,003,500$13,338,000$13,338,000
IV.Total Spending$3,511,993$7,023,985$10,535,978$14,047,971$14,047,971
$35,120$70,240$105,360$140,480$140,480
1.0%
Annual Sales Taxes to the City
(1)KMA assumption.
(2)Taxable Sales from Retail Space
Retail GBA65,000SF
Building Efficiency95%
Occupancy90%
Occupied SF55,575
Sales Per SF per Year$300/SF
Taxable Sales80%$13,338,000
Per SF GBA$205
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filename i:\Lake Pointe_FIA_Lakepointe_Existing_v6;8/7/2012;lag
LAKE POINTE
EXISTING
TABLE A-16
CHULA VISTA - OTHER DISCRETIONARY REVENUE ALLOCATION FACTORS
LAKE POINTE FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
I.Current Citywide Conditions
Population237,595
(1)
Dwelling Units78,615
(2)
Employees71,150
(2)
Developed AcresEmployeesAV Share
II.Land Uses
Commercial2,04846,84225%
Industrial91721,1628%
Residential9,565
067%
Total Taxable12,53068,004
Other (Parks, Public-Quasi-Public, Open Space)7,1713,146
Total 19,70171,150
III.Increment Revenues by Development Unit
(2)
Current RevenuesAllocation MethodologyShareAllocation Units
A.Property Taxes
Current Taxes - Secured$28,363,165Calculated Separately
State Secured - Unitary$300,000Commercial AV25%$36.62/Acre
Industrial AV8%$26.17/Acre
Residential AV67%$21.01/Acre
Current Taxes - Unsecured$979,200Commercial AV25%$119.53/Acre
Industrial AV8%$85.43/Acre
Residential AV67%$68.59/Acre
Delinquent Taxes$590,000Commercial AV25%$72.02/Acre
Industrial AV8%$51.47/Acre
Residential AV67%$41.33/Acre
B.Other Local Taxes
Sales and Uses Taxes$29,677,977Calculated Separately
Franchise Fees$8,732,093Commercial AV7%$298.46/Acre
Industrial AV3%$285.67/Acre
Residential AV90%$821.63/Acre
Utility Taxes$3,276,164Commercial AV9%$143.97/Acre
Industrial AV4%$142.91/Acre
Residential AV87%$297.99/Acre
Business License Tax$1,322,847Employees (Non-Public)$19.45/Employee
Transient Occupancy Taxes$2,752,514Not Included
Real Property Transfer Tax$841,402Calculated Separately
C.Revenues from Other Agencies
Sales Tax: Public Safety Augment$875,347People$3.68/Person
State Homeowners Property Tax Relief$282,800Dwelling Units$3.60/Unit
State Motor Vehicle Licenses$20,215,866Calculated Separately
IV.Total Discretionary Revenues$98,209,375
V.Total: Commercial$670.61/Acre
SF @0.24
$0.06/SF
FAR (3)
(1)As reported by California Department of Finance as of January 1, 2010.
(2)Source: City of Chula Vista.
(3)Assumed FAR based on maximum floor area square footed permitted within the Village Commercial Land Use District.
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filename i:\Lake Pointe_FIA_Lakepointe_Existing_v6;8/7/2012;lag
TABLE A-17
INCREMENTAL REVENUE SUMMARY
LAKE POINTE FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
Year 1Year 2Year 3Year 4
I.Revenue Drivers
Population- - - - -
Private Employment97 195 292 389 389
Dwelling Units- - - - -
Commercial SF32,500 65,000 97,500 130,000 130,000
Residential SF- - - - -
II.Annual Revenues
Revenue Factors
Population$3.68$0$0$0$0$0
Private Employment$19.45$1,892$3,784$5,676$7,568$7,568
Dwelling Units$3.60$0$0$0$0$0
Commercial SF - Other Property Taxes $0.02$696$1,392$2,088$2,784$2,784
(1)
Commercial SF - Other Local Taxes
$0.04$1,349$2,699$4,048$5,398
(2)
Commercial SF$0.06$2,045$4,091$6,136$8,181$8,181
Residential SF$0.00- - - - -
Property Taxes$0$29,409$29,997$30,597$31,209
Property Transfer Taxes$0$14,915$761$776$791
VLF Revenues$20,574$20,985$21,405$21,833$22,270
Sales and Use Taxes$35,120$70,240$105,360$140,480$140,480
III.Total Revenues$59,631$143,424$169,334$209,434$210,499
(1)Includes State Secured-Unitary, Current Taxes-Unsecured, and Delinquent Taxes.
(2)Includes Franchise Fees and Utility Taxes.
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filename i:\Lake Pointe_FIA_Lakepointe_Existing_v6;8/7/2012;lag
TABLE A-18
NET FISCAL IMPACTS
S
LAKE POINTE FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSI
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
Year 1Year 2Year 3Year 4
I.Revenue Sources
Property Taxes$0$29,409$29,997$30,597$31,209
Other Property Taxes $696$1,392$2,088$2,784$2,784
(1)
Sales and Use Taxes$35,120$70,240$105,360$140,480$140,480
Other Local Taxes $1,349$2,699$4,048$5,398$5,398
(2)
Business License Taxes$1,892$3,784$5,676$7,568$7,568
Property Transfer Tax$0$14,915$761$776$791
Sales Tax: Public Safety Augment$0$0$0$0$0
State Homeowners Property Tax Relief$0$0$0$0$0
Vehicle License Fee Revenues$20,574$20,985$21,405$21,833
Total Revenues$59,631$143,424$169,334$209,434$210,499
II.Expenditures
Legislation and Administration$302$611$925$1,246$1,258
Development and Maintenance Services$18,359$37,086$56,186$75,663$76,420
Police$24,688$49,869$75,552$101,743$102,760
Fire$10,535$21,280$32,240$43,416$43,851
$0$0$0
Culture and Leisure$0
Total Expenditures$53,884$108,846$164,902$222,068$224,289
III.Net Fiscal Impacts$5,747$34,578$4,432($12,634)($13,790)
(1)Includes State Secured-Unitary, Current Taxes-Unsecured, and Delinquent Taxes.
(2)Includes Franchise Fees and Utility Taxes.
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filename i:\Lake Pointe_FIA_Lakepointe_Existing_v6;8/7/2012;lag
APPENDIX B
LAKE POINTE
PROPOSED SCENARIO
FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
City of Chula Vista
TABLE B-1
DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM AT BUILD-OUT - LAKE POINTE PROPOSED
(1)
LAKE POINTE FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
I.Site Area
Residential Site Area GBASite Area
Residential Area276,808SF379,661SF
Garage Area91,600SF125,635SF
Total Residential Area368,408SF505,296SF11.60Acres
Retail Site Area 10,000SF26,136SF0.60Acres
Total Site Area378,408SF531,432SF12.20Acres
II.Gross Building Area
Residential
276,808SF
(2)
Retail10,000
SF
Total Gross Building Area286,808SF
III.Unit Mix
Plan 1One Bedroom42Units620SF26,040SF
Plan 2One Bedroom42Units672SF28,224SF
Plan 3One Bedroom26Units797SF20,722SF
Plan 4Two Bedroom110Units1,097SF120,670SF
Plan 5Two Bedroom26Units1,135SF29,510SF
Plan 6Three Bedroom19Units1,295SF24,605SF
Plan 7Three Bedroom19Units1,423SF27,037SF
Total284Units975SF276,808SF
IV.Residential Density
24.5Units/Acre
(1)Source: Lake Pointe Site Plan, Fuscoe Engineering on behalf of Integral Communities, provided to KMA,
August 6, 2012.
(2)Excludes garage building area.
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filename i:\Lake Pointe_FIA_Lakepointe_Proposed_v8;8/7/2012;lag
LAKE POINTE
PROPOSED
TABLE B-2
CHULA VISTA: EXISTING DEVELOPED LAND USE DISTRIBUTION
(1)
LAKE POINTE FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
I.Non-Residential Uses
Commercial2,048Acres
General Industrial917Acres
Other (Parks, Public/Quasi-Public, Open Space)7,171Acres
Total Acres Non Residential10,136Acres
II.Residential Uses
Total Acres Residential9,565Acres
III.Total Acres19,701Acres
IV.Units
Total Units78,615Units
(1)Source: City of Chula Vista, based on July 2010 information.
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filename i:\Lake Pointe_FIA_Lakepointe_Proposed_v8;8/7/2012;lag
LAKE POINTE
PROPOSED
TABLE B-3
CHULA VISTA: EXISTING POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT ESTIMATES
LAKE POINTE FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
I.Dwelling Units
Units
Total Dwelling Units78,615
(1)
II.Occupied Dwelling Units
Total Occupied Units @ Vacancy Rate o
f3.01%76,249Units
(2)
III.Estimated Existing Population
Total Estimated Population237,595
(2)
Estimated Employment
IV.
(1)
Commercial46,842
Industrial21,162
Other3,146
Total Employment71,150
(1)
Source: City of Chula Vista, based on July 2010 information.
(2)
Source: California Departament of Finance as of January 1, 2010.
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filename i:\Lake Pointe_FIA_Lakepointe_Proposed_v8;8/7/2012;lag
TABLE B-4
PROJECT ABSORPTION
LAKE POINTE FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
Year 1Year 2Year 3Year 4
I.Residential
(1)
Multi-Family Units96192284284284
II.Retail
(1)
Retail SF04,0008,00010,00010,000
III.Population
Multi-Family Persons/DU @2.58248495733733733
(2)
IV.Employment
Commercial Employment
010212626
(3)
(1)Absorption rate for both residential and commercial development reflect KMA assumption.
(2)Per City of Chula Vista, reflects the General Plan Update coefficient for multi-family units.
(3)See Table B-5 for employment density factors.
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filename i:\Lake Pointe_FIA_Lakepointe_Proposed_v8;8/7/2012;lag
TABLE B-5
EMPLOYMENT DENSITY FACTORS
LAKE POINTE FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
EmploymentBuildingTotal
FactorEfficiencOccupanc
SFyyOccupied SF
(1) (2) (3)
I.Retail10,0003.0 per 1,000 SF95%90%8,55025.7
(1) KMA assumption based on industry standard employment factors for retail uses.
(2) KMA assumption based on typical difference between net rentable vs. gross building area.
(3) KMA assumption reflecting average vacancy rate, based on typical lender underwriting criteria for unanchored commercial use.
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filename i:\Lake Pointe_FIA_Lakepointe_Proposed_v88/7/2012;lag
TABLE B-6
INCREMENTAL PER UNIT COST FACTORS
(1)
LAKE POINTE FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
Land Uses
PopulationRetailOfficeHotelIndustrialOpen SpaceOtherResidential
Parks (per Acre)
(per Acre)(per Acre)(per Acre)(per Acre)PrivatePublic(per Acre)
(per Person)
I.Legislative and Administration
City Council$2.00
Boards and Commissions
City Clerk$1.37
City Attorney$80.11$86.52$51.21$21.13
Administration$0.29
Management and Information Services$4.60
Human Resources
Finance
Subtotal, Legislation and Administration$8.26$80.11$86.52$51.21$21.13$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$12.46
II.Development and Maintenance Services
Economic Development Function$301.43$325.55$192.68$79.51
Planning and Building Services$203.44$219.57$130.70$55.00$31.70$30.69
Engineering$274.44$145.29$64.57$27.44$15.53$16.85$3.07
Public Works$5,914.17$3,131.00$1,391.57$591.42$69.58$347.89$347.89$68.43
General Services
Subtotal, Development and Maintenance Services$0.00$6,693.48$3,821.41$1,779.52$753.37$0.00$85.11$347.89$396.44$102.19
III.Public Safety
Police (Excluding Residential)$11.01$6,836.27$6,836.27$6,836.27$1,006.09$2,202.49$2,202.49$2,202.49
Fire (Excluding Residential)$1.05$2,917.22$2,917.22$2,917.22$396.88$160.46$160.46$160.46$160.46
Subtotal, Public Safety$12.06$9,753.49$9,753.49$9,753.49$1,402.97$160.46$2,362.95$2,362.95$2,362.95$0.00
IV.Culture and Leisure
Parks and Recreation$18.90
Library$37.32
Nature Center
Subtotal, Culture and Leisure$56.22$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$0.00$4.77
$76.54$16,527.08$13,661.42$11,584.22$2,177.47$160.46$2,448.06$2,710.84$2,759.39$119.42
V.Total Unit Cost
VI.Density Adjusted Cost per Retail Acre$17,204.10$18,129.84$14,598.66$2,276.70
(2)
VII.Density Adjusted Cost per Retail SF @ 0.38 FAR$1.03
(3)
(1)Source: City of Chula Vista.
(2)Density adjustment reflects higher FARs in the proposed project. Per City of Chula Vista e-mail correspondence dated November 17, 2010 and February 2, 2011.
(3)Adjusted by KMA to reflect costs on a per-SF basis.
Residential 276,808SF11.60Acres
Retail10,000SF0.38FAR0.60Acres
Total286,808SF12.20Acres
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filename i:\Lake Pointe_FIA_Lakepointe_Proposed_v8;8/7/2012;lag
TABLE B-7
PUBLIC SAFETY COSTS
LAKE POINTE FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
Year 1Year 2Year 3Year
I.Residential Uses
Multi-Family Units96192284284284
Current Service Costs
II.
(1)(2)
Current Police Service Costs$293.70/Unit
Current Fire Service Costs$210.64/Unit
III.Public Safety Costs per Dwelling Unit
Police$293.70$293.70$293.70$293.70$293.70
Fire$210.64$210.64$210.64$210.64$210.64
IV.Annual Public Safety Costs (Allocated to Dwelling Units)
Police$28,195$56,390$83,411$83,411$83,411
Fire$20,221$40,443$59,822$59,822
Total$48,417$96,833$143,233$143,233$143,233
(1)Per City of Chula Vista e-mail correspondence dated February 2, 2011.
(2)Per the City of Chula Vista, June 5, 2012.
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filename i:\Lake Pointe_FIA_Lakepointe_Proposed_v8;8/7/2012;lag
TABLE B-8
ANNUAL FISCAL COST SUMMARY
LAKE POINTE FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
Year 1Year 2Year 3Year 4
Expense Drivers
Unit Cost
I.
Inflation Factor1.00% 1.011.00 1.02 1.03 1.04
(1)
II.
Retail$1.03$0$4,170$8,424$10,635$10,742
III.
Dwelling Units$119$11,464$23,158$34,597$34,943$35,292
Population (Persons)$77$18,957$38,294$57,210$57,782$58,360
Public Safety Allocated to DUs$48,417$97,802$146,112$147,573
IV.Total Annual Costs$78,838$163,424$246,342$250,933$253,442
(1)Source: Per the City of Chula Vista, March 16, 2012.
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filename i:\Lake Pointe_FIA_Lakepointe_Proposed_v8;8/7/2012;lag
TABLE B-9
CITY OF CHULA VISTA: DISCRETIONARY REVENUES
(1)
LAKE POINTE FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSI
S
CITY OF CHULA VIST
A
Discretionary ProgramNetRevenue Distribution
RevenuesRevenuesFixed Revenues
Non-Departmental Revenue CategoriesRevenues
I.Property Taxes
Current Taxes - Secured$28,363,165$0$28,363,165$0$28,363,165
State Secured - Unitary$300,000$0$300,000$0$300,000
Current Taxes - Unsecured$979,200$0$979,200$0$979,200
Delinquent Taxes$590,000$0$590,000$0$590,000
Subtotal$30,232,365$0$30,232,365$0$30,232,365
II.Other Local Taxes
Sales and Use Taxes$29,677,977$0$29,677,977$0$29,677,977
Franchies Fees$8,732,093$0$8,732,093$0$8,732,093
Utility Taxes $3,276,164$0$3,276,164$0$3,276,164
(2)
Business License Tax$1,322,847$0$1,322,847$0$1,322,847
Transit Occupancy Taxes$2,752,514$0$2,752,514$0$2,752,514
Real Property Transfer Tax$841,402$0$841,402$0$841,402
Subtotal$46,602,997$0$46,602,997$0$46,602,997
III.Use of Money and Property$4,163,212$0$4,163,212$4,163,212$0
IV.Revenues from Other Agencies
Sales Tax: Public Safety Augment$875,347$0$875,347$0$875,347
State Homeowners Property Tax Relief$282,800$0$282,800$0$282,800
State Motor Vehicle Licenses$20,215,866$0$20,215,866$0$20,215,866
Other Reveunes from Other Agencies$4,324,532$0$4,324,532$0$4,324,532
Subtotal$25,698,545$0$25,698,545$0$25,698,545
.Charges for Services $8,854,774$0$8,854,774$8,854,774$0
V
(3)
I.Other Revenues (less CIP) $10,580,609$0$10,580,609$10,580,609$0
V
(4)
II.Transfers In $12,272,473$0$12,272,473$12,272,473$0
V
VIII.Total Discretionary Revenues (less CIP Transfers)$138,404,975$0$138,404,975$35,871,068$102,533,907
(1)Per City of Chula Vista, based on five-year General Fund Averages, November 17, 2010.
(2)Reflects 46% of total utility tax revenues of $7,122,095, as only 46% of utility user tax is currently allocated for General Fund budget purposes (City of Chula Vista e-mail correspondence,
June 7, 2012).
(3)Includes Licenses and Permits.
(4)Other Revenue excludes funds from the CIP fund. Fines, Forfietures, and Penalities are included in this category.
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filename i:\Lake Pointe_FIA_Lakepointe_Proposed_v8;8/7/2012;lag
TABLE B-10
ESTIMATED ASSESSED VALUATION
LAKE POINTE FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
Assessed ValueTotal
I.Non-Residential Uses
Building AreaPer SF
(1)
Retail10,000SF$250$2,500,000
PriceUnitTotal
II.Residential UsesDwelling UnitsUnit SizePer SFPrice/UnitPremium
(2) (2)
Plan 1One Bedroom42Units620SF$290$180,000$381$7,576,000
Plan 2One Bedroom42Units672SF$275$185,000$381$7,786,000
Plan 3One Bedroom26Units797SF$251$200,000$1,000$5,226,000
Plan 4Two Bedroom110Units1,097SF$209$229,000$1,000$25,300,000
Plan 5Two Bedroom26Units1,135SF$196$222,000$3,162$5,854,000
Plan 6Three Bedroom19Units1,295SF$196$254,000$3,162$4,886,000
Plan 7Three Bedroom19Units1,423SF$183$261,000$3,162
Total/Average284Units975SF$223$217,067$1,304$61,647,000
III.Total Assessed Valuation
(1)Retail value based on surveys of comparable retail building sales transactions.
(2)Source: REEB Development Consulting on behalf of Integral Communities, March 1, 2012.
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filename i:\Lake Pointe_FIA_Lakepointe_Proposed_v8;8/7/2012;lag
TABLE B-11
ASSESSED VALUE ABSORPTION
LAKE POINTE FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
Year 1Year 2Year 3Year 4
I.Income Producing Products
Retail$2,500,000$2,500,000$2,500,000$2,500,000$2,500,000
(Less) Existing AV($264,648)($264,648)($264,648)($264,648)
(1)
Net New Income Producing AV$2,235,352$2,235,352$2,235,352$2,235,352$2,235,352
II.For-Sale Products
Multi-family Units$20,838,000$41,677,000$61,647,000$61,647,000$61,647,000
(Less) Existing AV($1,729,528)($3,459,057)($5,116,521)($5,116,521)
(1)
Net New For-Sale Product AV$19,108,472$38,217,943$56,530,479$56,530,479$56,530,479
(1)Existing assessed value estimated at $5,381,169 (per MetroScan). Allocated by KMA as follows:
Site AreaTotal$/SF
Residential505,296SF$10.13
$5,116,521
Retail26,136SF$10.13
$264,648
Total531,432SF
$5,381,169$10.13
Prepared by Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filename i:\Lake Pointe_FIA_Lakepointe_Proposed_v8;lag
TABLE B-12
PROPERTY TAX ESCALATION
LAKE POINTE FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
Year 1Year 2Year 3Year 4
I.
Annual Income Producing Products AV$2,235,352$0$0$0$0
Annual For-Sale Products AV Increment$19,108,472$19,109,472$18,312,535$0$0
Appreciation Factor
(1)
Year After Property First SoldAnnual RateYear 1Year 2Year 3Year 4Year 5
Real Appreciation Rate2.0%100%102%104%106%108%
Inflation Rate0.0%100%100%100%100%100%
Proposition 13 AV Limitation less Inflation of 2%2.0%2.0%2.0%2.0%2.0%2.0%
Income Products Annual Turnover Rate5.0%5.0%5.0%5.0%5.0%5.0%
For-Sale Products Annual Turnover Rate10.0%10.0%10.0%10.0%10.0%10.0%
II.
Income Products
Year Property First SoldYear 1$2,235,352$2,280,059$2,325,661$2,372,174$2,419,617
Year 2$0$0$0$0
Year 3$0$0$0
Year 4
Year 5
Income Products Assessed Value$2,235,352$2,280,059$2,325,661$2,372,174$2,419,617
III.
For-Sale Products
Year Property First SoldYear 1$19,108,472$19,490,641$19,880,454$20,278,063$20,683,624
Year 2$19,491,661$19,881,494$20,279,124$20,684,707
Year 3$19,052,362$19,433,409$19,822,077
Year 4
Year 5
For-Sale Products Assessed Value$19,108,472$38,982,302$58,814,310$59,990,596$61,190,408
IV.
Total Assessed Value - Residential and Retail$21,343,824$41,262,362$61,139,971$62,362,770$63,610,025
V.Total Property Tax Collected @
1.0%$213,438$412,624$611,400$623,628
(2)
$0$23,146$44,747$66,303$67,629
VI.Annual Incremental Property Taxes to the City @10.84%
(3)
(1)Source: City of Chula Vista SPA Fiscal Impact Analysis Framework, prepared by: Economic Research Associates, February 2008.
(2)Assumes one year delay between the assessment year and the receipt of corresponding property taxes.
(3)Source: County of San Diego.
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filename i:\Lake Pointe_FIA_Lakepointe_Proposed_v8;8/7/2012;lag
TABLE B-13
REAL PROPERTY TRANSFER TAX ESTIMATES
LAKE POINTE FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
Year 1Year 2Year 3Year 4
I.
Annual Income Producing Products AV$2,235,352$0$0$0$0
Annual For-Sale Products AV Increment$19,108,472$19,109,472$18,312,535$0$0
II.Income Producing Products New AV
$2,235,352$0
For-Sale Products New AV
$19,108,472$37,422,007
Appreciation Factor
(1)
Year After Property First SoldAnnual Rate
Real Appreciation Rate2.0%100%102%104%106%108%
Inflation Rate0.0%
Income Products Annual Turnover Rate5.0%5.0%5.0%5.0%5.0%5.0%
For-Sale Products Annual Turnover Rate10.0%10.0%10.0%10.0%10.0%10.0%
Real Property Transfer Tax
$0.55
(2)
III.
Income Products
Year Property First SoldYear 1$1,229$63$64$65$67
Year 2$0$0$0$0
Year 3$0$0$0
Year 4
Year 5
$1,229$63$64$65$67
Income Products Transfer Tax (with lag period)$1,229$63$64$65
(3)
IV.
For-Sale Products
Year Property First SoldYear 1$10,510$1,072$1,093$1,115$1,138
Year 2$10,720$1,093$1,115$1,138
Year 3$10,479$1,069$1,090
Year 4
Year 5
$10,510$11,792$12,666$3,299$3,365
For-Sale Product Transfer Tax (with lag period)
$10,510$11,792$12,666$3,299
(3)
V.Total Annual Property Transfer Tax$11,739$11,855$12,730$3,365
(1)Source: City of Chula Vista SPA Fiscal Impact Analysis Framework, prepared by: Economic Research Associates, February 2008.
(2)Assumes transfer tax of $0.55 for every $1,000 of real property sale value.
(3)Assumes one year delay between the assessment year and the receipt of corresponding property taxes.
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filename i:\Lake Pointe_FIA_Lakepointe_Proposed_v8;8/7/2012;lag
TABLE B-14
MOTOR VEHICLE LICENSE FEE
LAKE POINTE FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
I.VLF Fees
Current Population of City
237,595
(1)
0.65%VLF
Current Allocation of $1,328,857
(2)
Per Capita VLF Allocation
$0
(3)
Year 1Year 2Year 3Year 4
II.Lake Pointe Population Growth
248495733733733
III.VLF Revenues Allocated to LakePointe
$0$0$0$0$0
IV.Motor Vehicle In Lieu Fees Adjustment
(4)
Base Year (2004) Assessed Value of the City$15,596,195,543
Base Year (2004) Motor Vehicle In-Lieu Fees Adjustment $11,832,115
V.
Cumulative AV of New Development$21,343,824$41,262,362$61,139,971$62,362,770$63,610,025
License Fee Per ($1,000 in AV growth)$0.7587$16,193$31,304$46,384$47,312$48,258
VI.Total Annual VLF Revenues$16,193$31,304$46,384$47,312$48,258
(1)As reported by California Department of Finance as of January 1, 2010.
(2)Source: City of Chula Vista SPA Fiscal Impact Analysis Framework, prepared by: Economics Research Associates, February 2008
(3)Due to legislative changes, the City no longer receives population based VLF fees (City of Chula Vista, e-mail correspondence, June 7, 2012).
(4)Source: State of California Controller's Office, Division of Accounting and Reporting.
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filename i:\Lake Pointe_FIA_Lakepointe_Proposed_v8;8/7/2012;lag
LAKE POINTE
TABLE B-15
PROPOSED
ESTIMATED RETAIL SALES TAXES
LAKE POINTE FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
Average Household Income
(1)
Multi-Family Units$59,000
Year 1Year 2Year 3Year 4Year 5
I.Spending by Residents
A.Households
Multi-Family Units96192284284284
B.Aggregate Incomes$5,664,000$11,328,000$16,756,000$16,756,000$16,756,000
C.Average Annual Income/Household$59,000(at buildout)
Allocation of Household
Income to Taxable Spending
(2)
General Merchandise5.0%$283,200$566,400$837,800$837,800$837,800
Other Comparison Goods6.0%$339,840$679,680$1,005,360$1,005,360$1,005,360
Eating and Drinking5.0%$283,200$566,400$837,800$837,800$837,800
Convenience Goods4.0%$226,560$453,120$670,240$670,240$670,240
Auto Dealers and Supplies4.0%$226,560$453,120$670,240$670,240$670,240
Home Improvement3.0%$169,920$339,840$502,680$502,680$502,680
Total Spending27.0%$1,529,280$3,058,560$4,524,120$4,524,120$4,524,120
City of Chula Vista Capture @60.0%$917,568$1,835,136$2,714,472$2,714,472$2,714,472
II.Spending by Employees
Total Employees010212626
Annual Spending by Employees @
$5.00/Day $0$18,725$37,449$46,811$46,811
(2)
III.Taxable Sales from Retail Space
(3)
Retail SF04,0008,00010,00010,000
Net Taxable Sales$0$410,560$821,120$1,026,400$1,026,400
IV.Total Spending$917,568$2,264,421$3,573,041$3,787,683$3,787,683
1.0%$9,176$22,644$35,730$37,877$37,877
Annual Sales Taxes to the City
(1)KMA estimate of household income, as follows:Multi-Family
Average Sales Price$217,067
Down payment10%$21,707
Loan Amount$195,360
Interest Rate6.0%
Term (Years)30
Annual Mortgage Payment$14,055
HOA $150$1,800
Maintenance/Insurance$50$600
Property Taxes1.9%$4,124
Total Annual Housing Costs$20,580
% of Income Spent on Housing35%
Annual Income Required$59,000
KMA assumption.
(2)
KMA assumption, assumes taxable sales from retail space per SF as follows:
(3)
Retail GBA10,000SF
Building Efficiency95%
Occupancy90%
Occupied SF8,550SF
Sales Per SF per Year$250/SF
Taxable Sales60%$1,283,000
(Less) Lake Pointe Capture20%($256,600)
Net Taxable Sales$1,026,400
Per SF GBA$103
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filename i:\Lake Pointe_FIA_Lakepointe_Proposed_v8;8/7/2012;lag
LAKE POINTE
PROPOSED
TABLE B-16
CHULA VISTA - OTHER DISCRETIONARY REVENUE ALLOCATION FACTORS
LAKE POINTE FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
I.Current Citywide Conditions
Population237,595
(1)
Dwelling Units78,615
(2)
Employees71,150
(2)
Developed AcresEmployeesAV Share
II.Land Uses
(2)
Commercial2,04846,84225%
Industrial91721,1628%
Residential9,565
067%
Total Taxable12,53068,004
Other (Parks, Public-Quasi-Public, Open Space)7,1713,146
Total 19,70171,150
III.Increment Revenues by Development Unit
(2)
Current RevenuesAllocation MethodologyShareAllocation Units
A.Property Taxes
Current Taxes - Secured$28,363,165Calculated Separately
State Secured - Unitary$300,000Commercial AV25%$36.62/Acre
Industrial AV8%$26.17/Acre
Residential AV67%$21.01/Acre
Current Taxes - Unsecured$979,200Commercial AV25%$119.53/Acre
Industrial AV8%$85.43/Acre
Residential AV67%$68.59/Acre
Delinquent Taxes$590,000Commercial AV25%$72.02/Acre
Industrial AV8%$51.47/Acre
Residential AV67%$41.33/Acre
B.Other Local Taxes
Sales and Uses Taxes$29,677,977Calculated Separately
Franchise Fees$8,732,093Commercial AV7%$298.46/Acre
Industrial AV3%$285.67/Acre
Residential AV90%$821.63/Acre
Utility Taxes$3,276,164Commercial AV9%$143.97/Acre
Industrial AV4%$142.91/Acre
Residential AV87%$297.99/Acre
Business License Tax$1,322,847Employees (Non-Public)$19.45/Employee
Transient Occupancy Taxes$2,752,514Not Included
Real Property Transfer Tax$841,402Calculated Separately
C.Revenues from Other Agencies
Sales Tax: Public Safety Augment$875,347People$3.68/Person
State Homeowners Property Tax Relief$282,800Dwelling Units$3.60/Unit
State Motor Vehicle Licenses$20,215,866Calculated Separately
IV.Total Discretionary Revenues$98,209,375
V.Total: Retail$670.61/Acre
SF @0.38 FAR
$0.04/SF
(3)
VI.Total: Residential$1,251/Acre
SF @0.73 FAR $0.04/SF
(3)
(1)As reported by California Department of Finance as of January 1, 2010.
(2)Source: City of Chula Vista.
(3)Based on KMA assumed land allocations by component.
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filename i:\Lake Pointe_FIA_Lakepointe_Proposed_v8;8/7/2012;lag
TABLE B-17
INCREMENTAL REVENUE SUMMARY
LAKE POINTE FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSI
S
CITY OF CHULA VIST
A
ear 1ear 2ear 3ear 4
YYYY
I.Revenue Drivers
Population248 495 733 733 733
Private Employment- 10 21 26 26
Dwelling Units96 192 284 284 284
Retail SF- 4,000 8,000 10,000 10,000
Residential SF93,569 187,138 276,808 276,808 276,808
II.Annual Revenues
Revenue Factors
Population$3.68$913$1,825$2,699$2,699$2,699
Private Employment$19.45$0$200$399$499$499
Dwelling Units$3.60$345$691$1,022$1,022$1,022
Retail SF - Other Property Taxes $0.01$0$55$110$137$137
(1)
Retail SF - Other Local Taxes$0.03$0$106$212$265
(2)
Total Retail SF$0.04$0$161$322$402$402
Residential SF - Other Property Taxes $0.00$386$772$1,141$1,141$1,141
(1)
Residential SF - Other Local Taxes $0.04$3,299$6,597$9,758$9,758
(2)
Total Residential SF$0.04$3,684$7,369$10,900$10,900$10,900
Property Taxes$0$23,146$44,747$66,303$67,629
Property Transfer Taxes$0$11,739$11,855$12,730$3,365
VLF Revenues$16,193$31,304$46,384$47,312$48,258
Sales and Use Taxes$9,176$22,644$35,730$37,877$37,877
III.Total Revenues$30,310$99,078$154,058$179,743$172,650
(1)Includes State Secured-Unitary, Current Taxes-Unsecured, and Delinquent Taxes.
(2)Includes Franchise Fees and Utility Taxes.
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filename i:\Lake Pointe_FIA_Lakepointe_Proposed_v8;8/7/2012;lag
TABLE B-18
NET FISCAL IMPACTS
LAKE POINTE FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSI
S
CITY OF CHULA VIST
A
ear 1ear 2ear 3ear 4
YYYY
I.Revenue Sources
Property Taxes$0$23,146$44,747$66,303$67,629
Other Property Taxes
$386$826$1,251$1,278$1,278
(1)
Sales and Use Taxes$9,176$22,644$35,730$37,877$37,877
Other Local Taxes
$3,299$6,703$9,971$10,024$10,024
(2)
Business License Tax$0$200$399$499$499
Property Transfer Taxes$0$11,739$11,855$12,730$3,365
Sales Tax: Public Safety Augment$913$1,825$2,699$2,699$2,699
State Homeowners Property Tax Relief$345$691$1,022$1,022$1,022
Vehicle License Fee Revenues$16,193$31,304$46,384$47,312
Total Revenues$30,310$99,078$154,058$179,743$172,650
II.Total Expenditures
Legislative and Administration $3,242$6,569$9,825$9,933$10,032
Development and Maintenance Services$9,810$21,506$33,017$34,209$34,551
Police$30,922$64,188$96,801$98,649$99,636
Fire$20,482$42,109$63,296$64,304$64,947
Culture and Leisure$14,382$29,053$43,403$43,837$44,276
Total Expenditures$78,838$163,424$246,342$250,933$253,442
III.Net Fiscal Impacts($48,528)($64,346)($92,284)($71,190)($80,792)
(1)Includes State Secured-Unitary, Current Taxes-Unsecured, and Delinquent Taxes.
(2)Includes Franchise Fees and Utility Taxes.
Prepared by: Keyser Marston Associates, Inc.
Filename i:\Lake Pointe_FIA_Lakepointe_Proposed_v8;8/7/2012;lag